251203.mbx

251203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 241 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Marcel Securities Class Suit AES CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Virginia AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas ALAMEDA HEALTH: Class Cert Hearing Set for March 25, 2027 ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Set Jan. 26 ALPHABET INC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs in J.L. Lawsuit AMERICAN GENERAL: Calif. Insurance Class Suit Trial Set for Jan. 12 APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Brief ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit in Ill. BEDFORD, TX: Freeman Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Texas BEE SWEET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Amaro Suit Due Dec. 5 BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sara Lee Breads BLOOMBERG LP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Copyright Class Suit BLUE RIDGE: Mathes Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice BYHEART INC: Infant Formula Contains Bacteria, Linton Says C3 AI: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Liggett Due August 3, 2026 CANADA: Agrees to Settle Sex Abuse Class Action Lawsuit for $16MM CENGAGE LEARNING: Class Cert Bids in Haines Suit Due Oct. 30, 2026 CENTIMARK CORP: Settlement in Lingle Gets Final Nod CHATEAU RESTAURANT: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Gray Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CMRE FINANCIAL: Almahmodi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California COMCAST CABLE: Vogel Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. COMERICA INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Fifth Third Acquisition COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 8, 2026 COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Watson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. COMPASS INC: Approval of Settlement Under Appeal CONDUENT BUSINESS: Hurd Sues Over Data Breach CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend NY City Public Pension Class Suit CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal CS DISCO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit CURRENEX INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid CURRENEX INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid D AND D HOTELS: Ingram Sues Over Discriminative Property DANIEL TEMPLON: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DAVID SALINAS: Taft Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 5, 2026 DELTA AIR: Berrin Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal DISCOVERY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DMC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit DONALD TRUMP: Modified Case Schedule Order Entered in Thakur DOSNER ORGANIC MARKET: Valenzuela Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DRIP DROP HYDRATION: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DRYWATER INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EASTON INVESTMENTS: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property ECLIPSE ADVANTAGE: Arredondo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Suit Over Defective Frigidaire Gas Ranges ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY: Valdivia Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Copeland Seeks OK of Sealing Procedures ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Portable Seeks OK of Sealing Procedures ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Schuman Seeks OK of Sealing Procedures ENVOY AIR INC: Hernandez Files Suit in W.D. Texas EPT SPE LLC: Alford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ERIC ARMEL: Sixth Amended Case Management Order Entered in Pagan ESTEE LAUDER: Intercepts Users' Data Without Consent, Rios Claims EUROPEAN STREET: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination EVITE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile Application EXP REALTY: Usanovic Suit Seeks Class Certification EXPRESS INC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EXSCIENTIA PLC: Campanile Securities Suit Dismissed FEDEX GROUND: Sullivan-Blake Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Interchange Fees Class Suit in NY FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Klopfenstein Class Suit in Ohio FRONTENAC PROPERTY: Mellenthin Sues Over Physical Barriers FUJI HANA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition FUTURE PLASTERING: Virgen-Navarrete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Gutierrez Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Gutierrez Sies Over Unpaid Overtime GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Cert Opposition Continued to Feb. 6, 2026 GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Hearing Date GLOBAL LOGIC INC: Coutinho Files Suit in N.D. California GLOBALLOGIC INC: Magnusson Sues Over Failure to Protect Data GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Secret AI Email Scanning HILL HOUSE HOME: Cordoba Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HISENSE USA: Abi-Chahine Sues Over False and Deceptive Advertising HIXSON HOLDINGS INC: Rumping Files Suit in S.D. Ohio HOME DEPOT: Bedoy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. HP HOOD: Purnell Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation HUMANA INC: Mismanages Retirement Savings Plan, Smith Alleges HUT 8: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit in NY HYUNDAI AUTO: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Secure Personal Info I.Q. DATA: Rowe Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices INNOVATE FOOD: Victor Sues Over Discriminative Website INTERACTIVE MEMORIES: Kelley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Sermeno Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Cooper Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Dec. 5 JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANT: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Protect Data JAGUAR LAND: Class Action Settlement in Flynn Gets Final Nod JAYUD GLOBAL: Lindstrom Sues Over Exchange Act Violation JEGS AUTOMOTIVE: Discovery in Meyer Due July 31, 2026 JOHN PAUL: Heagney Seeks to Lift Stay of Class Action JUAN BALTASAR: Gutierrez Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd KELLY SERVICES: Ruiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KEURIG GREEN: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Tossed KEVIN COPPINGER: Court Stays Class Certification Briefing KIPS BAY HOSPITALITY: Manzano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KLA CORPORATION: Benedetti Sues Over Failure to Secure PII KNOTTY TIE: Faces Wood Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store KOHL'S INC: Stockwell Privacy Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. KRISTI NOEM: Court Dismisses Ramos Suit w/o Prejudice LAKEVIEW NEUROREHAB: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation LAND STATION: Sawyers Files TCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina LAS PRINCESAS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Two Settlement Classes LAST BRAND INC: Lofton Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 26, 2026 LIMITED RUN: Settlement Class in Carbone Suit Wins Certification LINDBERGH PLAZA: Kirchner Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers LINKSQUARES INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 1 LIVANOVA PLC: Settles Consolidated Consumer Suit after Mediation LIVE NATION: Heckman Suit Seeks to File Docs Under Seal LOWELL GENERAL HOSPITAL: Maquire Files Suit in D. Massachusetts LUIS CLAXTON: Nettles Sues Over Inaccessible Property LULULEMON USA INC: Done Suit Removed to C.D. California MARATHON REFINING: Arroyo Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MARYLAND: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 9, 2026 MARYLAND: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alpheaus Due April 9, 2026 MASIMO CORP: Settlement in Vasquez Suit for Prelim OK MAYIMBE GROCERY: Brown Sues Over Discrimination on Premises MBV-CA LLC: Tovar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Williams Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees MDL 3062: Plaintiffs in Antitrust Suit Seek Class Certification MEISSNER MFG. CO.: Villanueva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. METRO CARE: Obaoye Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action MHC AREA 8: Mahan Sues Over Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages MIAMI MART PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property MINDPATH HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.5-Mil. MINOLTA BUSINESS: Cezus Suit Seeks Class Certification MONSANTO COMPANY: Ford Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Harris Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Negligent Sale and Labeling MONTGOMERY LITTLE & SORAN: Crane Files Suit in D. Colorado MRA: Settlement Agreement in Giasson Suit Gets Initial Nod NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Myers Suit Seeks Class Certification NATIONAL INDEMNITY: Discovery in Bailey Due June 30, 2026 NEUROMONITORING ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chua Says NORTHEAST GROCERY: Discovery in Collins Due August 21, 2026 NUMBZ LLC: Cuneo Sues Over False and Misleading Sales Practices O'REILLY AUTO: Raymond Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. O'REILLY AUTO: Smith Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. OMAC REAL ESTATE: Pinero Sues Over Unlawful Barriers OMNI HOTELS: Banuelos Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ONCOLOGY INSTITUTE: Stacy Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info OOMA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bachhuber August 21, 2026 ORCHARDS AT TULARE: Quintero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Bernal Securities Class Suit ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Sossman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Dismissal of BIPA-Related Suit Under Appeal PCF RESTAURANT: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property PERRIGO COMPANY: French Sues Over Exchange Act Breach PHI HEALTH: Tow Wage and Hour Suit Removed to D.N.M. PHOENIX DINING: Gonzalez Sues Over Disability Discrimination PISCES BAR & TAVERN: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Suit for $400,000 PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Hinton Seeks to Seal Docs Under Seal PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Hinton Suit Seeks Class Certification PORTILLO'S INC: Continues to Defend PAGA Class Suit in California PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO: Ade-Fosudo Suit Removed to D. Maryland PRIMO BRANDS: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Rosenblum Says PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Cai Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Data Security Breach PROHEALTH CARE: Schutte Wins Rule 23 Class Certification Bid QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Privacy Suit RB GLOBAL: Enterprise Lodging Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois RB GLOBAL: Strupp Trucking Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois REALPAGE INC: Colby Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee RICHARD O. HARRIS: Bynum Files Suit in 11th Tenn. Judicial Dist. ROB WOODS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Garza Due August 7, 2026 RYDER SYSTEM INC: Mack Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime S&P GLOBAL: Amended Redaction & Sealing Sched Entered in DFG SAM'S WEST: Garcia Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SAN DIEGO, CA: Duardo Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action SANDOVAL'S MEXICAN: Ramos Sues Over Inaccessible Accommodations SEATGEEK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharging Resale Tickets SELECT PATROL AGENCY: Ritch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit SPARTAN CONSULTING: Fitzgerald Sues to Recover Overtime Wages STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn. STASHER INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Claims STILLWATER MINING: Bertram Files FLSA Suit in D. Montana STRIDE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 12 SUTTER CLUB: Dent Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SYRACUSE HAULERS: Cond'l Cert. Response Reset to Dec. 19 SYRACUSE HAULERS: Sims Seek to Conditionally Certify Employee Class TACOS EL PORKY: Salcedo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TALEN ENERGY: Dismissed from Antitrust Suit TARGET CORP: Florida State Board Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota TARGET CORPORATION: Norman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TD BANK: Wong Sues Over Discrimination and Wrongful Termination TFORCE FREIGHT INC: Henry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TOM HOMAN: Court Extends Response Time to Prelim Injunction Bid TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes TPUSA INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid TYSON FOODS: Mckinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNIQUE CONCEPTS: Odonnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED AIRLINES: Reinauer Suit transferred to N.D. Illinois UNITED HEALTHCARE: Magliocca Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. UNITED STATES: Ruiz Sues Over Inhumane Conditions of Detainees UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Dismissal Bid UNITED STATES: Withrow Wins Class Certification Bid UNITED THREE: Reza Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Cashiers US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend Beef Antitrust Suits VIA ROMA PIZZERIA: Coghlan Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. VIATRIS INC: 3d Cir. Rejects Appeal from Securities Suit Dismissal VIATRIS INC: Agrees to $335MM Settlement in Opioid Suit VIATRIS INC: Claims in WDPA Mylan Suit Proceeds to Discovery VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Seeks to Certify Class of Tenants VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Colby Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas VJC HOSPITALITY: Askew Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages VT MOTORS: Class Cert Bid in Straker Filing Due July 20, 2026 VUORI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 2, 2026 WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Hanson Files Suit in D. Colorado WAYFAIR LLC: Limas Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WAYFAIR LLC: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Docs Under Seal WERNER ENTERPRISES: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in "Abarca" WEYERHAEUSER NR: Dec. 3 Pretrial Scheduling Conference Vacated WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mckinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WILCREST VILLAGE: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers WOEO LLC: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property WOLFSPEED INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York WORKHOUSE WORLDWIDE: Tehrani Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZIFF DAVIS: IGN Entertainment Loses Bid to Dismiss "Josue" ZIFF DAVIS: Mashable Loses Bid to Dismiss "Fregosa" ZIFF DAVIS: Units Face Employment Law Violation Suits ZOA ENERGY: Class Settlement in Gershzon Suit Gets Initial Nod ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Marcel Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ 3D Systems Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Marcel securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Company and certain of its executive offers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on June 13, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The action is styled Marcel F.M. Herbermann v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00734-GBW (D. Del.) (the "Securities Class Action"). The complaint in the Securities Class Action alleges defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions, and that the executive officers named as defendants are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock from August 13, 2024 and May 12, 2025, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Within fourteen days of the entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, the Parties will submit a proposed scheduling Order for the filing of an amended complaint and Defendants' responses thereto. The Company intends to defend itself and its executive officers vigorously. 3D Systems Corporation is a holding company incorporated in Delaware in 1993 that markets its products and services through subsidiaries in North America and South America, Europe and the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region. AES CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- AES Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2025, an alleged shareholder of Fluence Energy, Inc. ("Fluence") filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ("Court") against Fluence and certain of Fluence's officers and directors. The complaint in the case also named the Company and AES Grid Stability, LLC as defendants (together, the "AES Defendants"). In May 2025, the Court consolidated the lawsuit with another putative securities class action against Fluence and certain of its officers and directors. The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff (the "Plaintiff") and lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated lawsuit. In June 2025, the Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against Fluence, certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual Fluence Defendants" and, together with Fluence, the "Fluence Defendants"), and the AES Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of Fluence Class A common stock between October 28, 2021 and February 10, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges that the Fluence Defendants made allegedly false or misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Individual Fluence Defendants and the AES Defendants as alleged "control persons" under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In July 2025, the Fluence Defendants and the AES Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit. The motions are now fully briefed and pending before the Court. The AES Defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts. The AES Corporation -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a diversified power generation and utility company organized into six market-oriented Strategic Business Units: U.S., Andes (Chile, Colombia, and Argentina), Brazil, MCAC (Mexico, Central America and Caribbean), EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), and Asia. The Company was incorporated in 1981 and its principal offices are located in Arlington, Virginia. AGILON HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Agilon Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. In February and March 2024, three class action lawsuits were filed and later consolidated as one matter captioned In re agilon health, inc. Securities Litigation, 1:24-cv-00297 (W.D. Tex.) (the "Consolidated Securities Matter"). The Consolidated Securities Matter names the Company and certain current and former members of the Company's executive team and Board of Directors as defendants, among others. The Consolidated Securities Matter generally asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with statements made between April 2021 and February 2024 in the Company's annual and quarterly reports, investor presentations, and earnings releases related to, among other things, the Company's financial guidance, medical margin and Adjusted EBITDA results, growth strategy, and data management. The Consolidated Securities Matter seeks compensatory damages, judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified equitable and/or injunctive relief.  The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on November 8, 2024. On or about August 15, 2025, the Court issued an order on the motion to dismiss, dismissing some of the claims against the defendants and allowing others to proceed into the discovery phase of litigation. The Company intends to vigorously oppose the complaint, but is unable to predict the outcome or estimate any ultimate individual or aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact due to the early stages of the litigation. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers.[BN] ALAMEDA HEALTH: Class Cert Hearing Set for March 25, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et al., v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 3:25-cv-06709-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Seeborg entered a case management scheduling order: 1. The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be Feb. 17, 2026. 2. On or before June 19, 2026, all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties. 3. On or before July 21, 2026, parties will provide initial expert disclosures and reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). 4. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on March 25, 2027, at 1:30 PM. 5. A virtual Further Case Management Conference shall be held on Aug. 20, 2026, at 10:00 AM. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement at least one week prior to the Conference. Alameda is a public integrated health care provider and medical training institution. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fXfqbD at no extra charge.[CC] ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Set Jan. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. ("Alexandria" or the "Company") (NYSE: ARE). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding Alexandria's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that, among other things, Defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's leasing spreads, development tenant pipeline, and anticipated occupancy growth for its life-science properties, specifically its LIC property while also minimizing risk from macroeconomic fluctuations. If you purchased shares of Alexandria between January 27, 2025 and October 27, 2025, 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/alexandria-real-estate/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is January 26, 2026. 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] ALPHABET INC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs in J.L. Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L. et al v. Alphabet Inc. et al. (re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another Party's (Plaintiffs) material should be sealed regarding ECF Nos. 282-88, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, and the Court's order authorizing omnibus sealing motion, ECF No. 265. ("Omnibus Sealing Order"). Pursuant to the Omnibus Sealing Order, the Parties have been "relieved from the requirement to file a motion to seal, or a motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed, contemporaneously with the sealed filings" in connection with Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification, and directed to "file an omnibus motion and proposed order to seal all materials at issue in the class certification and related Daubert briefing." A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aC9A0S at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David H. Kramer, Esq. Maura L. Rees, Esq. Paul J. Sampson, Esq. Eric P. Tuttle, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com mrees@wsgr.com psampson@wsgr.com eric.tuttle@wsgr.com AMERICAN GENERAL: Calif. Insurance Class Suit Trial Set for Jan. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Corebridge Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company's subsidiary's, American General Life Insurance Co. (AGL), California Insurance Code class suit trial date is set on January 12, 2026. AGL continues to defend against Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Co. (S.D. Cal.), a putative class action involving Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 of the California Insurance Code, which was instituted against AGL on July 18, 2017 in state court. AGL removed the matter to federal court on August 23, 2017. In general, those statutes require that for life-insurance policies issued and delivered in California: (1) the policy must contain a 60-day grace period following non-payment of premium during which the policy remains in force; (2) the insurer must provide a 30-day pre-lapse notice; and (3) the insurer must notify policy owners of the right to designate a secondary recipient for lapse notices. The plaintiff contends AGL did not comply with these requirements for a policy issued before these statutes went into effect. The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief. AGL asserts various defenses to the plaintiff's claims and to class certification. In 2022, the District Court held that a trial was necessary to determine whether AGL was liable on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, and it denied class certification. In May 2023, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On August 14, 2023, the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 26, 2023, the District Court decided that good cause existed to allow the plaintiff to file a third motion for class certification. At the same time, however, the District Court certified its August 14, 2023 order for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit and stayed trial court proceedings pending the outcome of AGL's appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted AGL's petition for interlocutory appeal on November 21, 2023. AGL filed its opening brief on April 15, 2024. Plaintiff filed its answering brief on July 22, 2024, and AGL filed its reply on September 11, 2024. On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit to certify a question regarding the interpretation of the California statute – namely, whether an insured can terminate an insurance policy without having complied with the notice and grace period requirements of the California statute. AGL opposed Plaintiff's motion on August 23, 2024, arguing that there was no basis for certification and disagreeing with Plaintiff's claimed issue for review. While the Moriarty appeal was pending, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision in Small v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, a related case presenting a substantially identical issue. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Small squarely rejected the theory that the plaintiffs had advanced in that case and in Moriarty and embraced the argument, made by insurers, that any policyholder or beneficiary suing based on supposed breaches of Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 must prove that the breaches actually caused them harm, for instance by resulting in missed payments or the lapse of the policy. On January 6, 2025, the parties in Moriarty, at the Ninth Circuit's request, submitted simultaneous supplemental briefing on Small's effect on the litigation, with AGL taking the position that Small fully disposes of the appeal in its favor and requires vacatur of the summary-judgment order in Plaintiff's favor. The plaintiff in Small filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on January 23, 2025. The Ninth Circuit denied the Small petition for rehearing on February 19, 2025, and the mandate in that case was issued on February 27, 2025. On March 4, 2025 the panel in Moriarty issued a memorandum disposition without hearing oral argument, vacating the District Court's summary-judgment order and remanding for further proceedings. The panel's short opinion principally relies on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Small. The panel also denied Plaintiff's request to certify a question to the California Supreme Court. On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. Like the plaintiff in Small, Plaintiff asked the full Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing in order to reconsider Small, or, alternatively, to certify a question to the California Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit denied the Moriarty petition for rehearing on May 2, 2025, and the mandate was issued on May 12, 2025. On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision. AGL filed a waiver of its response. On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The case is now back in the District Court, which held a status conference on July 17, 2025, to discuss next stages of the case. The District Court allowed Plaintiff to move for a stay pending litigation in state court, which the Court heard on August 7, 2025. Following that hearing, the District Court denied Plaintiff's motion to stay the case and set a trial date of January 12, 2026, for Plaintiff's remaining individual breach of contract claim. American General Life Insurance operates as an insurance company. The Company offers life, travel, annuities, mutual funds, home loan, retirement, and other related insurance services. American General Life Insurance Company serves customers worldwide. APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Brief ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFFINITY CREDIT UNION, GREENSTATE CREDIT UNION, and CONSUMERS CO-OP CREDIT UNION, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-04174-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion for leave to file newly produced evidence and corresponding supplemental brief in support of Apple's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 28, 2025, putative class member JPMorgan Chase (JPMC)-- produced a document in response to Apple’s July 12, 2024 document subpoena, 18 days after the Court’s October 10 hearing on the Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Exclude. As explained in Apple's supplemental brief, the JPMC Document contains key admissions that demonstrate the unreliability of Dr. Vellturo's yardstick methodology. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oMaYf3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Belinda S Lee, Esq. Sarah M. Ray, Esq. Aaron T. Chiu, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: belinda.lee@lw.com sarah.ray@lw.com aaron.chiu@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit in Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the AOT class suit in the federal district court of Illinois. On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG ("AOT") filed a putative class action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges. On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC ("Maize"). AOT and Maize allege that members of the putative class collectively suffered damages calculated to be between approximately $500 million to over $2.0 billion as a result of the Company's alleged actions. On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities ("GP") filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent sellers of ethanol. On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC ("MRE") filed a putative class action in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the same operative facts and asserting claims under the Sherman Act. On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC and several other ethanol producers (collectively, "UWGP") filed a lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts and asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law. The court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the MRE and UWGP complaints without prejudice on August 9, 2021 and September 28, 2021, respectively. On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the GP complaint, dismissing one claim with prejudice and declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM moved to dismiss on September 27, 2021. The court denied ADM's motion to dismiss on September 26, 2023. UWGP filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2021, which the court dismissed on July 12, 2022. UWGP appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the "Seventh Circuit"). On October 26, 2021, GP filed a new complaint in Nebraska federal district court, alleging substantially the same facts and asserting a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations. The case was transferred back to the Central District of Illinois, and on December 30, 2022, the court dismissed GP's complaint with prejudice. GP appealed the dismissal, and on January 12, 2024, the appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 8, 2024, GP filed an amended complaint, which ADM moved to dismiss. On December 3, 2024, the court issued a decision on ADM's motion to dismiss GP's amended complaint, denying one ground for dismissal and certifying a question of law to the Nebraska Supreme Court before deciding the other ground. On July 18, 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of UWGP's amended complaint. Following that decision, the district court ordered that ADM may file a renewed motion to dismiss MRE's amended complaint. Separately, on September 26, 2025, UWGP filed a complaint against ADM in Wisconsin state court asserting one claim for tortious interference with contractual relations. The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself in these actions. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is principally into the merchandising and transporting agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition. BEDFORD, TX: Freeman Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Bedford. The case is styled as Sir Fabian Freeman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. City of Bedford, Case No. 4:25-cv-01165-P (N.D. Tex., Oct. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Bedford -- https://bedfordtx.gov/ -- is a city located in northeastern Tarrant County, Texas, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROGER L MANDEL 3416 Pelham Road Fort Worth, TX 76116 Phone: (214) 762-1036 Email: rogerlmandel@gmail.com - and - Jayson A Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 274-2944 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com The Defendant is represented by: Darrell G-M Noga, Esq. Christopher Allen Klement OLDHAM KLEMENT & NOGA PLLC 8150 N Central Expwy, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75206 Phone: (214) 838-8400 Fax: (214) 838-8400 Email: darrell@oknlegal.com chris@oknlegal.com BEE SWEET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Amaro Suit Due Dec. 5 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amaro, et al., v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00382 (E.D. Cal., Filed March 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order as follows: On Nov. 20, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Deadline which requests a continuance of the current Nov. 21, 2025, deadline for filing Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties have reached a global settlement and have drafted the settlement agreement but have yet to finalize the agreement or attain signatures of the parties' respective clients. The Court grants the parties' request and orders that Plaintiffs' deadline to file the motion for class certification be continued to December 5, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Agricultural Acts. Bee is a vertically integrated agribusiness.[CC] BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sara Lee Breads ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims Bimbo falsely advertises its Sara Lee Artesano Bakery Bread products as being free from artificial preservatives. Where: The Sara Lee class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Bimbo Bakeries falsely advertises its Sara Lee Artesano Bakery Bread products as being free from artificial preservatives. Plaintiffs Jessica Pardo and Sthorm Pyrane filed the class action complaint against Bimbo Bakeries on Nov. 17 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The plaintiffs claim that the company prominently displays the phrase "Always baked without artificial colors, flavors & preservatives" on the packaging of its Artesano bread products, including Artesano Bakery Bread, Artesano Bakery Bread -- Hawaiian Bread, Artesano Bakery Bread -- Smooth Multigrain, Artesano Bakery Bread -- Brioche and Artesano Bakery Bread -- Golden Wheat. However, the plaintiffs allege that these products contain citric acid, a known artificial preservative, contradicting the company's marketing claims. Sara Lee class action claims health conscious consumers misled by 'free from' claims According to the lawsuit, there is a growing consumer demand for transparency in food labeling, particularly regarding claims of being "free from" artificial ingredients. The plaintiffs cite studies showing that a significant percentage of consumers are willing to pay more for products they perceive as healthier and more natural. They argue that this misrepresentation is designed to attract health-conscious consumers who prefer preservative-free foods. The Sara Lee class action accuses Bimbo Bakeries of unjustly profiting from this deceptive practice, as consumers are willing to pay a premium for products they believe are free from artificial additives. The lawsuit alleges that Bimbo Bakeries' actions violate New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts and false advertising. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of consumers who purchased the allegedly mislabeled products. Class members are demanding Bimbo Bakeries correct its advertising practices and compensate consumers who were misled by the "free from" claims. They are also seeking damages for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. In a similar case, Kraft Heinz was recently hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertised its macaroni and cheese as containing "no preservatives," even though it includes citric acid, which functions as a preservative. The plaintiffs are represented by Mari K. Bonthuis, Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler and Todd McClelland of Sterlington PLLC and Don Bivens of Don Bivens PLLC. The Sara Lee bread class action lawsuit is Pardo, et al. v. Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06368, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] BLOOMBERG LP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Copyright Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has denied Bloomberg L.P.'s motion to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit led by DiCello Levitt, alleging copyright infringement in the development of BloombergGPT, the company's finance-focused AI program. The plaintiffs, a group of authors and copyright holders, including Ambassador Mike Huckabee, claim that Bloomberg used their copyrighted works, without permission or compensation, to train its AI using the Books3 dataset. Bloomberg argued that the complaint lacked specificity and that its use of the works was protected by the fair use doctrine. In her ruling, Judge Margaret M. Garnett found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged copyright infringement and that the fair use defense could not be resolved at this early stage. The court emphasized that a robust factual record is needed to address complex questions about the impact of AI training on the market for original works. The case will now move to discovery. The decision marks an important development in the ongoing debate over copyright and artificial intelligence. DiCello Levitt's team includes Amy Keller, Nada Djordjevic, Greg Gutzler, Adam Levitt, and James Ulwick. Co-counsel include Seth Haines and Timothy Hutchinson of RMP, LLP and Scott Poynter of Poynter Law Group. The case is Huckabee et al. v. Bloomberg L.P. and Bloomberg Finance L.P., No. 1:23-CV-09152. [GN] BLUE RIDGE: Mathes Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MATHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE RIDGE POWER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-03828 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Blue Ridge Power is a full-service Engineering, Procurement, Construction company for solar and solar and storage projects in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Matthew S. Okin, Esq. Ryan A. O’Connor, Esq. OKIN ADAMS BARTLETT CURRY LLP 1113 Vine St., Suite 240 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 228-4100 Facsimile: (346) 247-7158 Email: mokin@okinadams.com roconnor@okinadams.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com BYHEART INC: Infant Formula Contains Bacteria, Linton Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LANEY LINTON; CHLOE OLIVER; ROSEMARY ROCKEY; and THOMAS ANDRACCHI II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYHEART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09597 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025) alleges that the Whole Nutrition Infant Formula cans and Anywhere Packs (the "Affected Products") manufactured by the Defendant are contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, causing infant illness. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's marketing and advertising of the Affected Products are false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers because Defendant knows that Clostridium botulinum is harmful to babies, yet they sold the Affected Products nonetheless. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and class members suffered economic injury by purchasing the Affected Products at a premium price based on false assurances of safety and quality, says the suit. ByHeart, Inc. provides infant and baby nutrition products. The Company specializes in developing baby foods and formulas based on nutrition science and production transparency to support immune, cognitive, digestive, and microbiome health. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com C3 AI: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Liggett Due August 3, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Liggett Sr. v. C3 AI, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-07129-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Aug. 30, 2027 Final pretrial conference: July 15, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: Feb. 9, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Nov. 3, 2026 Last day to hear motion for class Sept. 29, 2026 certification: Last day to file motion for class Aug. 3, 2026 certification: Motion to appoint lead plaintiff and March 3, 2026 lead counsel hearing: The Defendant is an American enterprise AI application software company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AJl3Jt at no extra charge.[CC] CANADA: Agrees to Settle Sex Abuse Class Action Lawsuit for $16MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Tipper, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that The Calgary Board of Education and its insurers have agreed to pay almost $16 million to settle a class-action lawsuit related to two former CBE employees at John Ware School between 1988 and 2004. Under the settlement agreement, the CBE and its insurers will pay $15.77 million to the victims. The agreement still needs court approval. The class-action suit, certified in January, had named former teacher Fred Henry Archer of High River, the estate of Michael Gregory, who also taught at John Ware, and the Calgary Board of Education as defendants. The suit alleged their involvement in the sexual, physical and psychological abuse that occurred at the school between 1988 and 2004. The lawsuit included three plaintiffs, each of whom represents a separate subclass of victims: alleged sexual and physical assault victims of Archer, alleged physical assault victims of Gregory and alleged sexual assault victims of Gregory. In a news release on November 24, the CBE apologized for the harm experienced by the victims and the effect of that harm on them. "The CBE commends the strength and courage of the class members who came forward to share their experiences and to participate in the court process," it said. Under the settlement, the victims will have the opportunity to work with the CBE on existing policies and training. "The CBE remains committed to practices and policies that enable students to learn in safe, caring, and supportive environments," it said. [GN] CENGAGE LEARNING: Class Cert Bids in Haines Suit Due Oct. 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexandria Haines, v. Cengage Learning, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00710-MWM-KLL (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Litkovitz entered an order as follows: 1. Deadline for leave to amend pleadings: March 31, 2026 2. Deadline for motions relative to the pleadings: April 17, 2026 3. Deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses and submission of expert reports: 4. The Plaintiff(s) identify and produce primary expert report(s): May 29, 2026 5. The Defendant(s) identify and produce primary expert report(s): June 29, 2026 6. Parties disclosure and report of rebuttal experts: July 29, 2026 7. Disclosure of non-expert (fact) witnesses: Aug. 28, 2026 8. Discovery deadline: Sept. 29, 2026 9. Motions for class certification: Oct. 30, 2026 10. Dispositive motion deadline: Dec. 17, 2026 11. Final pretrial conference and trial dates will be set at a later date by Judge McFarland pursuant to his case management schedule. Cengage operates as an edtech company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qoQGx6 at no extra charge.[CC] CENTIMARK CORP: Settlement in Lingle Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Lingle, v. Centimark Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01471-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the motion for final approval and granting in part the motion for an award of fees and costs: -- Attorneys' fees of $150,000 to class counsel; -- An incentive award of $5,000 to Plaintiff Anthony Lingle; -- Litigation costs of $11,668.27; and -- Settlement administrative costs of $8,687.04. Last day for Settlement Administrator to calculate the final Net Settlement Amount, the final Individual Settlement Amounts for Participating Class Members and/or PAGA Members, any applicable taxes thereon, any report the results of these calculations to Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel. The Defendant shall fund the settlement: 30 calendar days after the Effective Date. The Last day for Settlement Administrator to deliver payment of Class Counsel's awards and costs, Class Representative Enhancement Payment, PAGA Payment, Settlement Administrator Costs, payment to Participating Class Members, and payment to PAGA Members: 7 calendar days after Defendant has funded the settlement. The Settlement Administrator shall mail reminder postcards to the Participating Class Members and PAGA Members whose settlement checks were not returned or cashed: 100 calendar days before the Individual Settlement Payments and Individual PAGA Payments expire. Check Cashing Deadline for Class Members and PAGA Members: 180 calendar days after the mailing of the Individual Settlement Payments and Individual PAGA Payments. Settlement Administrator shall send any remaining funds to Salvation Army Sacramento Metro: 14 calendar days after the check cashing deadline. Settlement Administrator shall provide a compliance declaration to the Parties: 21 days after the check cashing deadline. A declaration from the Settlement Administrator shall be filed by November 13, 2026, detailing the complete disbursement of funds in compliance with this order. The court retains jurisdiction to monitor and enforce the terms of this order and the approved Agreement. The court grants in part the motion for attorneys' fees. The court awards the following amounts, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount pursuant to the terms and timeframe set forth in the Agreement: CentiMark is a national roofing contractor company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QUdYow at no extra charge.[CC] CHATEAU RESTAURANT: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Faldonie, and all others similarly situated v. THE CHATEAU RESTAURANT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-13429 (D. Mass., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, https://chateaurestaurant.com/ (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant fails to communicate effectively with Plaintiff because its digital properties are not properly formatted to allow legally blind users such as content. Accordingly, legally blind customers such as Plaintiff are Plaintiff to access its digital deprived from accessing information about Defendant's products and using its online services, all of which are readily available to sighted customers. Because Defendant's website is not and has never been fully accessible, and because upon information and belief Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its website to become and remain accessible, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs her vision and limits her ability to see. The Defendant specializes in classic Italian-American cuisine, offering a menu centered around traditional pasta dishes, seafood, pizzas, and comforting family style meals prepared with quality ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Gray Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Paige Gray, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Chipotle Services, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV027682 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Chipotle -- https://www.chipotle.com/ -- is an American multinational chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos, and Mission burritos.[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 CMRE FINANCIAL: Almahmodi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Almahmodi, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03195-TWR-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. has been providing collection and A/R management services exclusively for the healthcare industry for over four decades.[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 COMCAST CABLE: Vogel Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SUN GAS MARKETING & PETROLEUM, LLC; SUN GAS MARKETING & PETROLEUM - BOCA RATON, LLC; SUN GAS MARKETING & PETROLEUM - REGENCY, LLC; SUN GAS MARKETING & PETROLEUM - PALM BEACH, LLC; SUN GAS MARKETING & PETROLEUM - GLADES, LLC; SUN GAS 380, LLC; SUN GAS 2100, LLC; SG 7176, LLC; and RICHARD VOGEL, as Class Representative, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs vs. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company registered to do business in Florida, d/b/a XFINITY and COMCAST BUSINESS, Defendant, Case No. 50-2025-CA-009726XXXAMB, was removed from the Circuit Court, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case 9:25-cv-81459-XXXX to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes of individuals, one nationwide and one in Florida, consisting of (i) "All Comcast Business customers in the United States that were charged a Directory Listing Management Fee and/or Voice Network Investment Fee and paid that fee within the applicable limitations period" or (ii) "All Comcast Business customers in Florida that were charged a Directory Listing Management Fee and/or a Voice Network Investment Fee and paid that fee within the applicable limitations period. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC is a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation -- a major American telecommunications, media, and entertainment conglomerate.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Anna Marie Gamez, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-789-7467 Facsimile: 305-789-7799 Email: annie.hernandezgamez@hklaw.com Secondary: maria.gonzalez@hklaw.com - and - Philip E. Rothschild, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-468-7881 E-mail: phil.rothschild@hklaw.com COMERICA INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Fifth Third Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Comerica, Inc., ("Comerica" or the "Company") (NYSE: CMA) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities in connection with the company's proposed acquisition by Fifth Third Bancorp. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/comerica-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. According to the complaint, after an activist investor called for his termination, Comerica's CEO "raced to find a friendly white knight that could provide him with a lucrative post-closing role" and contacted Fifth Third Bancorp to encourage its CEO to make a proposal to acquire Comerica. The complaint further details how Comerica's board of directors has "improperly locked up the merger through preclusive deal protections" in an attempt to ensure that no superior bid emerges for Comerica. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 8, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-03535 (D.D.C., Filed Nov. 24, 2025), the Hon. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan entered an order that the Plaintiffs shall move for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1) by Jan. 8, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. The Defendant is a healthcare organization located in Washington, D.C.[CC] COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Watson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANTIERRA WATSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02991-SLS (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file a motion for class certification beyond the 90-day period set forth in LCvR 23.1(b). The Plaintiff requests the Court extend the deadline to file a motion for class certification until after the Court issues an order on the pending Motion to Consolidate and Appoint. The requested extension will not prejudice Defendant nor interfere with other case deadlines. Instead, it will allow a more orderly and complete record for class certification briefing. Counsel for Plaintiff conferred with Defendant. Defendant does not oppose this relief sought in this motion. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on Sept. 3, 2025. Community provides a range of employment, residential, and support services to adults with intellectual disabilities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o0mobf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: bresch@straussborrelli.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave STE 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com COMPASS INC: Approval of Settlement Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------ Compass, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that the company's motion for final approval of a settlement agreement for a consolidated antitrust case was granted on October 31, 2024 and the settlement agreement is now effective. The final approval ruling was appealed by certain class members that objected to the settlement, which are now pending before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The objecting parties filed their briefs on April 21, 2025. Responses, including those by the Company, were filed on July 28, 2025. A putative class action lawsuit captioned "Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al.," named the company as a defendant and allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. This was consolidated into another case on April 23, 2024 as the plaintiffs allege a nationwide scope. On March 21, 2024, the company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this on a nationwide basis. The settlement resolves all claims in these cases and similar claims in other lawsuits alleging claims on behalf of sellers on a nationwide basis against the company and its subsidiaries and releases the latter from the claims. Under the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay $57.5 million and make certain changes to its business practices. Compass, Inc. provides an integrated suite of cloud-based software for customer relationship management, marketing, client service and other critical functionality, all custom-built for the real estate industry, which enables the company's core brokerage services. CONDUENT BUSINESS: Hurd Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------- James Hurd and Brandt Pettersen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-17620 (D.N.J., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought arising from a data breach seeking damages for the injuries that Defendant's negligence have and will cause, as well as injunctive relief to ensure that the data Defendant continues to store will be protected by reasonable data security practices going forward. The Defendant collects highly sensitive data that its clients maintain regarding third parties, including social security numbers, financial information, and other details. More specifically, among other clients Conduent maintained data on behalf of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois (hereafter "BCBSI"), which in turn collected and maintained information regarding BCBSI's policy holders. In a story that has become all too familiar, an unauthorized third party gained access to SRP's network beginning on October 21, 2024, and absconded with personally identifying information (hereafter, "PII"). Criminals can now sell the victims' data on the black market for the purpose of stealing their identities. None of this would have occurred if Conduent had implemented reasonable data security measures., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were victims of the data breach. Conduent Business Services, LLC, is a business process outsourcing and technology company that, as part of its normal business operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil Grossman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 40 Calumet Avenue Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 Phone: (973) 335-6409 Fax (973) 335-3717 Email: neil@bgandg.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the District Court of Oklahoma. In April 2023, three separate putative class action lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Continental Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. CJ-2022-4162, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (the "Consolidated Action"). In the Consolidated Action, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former shareholders of the Company, allege that Mr. Hamm, certain trusts established for the benefit of Mr. Hamm and/or his family members, and the Company's other directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the 2022 take-private transaction and seek: (i) monetary damages; (ii) the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuits; and (iii) other equitable relief. This matter is currently set for trial in May 2026. The defendants continue to vigorously defend themselves against these claims. Continental Resources, Inc. is into the production of crude oil and natural gas based in Oklahoma. COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend NY City Public Pension Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Coupang Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the New York City Public Pension Funds class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York On August 26, 2022, a putative class action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Coupang Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Coupang’s registration statement issued in connection with its initial public offering. New York City Public Pension Funds v. Coupang, Inc. et al., formerly Choi v. Coupang, Inc. et al. was brought against Coupang and certain of its former and current directors, current officers, and certain underwriters of the offering. The action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging inaccurate and misleading or omitted statements of material fact in Coupang's Registration Statement in violation of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action was amended in May 2023, and added allegations of securities fraud under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and reasonable costs and expenses The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the claims and the appeal. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Accordingly, it can provide no assurances as to the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurances as to whether its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows will not be materially adversely affected. Coupang, Inc. is a retailer in Korea with operations in the United States, Taiwan, Singapore and China with a preeminent online presence in the market. CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINCHILD SURGICAL DEVICES, LLC, v. CPA GLOBAL LIMITED, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to file under seal certain exhibits filed in support of its reply brief in support of its motion for class certification. Specifically, Brainchild requests leave to file under seal: -- Exhibits A, B, and C to the Supplemental Declaration of Ryan Abbott; and -- Brainchild's reply brief in support of motion for class certification. The exhibits to the Abbott Declaration were produced in connection with discovery in this litigation and have been designated Confidential or Highly Confidential by the Defendant. Brainchild's reply brief, in turn, contains discussion of these materials that CPA designated confidential, as well as discussion of other materials filed under seal in connection with Brainchild's motion for class certification. CPA provides general, legal, and intellectual property (IP) support services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VOOZvZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan J. Brown, Esq. Ryan Abbott, MD, PhD, Esq. BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN, LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: @bnsklaw.com Ryan@bnsklaw.com - and - Rob Powers, Esq. MCCLANAHAN POWERS, LLP 3160 Fairview Park Dr., Ste. 410 Falls Church, VA 22042 Telephone: (703) 520-1326 E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric C. Lyttle, Esq. Eric C. Lyttle, Esq. Meghan M. McCaffrey, Esq. J. Matthew Hamann, Esq. Michael L. Fazio, Esq. Anthony P. Alden, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 Facsimile: (202) 538-8100 E-mail: ericlyttle@quinnemanuel.com jarednewton@quinnemanuel.com meghanmccaffrey@quinnemanuel.com matthewhamann@quinnemanuel.com michaelfazio@quinnemanuel.com anthonyalden@quinnemanuel.com CS DISCO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- CS Disco, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on January 30, 2025, the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas issued an order granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers. On February 27, 2025, the company filed a motion for reconsideration on the court's order denying in part the company's motion to dismiss, which was denied on April 9, 2025. Said case was initially filed on September 19, 2023, in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the made materially false or misleading statements about the factors that were driving its revenue growth between July 21, 2021 and August 11, 2022. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On December 12, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On January 8, 2024, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas. DISCO provides cloud-native, artificial intelligence-powered legal product offerings that simplify legal hold, legal request, ediscovery, legal document review and case management for enterprises, law firms, legal services providers and governments with scalable, integrated product offerings enable legal departments to easily collect, process and review enterprise data that is relevant or potentially relevant to legal matters. CURRENEX INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al., v. Currenex, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the Defendants' deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' class certification motion by one and a half months (from Dec. 23, 2025, to Feb. 6, 2026). The Defendants recognize that the Court declined to extend the briefing schedule in its November 18, 2025 Memorandum Endorsement, which the parties received earlier today. The Defendants submit that the Court's decision addressing the briefing schedule was made without the benefit of argument by Defendants, as Plaintiffs only raised the issue in their reply on an unrelated motion. Modifying the case schedule as proposed herein will not prejudice Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs agreed to an even longer response time when the parties jointly submitted the most-recent proposed revised schedule in May. Any objection from Plaintiffs now is an effort to preserve a perceived tactical advantage in holding Defendants to a shorter time than the Court earlier chose to impose (especially since Defendants have accommodated several of Plaintiffs’ requests for extensions). Even had Plaintiffs not previously agreed to a longer schedule, a brief 45-day extension in their quest to recover over $2 billion in damages will not prejudice them. The case does not involve any ongoing conduct. The Plaintiffs do not seek injunctive relief; only money damages based on purported conduct that everyone agrees stopped more than 10 years ago. Currenex provides an independent global currency exchange to institutional buyers and sellers around the world. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=phL1tv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregg L. Weiner, Esq. Alexander B. Simkin, Esq. Robert G. Jones, Esq. Samer Musallam, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 121 1 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (2 12) 596-5000 Facsimile: (212) 596-9090 E-mail: gregg.weiner@ropesgray.com alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com robert.jones@ropesgray.com samer.musallam@ropesgray.com - and - Peter G. Wilson, Esq. Elliott M. Bacon, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 W Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5200 E-mail: peter.wilson@katten.com christian.kemnitz@katten.com - and - Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Esq. Rishi N. Zutshi, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com rzutshi@cgsh.com CURRENEX INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al., v. Currenex, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request to leave to extend the Defendants' deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' class certification motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), the Court's Rules, and the Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality so ordered in this action on Oct. 18, 2023, the Defendants submit this letter motion to file under seal the supporting exhibit to the Motion consisting of a document that Plaintiffs have designated as "Highly Confidential" under the terms of the Protective Order (Exhibit 1). On Nov. 21, 2025, Defendants sought the Plaintiffs' consent for Defendants to publicly file Exhibit 1 and portions of the Motion. However, given the late hour, Defendants are proceeding with filing under seal Exhibit 1 and those portions of the Motion that reference Exhibit 1 and the deposition transcript referenced above with minimal advance notice to Plaintiffs. Currenex provides an independent global currency exchange to institutional buyers and sellers around the world. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5CsQNI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregg L. Weiner, Esq. Alexander B. Simkin, Esq. Robert G. Jones, Esq. Samer Musallam, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 121 1 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (2 12) 596-5000 Facsimile: (212) 596-9090 E-mail: gregg.weiner@ropesgray.com alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com robert.jones@ropesgray.com samer.musallam@ropesgray.com - and - Peter G. Wilson, Esq. Elliott M. Bacon, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 W Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5200 E-mail: peter.wilson@katten.com christian.kemnitz@katten.com - and - Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Esq. Rishi N. Zutshi, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com rzutshi@cgsh.com D AND D HOTELS: Ingram Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Ingram, individually, and all other mobility-impaired individuals similarly situated v. D AND D HOTELS, LLC A Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00182-TES (M.D. Ga., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought for Injunctive Relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs and damages pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") arising from the Defendant's discriminative property. There are several elements and spaces that Plaintiff personally encountered and which discriminated against him based upon his disability, such as: There are steps at the registration office which make it inaccessible to a disabled individual in a wheelchair. There is no accessible parking at the registration for a disabled individual in a wheelchair to use. The designated accessible parking at the side is not located closest to the entrance for a disabled individual in a wheelchair to utilize. There is designated accessible parking that lacks signage indicating where the accessible parking is located. There are no accessible rooms for a disabled individual to utilize to stay at the hotel. The Plaintiff, upon visiting the property, personally suffered discrimination because of his disability. The Plaintiff, and all other mobility-impaired individuals similarly situated have been denied access to, and have been denied the benefits of, services, programs and activities of the Defendant's buildings and facilities, and have otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the Defendants because of the Defendant's ADA violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair due to paraplegia. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates America's Best Hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pete M. Monismith, Esq. 1000 Main Street, #2016 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 Phone: 724-610-1881 Email: pete@monismithlaw.com DANIEL TEMPLON: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. DANIEL TEMPLON CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-09598 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by 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.templon.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 her computer. DANIEL TEMPLON CORP., operates the Templon online retail store, as well as the Templon interactive Website and physical art galleries 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 dana@gottlieb.legal DAVID SALINAS: Taft Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taft, et al., v. David Salinas, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00697 (S.D. Cal., Filed May 16, 2022), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file class certification motion. The Plaintiff must file the Motion for Class Certification by close of business Jan. 5, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.[CC] DELTA AIR: Berrin Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYANNA BERRIN, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04150-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to file the following documents designated by the Defendant as confidential pursuant to the Parties' Protective Order under seal: -- Exhibit 60 is a true and correct copy of documents produced by Delta in this matter and bates-numbered DELTA_00004357-76 -- Exhibit 61 is a true and correct copy of documents produced by Delta in this matter and bates-numbered DELTA_00003848-72. -- Exhibit 62 is a true and correct copy of documents produced by Delta in this matter and bates-numbered DELTA_00003810-11. Plaintiff additionally seeks to file. -- An unredacted Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Class Certification which incorporates the Exhibits marked Confidential. Delta marked every document in its production as Confidential, although it waived Confidential designations as to 12 documents as part of the meet-and-confer process which have been previously filed publicly. The Plaintiff is skeptical that Delta can meet the "compelling reasons" standard for sealing the remaining information, as statements in exhibits marked Confidential that are quoted in the brief are directly relevant to the merits of this motion. Nevertheless, Delta has the burden to provide evidence establishing why the strong presumption of public access in civil cases should be overcome here. Plaintiff also reserves its right to challenge the Confidentiality designations pursuant to the provisions of the Protective Order. On Oct. 31, 2024, the Court entered a Protective Order in this matter. Delta is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Mkx1a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Haderlein, Esq. Krikor Kouyoumdjian, Esq. HADERLEIN AND KOUYOUMDJIAN LLP 700 Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (818) 304-3435 E-mail: jhaderlein@handklaw.com kkouyoumdjian@handklaw.com - and - L. David Russell, Esq. RUSSELL LAW, PC 1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (323) 638-7551 E-mail: david@russelllawpc.com DISCOVERY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Discovery, Inc. d/b/a HGTV, Case No. 0:25-cv-04386 (D. Minn., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.hgtv.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of the Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access the Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that the Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers home improvement and design entertainment through various platforms including, but not limited to, television, magazines, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DMC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DMC Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On December 6, 2024, Samuel Garson, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "District Court") against the Company and other defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b5-1 promulgated thereunder on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 3, 2024, and November 4, 2024. In particular, the complaint alleged that the Defendants made false and misleading statements during the class period concerning the Company's business resulting in injury to the purported class members. On January 27, 2025, a second securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court by Alessandro Laurent, individually and of behalf of a putative class, asserting substantially the same allegations, but on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between January 29, 2024 and November 4, 2024. Both complaints sought certification of a class of purchasers of the Company's securities during the respective class periods and an award of damages, interest, costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) to the respective plaintiffs and class members. On February 5, 2025, the District Court ordered the two lawsuits consolidated, and on June 23, 2025, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated case filed an amended complaint adding additional allegations within the class period. On August 22, 2025, the Defendants moved to dismiss all claims in the consolidated case. DMC Global Inc. owns and operates manufacturing businesses and engineered solutions in the construction, energy, industrial processing and transportation markets. It is headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. DONALD TRUMP: Modified Case Schedule Order Entered in Thakur ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEETA THAKUR, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered a modified case schedule order as follows: Event Deadline The Defendants file oppositions to (1) Dec. 8, 2025 motion for leave to file third amended complaint and (2) motion for preliminary injunction and class certification: The Plaintiffs file replies to (1) motion Dec. 12, 2025 for leave to file third amended complaint and (2) motion for preliminary injunction and class certification: Hearing on (1) motion for leave to file third Dec. 18, 2025 amended complaint and (2) motion for preliminary injunction and class certification: Motion for summary judgment and class Mar. 9, 2026 certification and supporting papers: Opposition to motion for summary judgment Apr. 27, 2026 and class certification: Reply in support of motion for summary May 11, 26 judgment and class certification: Hearing on motion for summary judgment June 2, 2026 at and class certification: 10:00 a.m. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OJONch at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erwin Chemerinsky, Esq. Claudia Polsky, Esq. U.C. BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW Law Building Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 Telephone: (510) 642-6483 E-mail: echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu cpolsky@law.berkeley.edu - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. Nabila M. Abdallah, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com rheimann@lchb.com kbudner@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com nabdallah@lchb.com - and - Anthony P. Schoenberg, Esq. Katherine T. Balkoski, Esq. Linda S. Gilleran, Esq. Kyle A. McLorg, Esq. Donald Sobelman, Esq. Dylan M. Silva, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: tschoenberg@fbm.com kbalkoski@fbm.com lgilleran@fbm.com kmclorg@fbm.com dsobelman@fbm.com dmsilva@fbm.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Eric J. Hamilton, Esq. Joseph E. Borson, Esq. Jason Altabet, Esq. Kathryn Barragan, Esq. TRIAL ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 598-7696 E-mail: jason.k.altabet2@usdoj.gov kathryn.e.barragan@usdoj.gov DOSNER ORGANIC MARKET: Valenzuela Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dosner Organic Market, Inc. The case is styled as Ma Dela Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dosner Organic Market, Inc., Case No. 25STCV33964 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Dosner Organic is a family owned and operated grower, shipper, and distributor of organic culinary herbs and specialty produce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 DRIP DROP HYDRATION: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. DRIP DROP HYDRATION INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09600 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by 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 the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://dripdrop.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. The Plaintiff seeks a 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 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 the computer. DRIP DROP HYDRATION INC., operates the DripDrop online retail store, as well as the DripDrop 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 dana@gottlieb.legal DRYWATER INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. DRYWATER INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09632 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by 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 the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://drywater.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. The Plaintiff seeks a 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 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 the computer. DRYWATER INC., operates the DryWater online retail store, as well as the DryWater 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 dana@gottlieb.legal EASTON INVESTMENTS: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. EASTON INVESTMENTS REDUX, LLC and CABINS BAR & GRILL LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62323-AHS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. EASTON INVESTMENTS REDUX, LLC, owned and operated the commercial shopping plaza located in Deerfield Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com ECLIPSE ADVANTAGE: Arredondo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as YVONNE ARREDONDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. ECLIPSE ADVANTAGE, LLC., ECLIPSE ADVANTAGE TOPCO, INC., ECLIPSE ADVANTAGE ACQUISITION, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2504103, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03151 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and a class consisting of "[a]ll current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in the State of California within four (4) years prior to the commencement of this action." The Plaintiff's causes of action include: failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal periods, and failure to permit rest periods. Defendants Eclipse Advantage, LLC, Eclipse Advantage Topco, Inc. and Eclipse Advantage Acquisition, Inc. maintain their headquarters in Melbourne, Florida.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Anahi Cruz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: +1-213-612-2500 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2501 E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Suit Over Defective Frigidaire Gas Ranges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that certain Frigidaire gas ranges do not reach the set oven temperature due to a defect, ultimately heating to a temperature that is 25 to 30 degrees cooler than what the user inputted. The 48-page defective product lawsuit contends that the Frigidaire gas ranges, which are manufactured by Electrolux, are "unfit" for ordinary use as a result of the temperature defect, which the case says is particularly dangerous as it limits the products' ability to cook food safely and properly. Per the complaint, the afflicted Frigidaire gas ranges include, but are not limited to, model numbers GCFG3060BF, GCFG3070BF, and FPGH3077RF. The suit argues that Electrolux took measures to conceal the defect from consumers and continued selling the afflicted gas ranges despite product complaints dating as far back as 2016. According to the case, Electrolux's knowledge of the temperature problem is evidenced by its Use and Care manual, in which the manufacturer instructs consumers who see that their food is not done cooking to set the temperature 25°F higher and still cook for the suggested time. Electrolux's suggestion to simply raise the oven temperature higher, the case says, "is not a repair" and goes beyond any reasonable expectations for consumer use. Even products still under their one-year warranty are not properly addressed by Electrolux, the suit alleges, as the company "routinely decline[s] to provide Class Members warranty repairs or other remedies for the Defect." The plaintiff, a California resident, says he purchased a Frigidaire gas range for $1,098 in November 2024 and almost immediately experienced the defect. Though an Electrolux technician replaced the purportedly malfunctioning temperature probe and main control board just a few months later, the plaintiff continued to notice the oven's failure to reach the set temperature, the complaint relays. After further correspondence with Electrolux, the plaintiff was informed that he would only receive a replacement gas range if the technician deemed the current one to be "unrepairable," the complaint relays. Although the technician noted the commonality of the defect, "Electrolux considered the Frigidaire Gas Range to be working properly even though it cooks at a temperature 25 - 30 degrees below its setting," according to the case. "Electrolux knew, had reason to know, or was reckless in not knowing, of the Defect; Electrolux was under a duty to disclose the Defect based upon its exclusive knowledge of it, its representations about its products, and its concealment of the Defect; and Electrolux never disclosed the Defect to the Plaintiff or anyone at any time or place or in any manner," the complaint articulates. The Frigidaire gas range class action lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who purchased an afflicted Frigidaire range for personal use during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY: Valdivia Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Valdivia, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO., INC. (d/b/a FACTORY MOTOR PARTS), a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 0:25-cv-04390 (D. Minn., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that included Sales Spiffs bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a customer service representative from April 6, 2013 through October 9, 2025. The Defendant is a service provider and distributor of original equipment and premium aftermarket automotive parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 612-436-1800 Fax: 612-436-1801 Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and – Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Copeland Seeks OK of Sealing Procedures ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting interim administrative motion for sealing procedures in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3UP6Ta at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 devans@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 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Portable Seeks OK of Sealing Procedures ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC. et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WAL MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting interim administrative motion for sealing procedures in connection with Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs move the Court to provisionally seal the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; the declarations of Joshua P. Davis, Matthew S. Weiler, and Rosemary M. Rivas; and attached exhibits. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JWbRF6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, 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 jpollock@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 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Schuman Seeks OK of Sealing Procedures ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WAL MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting interim administrative motion for sealing procedures in connection with Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs move the Court to provisionally seal the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; the declarations of Joshua P. Davis, Matthew S. Weiler, and Rosemary M. Rivas; and attached exhibits. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4IlsiI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, 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 jpollock@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 ENVOY AIR INC: Hernandez Files Suit in W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Envoy Air, Inc. The case is styled as Yerina Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Envoy Air, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01862-ADA-ML (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Envoy Air Inc. -- https://www.envoyair.com/ -- is an American regional airline headquartered in Irving, Texas, in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com EPT SPE LLC: Alford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EPT SPE LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Alford, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. EPT SPE LLC, Case No. 25CV153558 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." EPT SPE LLC is a subsidiary of Essex Property Trust, Inc., a real estate investment trust (REIT) that owns and operates apartment communities.[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 ERIC ARMEL: Sixth Amended Case Management Order Entered in Pagan ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as XAVIAR PAGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; RONNIE E. JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; KAREEM MAZYCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; ANGEL MALDONADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND T. MONTANA BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE; et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-01516-MJH-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Brown entered a sixth amended case management order: 1. Rule 702 motions related to class-certification expert designations are due on or before Dec. 17, 2025; the Defendants' response(s) are due on or before Jan. 16, 2026; and the Plaintiffs' reply/replies, if any, are due on or before Jan. 30, 2026. 2. A Rule 702 motion should be filed separately for each expert. 3. Motions for Summary Judgment regarding the threshold issues of qualified immunity, exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and mootness shall be due on or before Dec. 17, 2025; the Plaintiffs' response(s) is due on or before Jan. 16, 2026; and the Defendants' reply, if any, is due on or before Jan. 30, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SARH54 at no extra charge.[CC] ESTEE LAUDER: Intercepts Users' Data Without Consent, Rios Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- IRMA RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01550 (E.D. Cal., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Penal Code. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of intercepting and collecting the electronic communications of its website users without obtaining prior consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about website users' electronic communications. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful business practice, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury and invasion of legally protected privacy interests. The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. is a manufacturer of cosmetics, skincare, fragrance, and hair care products based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8-1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com EUROPEAN STREET: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Drummond, and all others similarly situated v. EUROPEAN STREET, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01406 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's website, https://www.europeanstreet.com/ (the "Website"), was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 3 U.S.-based restaurants offering European-inspired cafe cuisine and an extensive craft beer selection, including the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com EVITE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile Application ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Evite, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-04364 (D. Minn., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Mobile Application (www.evite.com) (the "Mobile Application" or "Defendant's Mobile Application") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Mobile Application and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Mobile Application's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Mobile Application, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Mobile Application has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Mobile Application content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Mobile Application users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Mobile Application in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Mobile Application fail to ensure its Mobile Application is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Mobile Application content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers online invitation cards for sale including, but not limited to, holiday invitations, baby invitations, birthday invitations, wedding invitations, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com EXP REALTY: Usanovic Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY USANOVIC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXP REALTY, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00687-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the class, appointing her as class representative, and appointing Kaufman P.A. and Coleman PLLC as class counsel. The Plaintiff Usanovic seeks to certify the following class: "All persons in the U.S. who from May 10, 2019 through Sept. 30, 2023 (1) received more than one call made by eXp Realty agents (2) using a Mojo or Vulcan7 dialer (3) as a result of being obtained as a lead from Mojo, Vulcan7, RedX, My Plus Leads, or All The Leads, (4) within any 12-month period, (5) where the person's telephone number had been on the DNC for at least thirty days." Excluded from the class are persons who provided eXp their phone numbers via eXp company websites. Also excluded are persons who previously released their claims against eXp, including class members in Wright v. eXp if their claims in this case arise from calls before Sept. 30, 2021, the end of the class period in Wright. Mojo and Vulcan7 have produced call logs for the eXp agents that called Plaintiff Usanovic and that were identified in the complaint. The Plaintiff's expert Anya Verkhovskaya analyzed this sample of calls by eXp agents using a methodology that has been approved in dozens of other TCPA cases. Doing so, Ms. Verkhovskaya identified 3,929 calls to 1,471 residential numbers on the DNC that received 2 or more calls in the aggregate from eXp agents in a one year period more than 30 days after they were added to the DNC, including 3,929 calls to 1,471 residential numbers from December 15, 2021, through September 30, 2023. The Defendant is a real estate brokerage. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IbFSV8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Eric R. Draluck, Esq. 271 Winslow Way E., Suite 11647 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (206) 605-1424 eric@dralucklaw.com EXPRESS INC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09572 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.express.com, and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that both its Website and its brick-and-mortar retail stores become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Such relief is necessary to guarantee equal participation in the digital and physical marketplace and to prevent Defendant from continuing to exclude individuals with disabilities from its online retail services and its New York store, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content while using a computer or mobile device. Express is a national retailer of apparel and accessories, operating hundreds of brick-and-mortar stores nationwide, including multiple locations in the New York metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com EXSCIENTIA PLC: Campanile Securities Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that in April 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Exscientia plc, Andrew Hopkins, Ben R. Taylor and David Nicholson captioned "Campanile v. Exscientia plc," Case No. 1:24-cv-05692). In November 2024, Recursion acquired Exscientia in November 2024 as part of an acquisition. On October 7, 2025, that motion to dismiss was granted and the District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims without prejudice; permitting leave to re-file the complaint within 30 days. Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false and misleading statements regarding Exscientia's business, operations, and prospects. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs, on behalf of persons and/or entities which purchased Exscientia securities between March 2022 and February 2024. Said cases was consolidated and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2024 against Exscientia plc, Andrew Hopkins, and David Nicholson, and the Company moved to dismiss on January 21, 2025. That motion remains pending. Recursion Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company that decodes biology and chemistry to industrialize drug discovery. FEDEX GROUND: Sullivan-Blake Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Angel Sullivan-Blake and Horace Claiborne, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-16691-EP-JRA (W.D. Pa., Oct. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant on behalf of individuals who have been employed by FedEx and who have been eligible to receive overtime pay but have not been paid time-and-a-half compensation for their hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). FedEx employs thousands of package delivery drivers within the United States, including the named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, who: work for FedEx through intermediary employers called "independent service providers" ("FedEx ISPs"); are classified as "employees" of the FedEx ISPs; have worked more than forty hours per week delivering packages for FedEx but are not paid time-and-a-half compensation for hours worked over forty; and drive, in whole or in part, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. These individuals are referred to herein as "delivery drivers." By establishing a system in which FedEx employs delivery drivers through intermediary ISPs, so as to distance itself from its responsibilities under the FLSA, FedEx has acted in reckless disregard of the drivers' rights under the FLSA. FedEx has known or should have known that its delivery drivers have not been paid the overtime they are owed by the ISPs. However, regardless of FedEx's actual or constructive knowledge of this fact, it is liable for any overtime payments due to its delivery drivers who have worked under ISPs, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers for FedEx. FedEx operates a package pickup and delivery business servicing customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Interchange Fees Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fifth Third Bancorp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the payment charge interchange fee antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa, MasterCard and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 13 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement that was initially approved by the trial court but reversed by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and the Bancorp may have obligations in these matters pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a second settlement agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs' class (the "Plaintiff Damages Class") and superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion. On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final approval for the settlement, and on March 15, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed that order. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. Several of the remaining opt-out cases have now been set for a trial scheduled to commence on April 20, 2026 in the matter of Target Corp. et al. v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 13 Civ. 3477 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.). On September 27, 2021, the Court overseeing the class litigation entered an order certifying a class of merchants pursuing claims for injunctive relief. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement that would resolve class claims for injunctive relief. On June 13, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the injunctive relief settlement, and on June 25, 2024, the Court issued an order denying the request for preliminary approval of the settlement. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, remains uncertain. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Bancorp reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors. The Bancorp also has a 33% interest in Vantiv Holding, LLC. FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Klopfenstein Class Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Klopfenstein class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. In 2013, four similar putative class action lawsuits were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country. Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $440 million, plus prejudgment interest. On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 29, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgement on plaintiffs' TILA claim, with statutory damages capped at $2 million plus costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract proceeded to trial and on April 27, 2023 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Bank, finding a breach of contract, but that the voluntary payment doctrine is a complete defense to the breach of contract claim. On September 30, 2024, the trial court issued a decision denying post-trial motions related to the jury verdict. On October 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on November 7, 2024, Fifth Third filed a notice of cross appeal. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Bancorp reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors. The Bancorp also has a 33% interest in Vantiv Holding, LLC. FRONTENAC PROPERTY: Mellenthin Sues Over Physical Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Mellenthin, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FRONTENAC PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01692 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has previously visited this Property on one previous occasion and has avoided shopping here because of the barriers to access that are currently present. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Woody's, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase services as a return customer of the Defendants' as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access. As such, Plaintiff is deterred from returning as a customer until the barriers to access identified in this Complaint are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. FRONTENAC PROPERTY OWNER, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Missouri and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com FUJI HANA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lin et al., v. Fuji Hana Restaurant Corp et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03832-NCM-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the current briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class action as follows: 1. The Defendants' deadline to file opposition extended from Dec. 1, 2025, to, through and including, Dec. 15, 2025; and 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply extended from Dec. 8, 2025 to, through and including, Dec. 29, 2025. This is the first request of its kind. If granted, the instant request would not affect any other Court deadlines. Prior to making the instant request the undersigned contacted Plaintiff's counsel to obtain their position. However, Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to the undersigned’s meet and-conferral attempts. Thus, Plaintiff has neither consented to, nor objected to, the instant request. The basis of the request is that the undersigned law firm has limited availability the weeks of November 24, 2025, and December 1, 2025, due to the Thanksgiving holiday, and due to other conflicting obligations arising out of a pending matter before the Honorable Judge Reginald A. Boddie, in a case pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. Fuji Hana is an authentic Japanese restaurant. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JbEbP2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2458 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com FUTURE PLASTERING: Virgen-Navarrete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Plastering, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alfredo Virgen-Navarrete, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Future Plastering, Inc., Does 1 to 10, Case No. 25CV027810 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Future Plastering Inc. is a Specialty Contractor that serves the Sacramento, California area and specializes in Masonry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Gutierrez Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gemstone Supermarkets, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Milton Gutierrez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Gemstone Supermarkets, Inc. doing business as: Holiday Farms; David Mandell, individually; Vito Sansota, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-06365-JMW (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Gemstone Supermarkets Inc. was founded in 1982. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of a range of canned foods and dry goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Ste. 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 Email: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com - and - Ryan Riger, Esq. 25 River Drive S, Apt 406 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (248) 904-6584 Email: rxr@employmentlawyernewyork.com GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Gutierrez Sies Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Milton Gutierrez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS, Inc. d/b/a HOLIDAY FARMS, and DAVD MANDELL, individually, and VITO SANSOTA, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-06365 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"). Throughout his employment, regardless of title or location, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis at his regular rate for each hour that he worked, and thus Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at his overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for the hours that he worked over forty in a week, in violation of the FLSA's and the NYLL's overtime provisions. The Defendants further violated the NYLL by failing to furnish Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement on each payday or with any wage notice at the time of his hire, let alone an accurate notice, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants. The Defendant is a New York corporation that operates at least eight supermarkets in New York, its owner, and its day-to-day deli manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Ryan S. Riger, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Cert Opposition Continued to Feb. 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Huie entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend the hearing date on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and corresponding briefing deadlines as follows: 1. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to Feb. 6, 2026. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of her motion for class certification is continued to Feb. 13, 2026. 3. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is vacated subject to resetting at a later date. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BlSWK6 at no extra charge.[CC] GIORGIO ARMANI: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Hearing Date -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1) continuing the hearing date on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Feb. 20, 2026; (2) continuing the deadline for the Defendant to file its opposition to Feb. 6, 2026; and (3) continuing the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her reply to Feb. 13, 2026. The Parties agree that they will each be severely prejudiced, and On Nov. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products including apparel, accessories, eyewear, watches, jewelry, and home interiors. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VsMqDo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. Maia Mdinaradze, Esq. Daniella J. Lee, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com Maia.Mdinaradze@jacksonlewis.com Daniella.Lee@jacksonlewis.com GLOBAL LOGIC INC: Coutinho Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Logic Inc. The case is styled as Adam Coutinho, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Logic Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-09901-VKD (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. GlobalLogic -- https://www.globallogic.com/ -- a Hitachi Group Company, is a trusted digital engineering partner to the world's largest and most forward-thinking companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com GLOBALLOGIC INC: Magnusson Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Magnusson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GLOBALLOGIC INC. and ORACLE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01868 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. Oracle stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about GlobalLogic's current and former employees. But such PII was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former employees' private information was exactly that—private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. GlobalLogic is a multinational engineering firm based in Santa Clara, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Secret AI Email Scanning ----------------------------------------------------------------- I. Roy, Esq., writing for WESTLAW TODAY, reports that Google LLC quietly activated its Gemini AI "Smart features" for all users across Gmail, Chat and Meet -- letting the company scan users' private communications without clear notice or consent, according to the class-action lawsuit, Thele v. Google LLC, No. 25-cv-9704, complaint filed, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2025). User Thomas Thele's complaint, filed Nov. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says Google is using Gemini, its artificial intelligence program, to access and exploit users' private communications and activity, including every email and attachment sent and received in their accounts. While Google used to present Gemini-powered "Smart features" as optional tools that users could enable for a personalized experience, this policy changed Oct. 10 when the company turned on the features by default across all Gmail, Chat and Meet users' accounts, the suit says. The change allows Gemini to scan and analyze emails, attachments, messages and conversations on the three messaging platforms without users' knowledge, the complaint says. Google did not provide meaningful notification of this change, Thele says. Instead, Google users need to discover the change themselves, navigate to their account settings, find the "Data privacy" control and manually disable "Smart features," the suit says. According to the complaint, the language in Google's interface is misleading. Although the "Smart features" setting has been on by default since Oct. 10, the interface still presents it as an "opt in" feature, falsely implying that consent is required for activation, the suit says. The content gained by activating Gemini can now be combined with existing data profiles Google maintains on individual users, allowing for cross-referencing of sensitive message content with vast amounts of behavioral and account data, the complaint says. These actions lead to "unlimited analysis" of users' private lives, enabling Google to gain insights into users' social circles, work activities and personal habits, the suit says. The complaint argues that this intrudes upon the privacy expectations most people have when using these communication tools. More than 130 million Americans use Gmail, so these actions have a significant impact, the suit says. The complaint argues that Google's actions are "outrageous," "deceptive" and "unethical," especially for a company whose business model is predicated on commercializing personal data. Thele, represented by attorneys from Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, seeks to represent a nationwide class of all people with Gmail, Chat and Meet accounts whose private communications were tracked by Gemini AI after Google turned on their "Smart features" account settings. The lawsuit alleges Google's conduct violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 630; the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 502; the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2701; and California's Constitutional Right to Privacy law, Cal. Const. art. I, Sec. 1. It also asserts a claim for intrusion upon seclusion. The suit asks for an order certifying the class, equitable and injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest. [GN] HILL HOUSE HOME: Cordoba Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill House Home Inc. The case is styled as Britany Cordoba, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hill House Home Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08589-PAE-SDA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hill House Home -- https://www.hillhousehome.com/ -- is a digital-first lifestyle brand that brings beauty and joy to every day rituals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JON L. NORINSBERG, ESQ., PLLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 791-5396 Fax: (212) 406-6890 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com rschonfeld@employeejustice.com HISENSE USA: Abi-Chahine Sues Over False and Deceptive Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------ Omar Abi-Chahine, Derek Faith, and Stephen Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HISENSE USA CORPORATION, Case No. 4:25-cv-09960 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought on behalf of a Class of similarly situated owners of certain Hisense televisions that were advertised as including quantum dot light-emitting diode ("QLED") technology, arising from Hisense's false and deceptive advertising regarding the QLED technology within Hisense televisions marketed as containing QLED--sometimes also called "QD"--technology. In particular, despite advertising that certain models of its televisions contained QLED or QD technology, those televisions did not actually contain QLED or QD technology, or otherwise contained the technology in such negligible amounts as to fail to meaningfully contribute to the performance or display output of the television, thereby making the presence of QLED technology functionally irrelevant to the performance or display of the television (collectively, the "QLED Deficiency") despite being advertised as having such technology. Hisense has been aware that its QLED televisions do not have the advertised QLED technology (or include negligible amounts of the technology as to not provide the advertised benefits). Notwithstanding its knowledge, Hisense continues to advertise that certain of its QLED televisions have QLED technology when they, in fact, do not contain QLED technology or include the technology in such negligible amounts as to not provide the advertised benefits. Through conduct, Hisense engages in unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent conduct with the intent to deceive the consuming public. As a result of Hisense's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of Hisense QLED televisions, including Plaintiffs, have suffered ascertainable losses. The unfair and deceptive practices committed by Hisense were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances. Had Plaintiffs and other Class Members known that the QLED televisions did not contain QLED technology or contained the technology in such negligible amounts as to not provide the advertised benefits, they would not have bought the Hisense QLED televisions, or else would have paid substantially less for them, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased new Hisense televisions for personal use. Hisense is one of the leading sellers of televisions in the United States and in the second quarter of 2024 was second only to Samsung in US television sales.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam A. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-9000 Email: agold@tzlegal.com HIXSON HOLDINGS INC: Rumping Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hixson Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Rumping, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hixson Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00845-JPH (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Hixson -- https://hixson-inc.com/ -- is a full-service design and engineering firm partnering with many of the world's most well-recognized brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 119 E Court Street Ste., 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com HOME DEPOT: Bedoy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------- The case styled as EVA BEDOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. CVRI2505278, 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 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03144 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for: violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); breach of contract; conversion; common count for money had and received; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff alleges that she visited a Home Depot store and attempted to redeem for cash a gift card with a remaining balance of less than $10, but that defendant's associate refused the request. The Plaintiff claims that, in doing so, defendant's actions were not in compliance with California Civil Code which states that "any gift certificate with a cash value of less than $10 is redeemable in cash for its cash value" and that defendant thereby violated California's CLRA and UCL. The Plaintiff also asserts that defendant's actions give rise to common law claims for breach of contract, conversion, and money had and received. The contract claim is based on an allegation that Home Depot promised plaintiff and class members that if they "visit one of its stores and purchase items using the Gift Cards, Defendant will provide cash to the Gift Card holder should the remaining balance fall below ten dollars." As such, plaintiff brings her action on behalf of all other California consumers "who possess or possessed a Home Depot Gift Card with a balance less than ten dollars." The Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, punitive and exemplary damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a retail office equipment, home improvement & hardware retail, and retail company located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq. Raymond J. Muro, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 E-mail: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com raymond.muro@nortonrosefulbright.com HP HOOD: Purnell Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Reginald Eugene Purnell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HP HOOD, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV027053 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought against Defendants for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code (“PAGA”) stemming from Defendants’ failure to pay proper compensation. The Defendants’ failure to pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a forklift operator and shipping employee during the statutory period. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Sacramento County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Hyunjin Kim, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com hkim@moonlawgroup.com HUMANA INC: Mismanages Retirement Savings Plan, Smith Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN SMITH, on behalf of herself, and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Humana Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. HUMANA, INC., THE HUMANA RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00727-GNS (W.D. Ky., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty of prudence, breach of anti-inurement provision, prohibited transactions, and failure to monitor in violation of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act. The case arises from the Defendants' disloyalty and imprudent process for allocating and exhausting forfeited Plan funds. According to the complaint, the Defendants consistently chose to allocate Plan participant forfeited funds without considering what would be in the Plan participant's best interest, exclusively to reduce company contributions to the Plan, when on many occasions, these funds would have benefitted Plan participants more if they were applied to reduce or eliminate the amounts charged to Plan participants as administrative expenses. The Defendants also failed to promptly exhaust tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of forfeitures at each respective year's end, choosing to leave funds untouched rather than using them to pay Plan expenses or otherwise to benefit the Plan participants. As a result of these breaches in fiduciary duty, the Plaintiff and the proposed class suffered losses of millions of dollars, says the suit. Humana, Inc. is a health insurance company headquartered in Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex C. Davis, Esq. ALEX DAVIS LAW OFFICE PSC 445 Baxter Ave., Suite 275 Louisville, KY 40204 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 Email: alex@acdavislaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@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 - and - Gabriel Mandler, Esq. Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Ave Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com omer@edelsberglaw.com HUT 8: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hut 8 Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February and March 2024, two purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The two class actions were consolidated into In re Hut 8 Corp. Securities Litigation, case number 24-cv-00904 (VM), and a lead plaintiff was appointed on April 19, 2024. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on June 14, 2024. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 2, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 16, 2025, the lead plaintiff opposed the motion. On February 18, 2025, the defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss. On September 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision, dismissing all fraud-based Exchange Act claims and most Securities Act claims, leaving two Section 11 and Section 15 claims tied to King Mountain disclosures. The Company filed its answer on October 24, 2025. The Company disputes the claims in these cases and intends to vigorously defend against them. Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data mining company.[BN] HYUNDAI AUTO: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Gretchen Benedettini filed a class action lawsuit against Hyundai Auto Ever America LLC. Why: Benedettini claims Hyundai Auto Ever America failed to properly secure and safeguard the PII of 2.7 million individuals. Where: The Hyundai data breach class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Hyundai Auto Ever America of failing to properly secure and safeguard the personal identifying information (PII) of 2.7 million individuals that was compromised in a data breach. Plaintiff Gretchen Benedettini claims Hyundai Auto Ever America was aware of the data breach in March but did not notify impacted individuals until the end of October. Hyundai Auto Ever America is the in-house information technology and software company for Hyundai Motor Group, which owns the Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis car brands, according to the Hyundai data breach class action. Benedettini argues Hyundai Auto Ever America collected and maintained certain personal information of the individuals impacted by the Hyundai data breach. "Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed in the Hyundai data breach," the Hyundai data breach class action says. Lawsuit: Hyundai data breach compromised names, Social Security numbers Benedettini claims the personal information compromised in the Hyundai data breach included full names, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers. Benedettini argues Hyundai Auto Ever America is responsible for the Hyundai data breach, which she claims was a direct result of the company's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personal information. "Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless manner," the Hyundai data breach class action says. "In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks." Benedettini claims Hyundai Auto Ever America is guilty of negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, consequential, and nominal damages for herself and all class members. Hyundai is currently facing another class action for allegedly failing to disclose a brake defect in Palisade vehicles that it knew about in pre-production testing. The plaintiff is represented by Kristen Lake Cardoso of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. The Hyundai data breach class action lawsuit is Gretchen Benedettini v. Hyundai Auto Ever America LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02561, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] I.Q. DATA: Rowe Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN ROWE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025LA001451 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful attempts to collect a consumer debt from the Plaintiff, originally for an Ellyn Crossing IL account. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was surprised to see the said debt on his credit report. The Plaintiff was also denied the opportunity to dispute the debt with IQ Data and have that dispute reflected on his credit report. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff has been harmed, says the suit. I.Q. Data International, Inc. is a debt collection agency located in Springfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liam M. Hayden, Esq. Todd A. Deger, Esq. HD LEGAL, LLC 875 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 647-7813 Email: lhayden@hd-legal.net INNOVATE FOOD: Victor Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------ Zephyrin Victor, and all others similarly situated v. Innovate Food Group LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62327-AHS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's website, https://www.ferraroskitchen.com/ (the "Website"), was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a U.S.-based restaurant specializing in Southern American cuisine, wood-grilled dishes, and Louisiana-inspired comfort food, the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com INTERACTIVE MEMORIES: Kelley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Joseph Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Interactive Memories, Inc. doing business as: MixBook, Case No. 25-00002-26946-9-SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02031-JLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Interactive Memories, Inc. doing business as Mixbook -- https://www.mixbook.com/ -- offers unrivaled designs for remarkably crafted photo books and other personalized photo products, all 100% customizabl.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone (503) 241-8521 Email: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone (310) 656-7066 Email: jonas@dovel.com vivek@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Roman D. Hernandez, Esq. CABLE HUSTON LLP 1455 SW Broadway, Ste. 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 224-3092 Email: rhernandez@cablehuston.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Sermeno Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as JOSUE SERMENO, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2025-01514573-CU-0E-CXC, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court of the State of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-2610 to the proceeding. The complaint purports to assert nine categories of labor code and wage order violations against the Defendant. The Complaint seeks penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for Labor Code violations including 1) failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages; 2) failure to provide meal periods and/or pay meal premiums; 3) failure to permit rest breaks and/or pay rest premiums; 4) failure to timely pay wages during employment; 5) secret payment of lower wages; 6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; 7) failure to timely pay wages at time of termination; and 8) "civil penalties." International Paper Company is a leading global manufacturer of paper and packaging products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron F. Olsen, Esq. Jeffrey M. Nellis, Esq. Alexander A. Schindler, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 E-mail: aolsen@fisherphillips.com E-mail: jnellis@fisherphillips.com E-mail: aschindler@fisherphillips.com ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Cooper Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Antoine Cooper, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ITS TECHNOLOGIES & LOGISTICS, LLC (a/k/a CONGLOBAL), an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-14092 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $29.00. In addition to the base rate of pay, the Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary compensation into its payment structure. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that included Safety Allowance bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As non-exempt employees, the Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from February 17, 2021 through September 17, 2025. The Defendant specializes in intermodal rail terminal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Dec. 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA CAREY, et al., v. J.A.K.'S PUPPIES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02095-WLH-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order granting stipulation amending briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1. The deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended to Dec. 5, 2025. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion is extended to Dec. 19, 2025. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion is continued to Jan. 9, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9B. The Defendant is a dog broker. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PJLAzN at no extra charge.[CC] JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANT: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANT, LP, Case No. 2:25-cv-01997-GMB (N.D. Ala., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). According to a letter sent to Data Breach victims (referred to herein as the "Breach Notice"), cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network from July 24, 2025, through August 10, 2025. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach 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 Sensitive Information. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's Sensitive Information in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, Defendant's current and former employees' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. Jack's is a fast-food restaurant chain with over 250 locations in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PTTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com JAGUAR LAND: Class Action Settlement in Flynn Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORETTA FLYNN-MURPHY, et al., V. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERJCA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-14464-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. The Court finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied and certifies solely for the purpose of effectuating the Settlement the following Settlement Class pursuant to the Settlement Agreement: "All Persons who, as of the date of the execution of the settlement agreement, are current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle sold and registered in the District of Columbia or one of the fifty (50) states of the United States ("Settlement Class")," Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court grants final approval of the Settlement on the basis that it is fair, reasonabEe, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, all Class Members, and is in compliance with ali applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and solely for settlement purposes, the Court appoints the law firms of CareHa Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C., and Seeger Weiss LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Jaguar operates as an automotive company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H6y801 at no extra charge.[CC] JAYUD GLOBAL: Lindstrom Sues Over Exchange Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Braden Lindstrom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAYUD GLOBAL LOGISTICS LIMITED; XIAOGANG GENG; ALAN TAN KHIM GUAN; LIN BAO; MENGMENG HU; FRIEDMAN, LLP; MARCUM ASIA CPAS, LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-09662 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Jayud securities between April 21, 2023, and April 30, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). This case arises from the sudden collapse of Jayud's stock in early April 2025, following a dramatic yet illusory run-up orchestrated by a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. In the weeks leading up to April 2025, Jayud's share price surged from roughly $1.00 to an all-time high of around $8.00 per share, despite no fundamental news from the Company to justify such a spike. Investigations and public reports have since revealed that Jayud used a primary vehicle for an illicit "pump-and dump" promotion scheme. Impersonators touted Jayud in online forums, chat groups, and social media posts with sensational but baseless claims to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. This sharp rise proved short-lived. On April 2, 2025, Jayud's stock price abruptly crashed by approximately 95%, well below $1.00 per share. Since then, the Company has completed a number of reverse stock splits to maintain NASDAQ listing compliance. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in its securities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Jayud securities during the Class Period. The Defendants provide a range of worldwide cross-border supply chain solution services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: smasson@scott-scott.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Mollie Chadwick, Esq. 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com mchadwick@scott-scott.com - and - Tom Grady, Esq. GRADYLAW 720 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34102 Email: tgrady@gradylaw.com JEGS AUTOMOTIVE: Discovery in Meyer Due July 31, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA MEYER, v. JEGS AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00974-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order: Any initial disclosures shall be made by Dec. 16, 2025. Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by Mar. 18, 2026. If the case is a class action, the parties agree that the motion for class certification shall be filed by Aug. 18, 2026. All discovery shall be completed by July 31, 2026. The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by Jan. 15, 2026. The Defendants shall respond by Jan. 31, 2026. This is a putative class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c) by initiating telephone solicitations via text message to Plaintiff's residential telephone number without his prior express consent, and while his telephone number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, which Defendant denies. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and certification of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals. There is a jury demand. JEGS is a retailer and distributor of automotive aftermarket parts and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tk1kiY at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN PAUL: Heagney Seeks to Lift Stay of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL HEAGNEY, RICA GUERRERO, KERRIE GONNELLA, JOHN ROHLOFF, and JEWEL RULE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to lift stay in order to: (1) move to dismiss certain plaintiffs without prejudice, and (2) supplement class certification record This litigation is currently stayed pending a resolution of the Defendant's appeal of this Court's class certification order. John Paul is an American manufacturer of hair care products and styling tools. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0b69p2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Michella A. Kras, Esq. E. Tory Beardsley, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonarda@hbsslaw.com michellak@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com shanas@hbsslaw.com JUAN BALTASAR: Gutierrez Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NESTOR ESAI MENDOZA GUTIERREZ, for himself and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. JUAN BALTASAR, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, Aurora, Colorado, in his official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02720-RMR (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Rodriguez entered an order granting in part the Petitioner's motion for class certification. The Court conditionally certifies the following class for purposes of Petitioner's declaratory judgment claim for relief: "All people who are arrested or detained by Respondents in Colorado pending a decision on whether they are to be removed from the United States based on alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of an Immigration Court located in Colorado, where: (a) For the person's most recent entry into the United States, the government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the United States; (b) For the person's most recent entry into the United States, the person was not paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry; (c) The person is not a person whose most recent arrest occurred at the border while they were arriving in the United States; and (d) The person is being detained based on Respondents' assertion that they are subject to 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Court denies without prejudice to certify the class for Petitioner's vacatur claim for relief under the APA. The Court appoints Plaintiff-Petitioner Nestor Esai Mendoza Gutierrez as the class representative for the conditionally-certified class. The Court's previous order enjoining Respondents from removing the putative class he had originally proposed to represent from the United States or transferring them from the District of Colorado during the pendency of this action, is modified to apply only to members of the class defined above. The parties are ordered to brief the merits in accordance with the agreed schedule ECF No. 44 at 2. Petitioner's opening brief is due November 24, 2025. Respondent's response is due December 8, 2025. Petitioner’s reply is due December 15, 2025. The Defendants include ROBERT GUADIAN, Director of the Denver Field Office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; SIRCE OWEN, Acting Director for Executive Office of Immigration Review, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AURORA IMMIGRATION COURT; and, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MARK BOWEN, Acting Warden. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkOp7s at no extra charge.[CC] KELLY SERVICES: Ruiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly Services Global, LLC. The case is styled as Raul Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, Case No. TK-CV-UOE-2025-0017023 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Kelly Services, Inc. -- https://www.kellyservices.com/ -- is an American multinational office staffing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 112 S. Church St. Lodi, CA 95240-3501 Phone: 209-477-3833 Fax: 209-473-4818 Email: jbaysinger@mayallaw.com KEURIG GREEN: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-mc-02542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Broderick entered an order denying the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased at least one branded single serve cup, called a K-Cup, from the Defendants Keurig Green Mountain Inc., Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc., and Keurig Incorporated from Oct. 1, 2012, to present. The Plaintiffs encounter the same obstacle that stood in the way of certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, which is that they cannot prove classwide antitrust injury or an imminent threat of classwide antitrust injury. As "plaintiffs have provided no methodology by which antitrust injury could be proven on a classwide basis, antitrust injury will thus have to be proven on an individual basis for a class member to be afforded injunctive relief.” Freeland, 238 F.R.D. at 156–57. Thus, the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show that an injunction "would provide relief to each member of the class." On May 24, 2021, the DPPs moved to certify the following class (Direct Purchaser Class): All persons or entities that purchased between October 1, 2012 and the date on which the Court certifies the Class at least one branded coffee K-Cup directly from Keurig. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their employees, affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries; persons or entities that paid tolling fees to Keurig and did not otherwise purchase K-Cups directly from Keurig; as well as all federal governmental entities and instrumentalities of the federal government, states, and their subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. On Feb. 11, 2014, TreeHouse filed a complaint against Keurig alleging antitrust and related violations in the Southern District of New York. Keurig manufactures and sells single-serve beverage brewers, as well as portion packs, the disposable pods that are inserted into single-serve brewers to make coffee and other beverages in individual quantities in under a minute. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9RgdwO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael M. Buchman, Esq. John A. Ioannou, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC New York, NY - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. Meegan Hollywood, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP New York, New York The Defendant is represented by: Lev Dassin, Esq. George S. Cary, Esq. Leah Brannon, Esq. Elaine Ewing, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP New York, NY - and - Wendelynne Newton, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Pittsburgh, PA KEVIN COPPINGER: Court Stays Class Certification Briefing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caron, et al., v. Kevin Coppinger, Case No. 1:25-cv-11075 (D. Mass., Filed April 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge George A. Otoole, Jr. entered an order granting joint motion to stay class certification briefing. -- Responses due by Feb. 5, 2026. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] KIPS BAY HOSPITALITY: Manzano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Rogelio Lopez Manzano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KIPS BAY HOSPITALITY LLC (d/b/a TARA ROSE RESTAURANT BAR), KEVIN DOHERTY, and CONOR FOX, Case No. 1:25-cv-09660 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Lopez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Lopez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Lopez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. the Complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Lopez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control an American restaurant/bar, located in New York City under the name "Tara Rose Restaurant Bar."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 KLA CORPORATION: Benedetti Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Arrigo Benedetti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLA CORPORATION, Case No. 5:25-cv-09882 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 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. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring the 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. A wide variety of PII was involved in the Data Breach, including names, contact information, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff's PII is available on the Dark Web as a result of the Data Breach. The Defendant knowingly obtained sensitive PII and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their PII to the Defendant if they had known that Defendant would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII was exposed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Defendant's data security policies and practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a former employee of the Defendant, last employed by the Defendant in 2008. The Defendant develops and supplies technology and equipment that accelerates the use of electronic devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com KNOTTY TIE: Faces Wood Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNOTTY TIE CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13865 (N.D. Ill., November 12, 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://www.knottytie.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, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some 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. Knotty Tie Co. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law KOHL'S INC: Stockwell Privacy Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANIEL STOCKWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOHL'S, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV30630, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11220 to the proceeding. In this action, the Plaintiff contends that Defendant employed tracking pixels on its website, tracking customers' journeys across the web, eavesdropping on their conversations, and bombarding them with targeted advertising, and that Plaintiff's personal information was shared with TikTok and other third-party social media companies. The Plaintiff alleges this this violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and seeks to represent a class defined as "[a]ll California citizens who visited Defendant's Website while physically in California and whose personal information was shared with the Tracking Entities or other third parties by Defendant without effective and informed prior consent." Kohl's, Inc. operates as a specialty online retailer. It offers clothing, shoes, home, kitchen, bedding, and toys to customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca B. Durrant, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (212) 808-7551 E-mail: rdurrant@kelleydrye.com - and - Whitney Smith, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 E-mail: wsmith@kelleydrye.com KRISTI NOEM: Court Dismisses Ramos Suit w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fernandez Ramos v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-22674 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order dismissing case without prejudice. The case is closed and all pending deadlines are terminated , and any pending motions are denied as moot. On July 28, 2025, the Court stayed the case pending the resolution of the class-certification motion in Echazabal-Verdecia v. Noem , No. 25-cv-22335 (S.D. Fla. 2025). The nature of suit states Immigration Actions. Kristi Noem is an American politician serving since 2025 as the 8th United States secretary of homeland security.[CC] LAKEVIEW NEUROREHAB: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tawana Kennedy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW NEUROREHAB CENTER MIDWEST, INC. Case No. 2:25-cv-01834 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of Cook in September 2022. The Defendant is a healthcare entity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com LAND STATION: Sawyers Files TCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Land Station. The case is styled as Laken Sawyers, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. The Land Station, Case No. 1:25-cv-01054 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 19, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan P. Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY PLLC 1213 W. Morehead St., Suite 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Phone: (704) 741-9399 Email: ryan@ryanpduffy.com LAS PRINCESAS: Hernandez Seeks to Certify Two Settlement Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALBERTO HERNANDEZ LARA, ISMAEL LORENZO PEREZ, LEONEL SANTIAGO GOMEZ, and URIEL HERNANDEZ ESPINOZA, v. LAS PRINCESAS CORPORATION, MARTHA ZEFERINO JOSE, and THE TANKARD NURSERIES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00346-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Finally certifying two settlement classes: Las Princesas Class: "All individuals who were brought to the U.S. by the Defendant Las Princesas to perform agricultural work under H- 2A contracts in the U.S. between May 29, 2021, and Sept. 9, 2024." Tankard Class: "All individuals who were brought to the U.S. as H-2A workers by the Las Princesas Corporation and/or Martha Zeferino Jose and who performed work for The Tankard Nurseries Inc. between May 29, 2021, and the present." 2. Granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendants Las Princesas Corporation and Martha Zeferino Jose; 3. Granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant The Tankard Nurseries Inc.; 4. Approving the settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims of the Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs; 5. Approving a two-part first distribution of funds to class members; 6. Approving service awards of $2,500 to each named Plaintiff; 7. Awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $60,000 and costs in the amount of $25,056.05 to the Plaintiffs' counsel.[CC] A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d7mCEA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel C. McFarland, Esq. Marissa L. Baer, Esq. Jason B. Yarashes, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone: (434) 977-0553 Facsimile: (434) 977-0558 E-mail: rmcfarland@justice4all.org marissa@justice4all.org jasony@justice4all.org - and - Carol Brooke, Esq. Clermont Ripley, Esq. NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 856-2144 Facsimile: (919) 856-2175 E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org clermont@ncjustice.org - and - Patricia Kakalec, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 Facsimile: (646) 759-1587 E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Glen M. Robertson, Esq. WOLCOTT RIVERS GATES 4417 Corporation Ln Suite 400 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 497-6633 E-mail: grobertson@wolriv.com - and - Susan Childers North, Esq. Jonathan W. Gonzalez, Esq. Benjamin Luke Williams, Esq. Joshua David Wilson, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 E-mail: snorth@grsm.com jwgonzalez@grsm.com blwilliams@grsm.com jdwilson@grsm.com LAST BRAND INC: Lofton Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jessica Lofton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Last Brand, Inc. doing business as: Quince, Case No. 4:25-cv-07793 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Nov. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05507 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Last Brand, Inc. doing business as Quince -- https://www.quince.com/ -- is a manufacturer-to-consumer retail platform offering high-quality, affordable, and sustainable fashion and home essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Square; 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Wertheim, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 868-0600 LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kohama v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01422 (S.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order as follows: The deadline to file a class certification motion is extended to Feb. 26, 2026. The fact discovery deadline is extended to April 30, 2026. The Court additionally sets an attorney's only Status Conference on Jan. 22, 2026, at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Brian J. White. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. LexisNexis is a data analytics provider that offers solutions for managing risk across various industries.[CC] LexisNexis is a data analytics provider. LIMITED RUN: Settlement Class in Carbone Suit Wins Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Carbone and Ryan Adkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Limited Run Games, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08861-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Choudhury entered an order conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, the following Rule 23 Class: "All persons who accessed the Limited Run Game Service in the United States and watched a pre-recorded video or purchased a video game containing a "Cut Scene" between Jan. 1, 2016 and June 20, 2025." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge and Magistrate Judge presiding over this action; (2) Limited Run Games, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Limited Run Games has a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (3) members of the Class who submit a valid request for exclusion prior to the opt-out deadline. The Plaintiffs John Carbone and Ryan Adkins, for settlement purposes only, are appointed as Class Representatives. Gucovschi Rozenshteyn, PLLC and Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for settlement purposes only, as are appointed as Class Counsel. Limited is an American video game distributor. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NPHEFp at no extra charge.[CC] LINDBERGH PLAZA: Kirchner Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Kirchner, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LINDBERGH PLAZA OWNER, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01709-PLC (S.D. Tex., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property five times before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to the Midwest Petroleum, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. LINDBERGH PLAZA OWNER, LLC is a foreign limited liability corporation that transacts business in the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com LINKSQUARES INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 1 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caicedo v. Linksquares, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-12642 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to Dec. 1, 2025, to File Class Certification Motion. Plaintiffs opening Rule 23 Brief Due Dec.8, 2025 Defendants Opening decertification brief Due Dec. 8, 2025 Defendants Opposition to Rule 23 Due Dec. 22, 2025 Plaintiffs Opposition to Decertification Due Dec. 22, 2025 Plaintiffs Reply on Rule 23 Due Jan. 9, 2026 Defendants Reply on Decertification Due Jan. 9, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). LinkSquares is an AI-powered contract lifecycle management platform.[CC] LIVANOVA PLC: Settles Consolidated Consumer Suit after Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- LivaNova PLC. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that LivaNova USA was named as a defendant in six putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in June and July 2024. Those cases were consolidated in a single action, and the plaintiffs filed against LivaNova USA a consolidated class action complaint, which asserted claims of negligence, breach of contract, and violation of various state consumer protection laws. The parties entered into mediation and agreed to a class action settlement. The class action settlement received approval from the court on April 4, 2025. The plaintiffs sought damages, equitable/injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, among other relief. LivaNova PLC is a medical technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells products and therapies in select neurological and cardiac conditions. LIVE NATION: Heckman Suit Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKOT HECKMAN, LUIS PONCE, JEANENE POPP, and JACOB ROBERTS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and TICKETMASTER LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-DSR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting application to file under seal certain documents in support of reply regarding motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs conditionally filed under seal the following documents designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC pursuant to the Protective Order: -- Exhibits 48-53 to the concurrently filed Declaration of Adam B. Wolfson; these exhibits are documents produced by Defendants and designated as either “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order. -- Exhibit 45 to the Wolfson Declaration; this exhibit contains excerpts from the deposition transcript of Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Parag Pathak, Ph.D., which references information that Defendants have designated as "Highly Confidential" and/or "Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order. -- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel, which quotes, describes, or references documents, depositions, and/or other materials designated by Defendants and non parties as "Confidential” or "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order. -- The expert Reply Declaration of Professor Parag Pathak, which quotes, describes, or references documents, depositions, and/or other materials designated by Defendants and non- parties as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GOt097 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. William R. Sears, Esq. Jennifer D. English, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com willsears@quinnemanuel.com jenniferenglish@quinnemanuel.com brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com - and - Warren D. Postman, Esq. Jessica B. Beringer, Esq. Alexios J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC Connecticut Ave., N.W, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 918-1123 E-mail: wdp@kellerpostman.com Jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com 1101 LOWELL GENERAL HOSPITAL: Maquire Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowell General Hospital. case is styled as Sarah Wedge Maquire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lowell General Hospital, Case No. 1:25-cv-13459 (D. Mass., Nov. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Lowell General Hospital is an independent, not-for-profit community hospital serving the Greater Lowell area and surrounding communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main St., 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 LUIS CLAXTON: Nettles Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------- Gemane Nettles, and other similarly situated v. Luis Claxton, and Elizabeth Claxton, and Casa Del Sabor LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06359 (E.D.N.Y., 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 Defendants inaccessible property. On March 2025, and again on November 1, 2025, 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 suffers from disability, and thereon is bound to utilizing a wheelchair for mobility. The Defendants 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 LULULEMON USA INC: Done Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emily A. Done, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LULULEMON USA INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2504689 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03060-SSS-DTB. The Plaintiff’s Complaint pleads the following eight causes of action: failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide legally compliant lactation breaks, failure to pay wages for paid sick days at the regular rate of pay, failure to pay final wages at the separation of employment, and unfair business practices in violations of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Katharine J. Liao, Esq. Eric W. Witt, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 624 2500 Facsimile: +1 213 623 4581 Email: katharine.liao@squirepb.com eric.witt@squirepb.com MARATHON REFINING: Arroyo Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANIEL M. ARROYO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV29476, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, State of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11208 to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against Marathon: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (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 pay final wages at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. Among other remedies, the Plaintiff alleges that putative class members are entitled to damages, statutory and civil penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Marathon Refining Logistics Services LLC provides crude oil and products logistics.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Tiffany Phan, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-229-7000 Facsimile: 213-229-7520 E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com BHamburger@gibsondunn.com TPhan@gibsondunn.com - and - Virginia Somaweera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1200N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-552-8500 Facsimile: 310-551-8741 E-mail: VSomaweera@gibsondunn.com MARYLAND: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 9, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFEY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the pre-certification discovery deadline and the class certification briefing schedule by 90 days and granting such other relief as the Court deems appropriate: Event Proposed New Deadline Close of pre-certification discovery: Feb. 19, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class April 9, 2026 certification: The Defendant's opposition to motion May 28, 2026 for class certification The Plaintiffs' reply in support of June 14, 2026 class certification: The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, claim, inter alia, racial and ethnic discrimination and harassment at Maryland Correctional Training Center ("MCTC"), which is a facility operated by the Division of Correction and its principal unit of State government, DPSCS. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3oFxB9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edith K. Thomas, Esq. Jeremy P. Monteiro Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ethomas@zagfirm.com jmonteiro@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Elise Balkin Ice, Esq. Sharon E. Conners, Esq. Nicole R. Young, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES 6776 Reisterstown Road, Suite 313 Baltimore, MD 21215 Telephone: (410) 585-3113 Facsimile: (410) 484-5939 (f) E-mail: elise.ice1@maryland.gov Sharon.Conners@maryland.gov MARYLAND: Class Cert Bid Filing in Alpheaus Due April 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alpheaus Bangura et al., v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Bredar entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend the discovery period and class certification deadlines. The pre-certification discovery deadline and the class certification briefing schedule are extended as follows: Event Deadline Close of pre-certification discovery: Feb. 19, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class April 9, 2026 certification: The Defendant's opposition to motion May 28, 2026 for class certification The Plaintiffs' reply in support of June 14, 2026 class certification: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dy5DDg at no extra charge.[CC] MASIMO CORP: Settlement in Vasquez Suit for Prelim OK ----------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Vasquez securities class suit settlement is subject to the preliminary approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On August 22, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed by Sergio Vazquez against the Company and members of its management alleging violations of the federal securities laws (Securities Class Action). On November 14, 2023, the Court appointed Boston Retirement System, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund-Defined Benefit Plan, and Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund-Retirement Income Plan 1987 as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2024. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and members of its management, from May 4, 2022 through August 8, 2023, disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts relating to the performance of its healthcare business and the success of the Company's legacy Sound United business. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 29, 2024. On November 5, 2024, the Court granted the motion in part, allowing the surviving claims to proceed to discovery. The parties engaged in a mediation on May 28, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the parties informed the Court that they have reached a settlement in principle. On August 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which is currently pending before the Court. Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. MAYIMBE GROCERY: Brown Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ----------------------------------------------------------- Altaune Brown, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. MAYIMBE GROCERY CORP., and 200 STANTON LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09589 (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. Mayimbe is a domestic business corporation 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 MBV-CA LLC: Tovar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MBV-CA, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alejandro Tovar, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MBV-CA, LLC, Does 1 to 100, Case No. 25CV027102 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." MBV-CA, LLC manufactures tobacco products.[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 MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Williams Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03720-EA (D. Md., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a manufacturing employee at the Defendant's manufacturing plant in Hunt Valley, Maryland from approximately August 22, 2022 to July 16, 2025. McCormick & Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of spices and related food products based in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly E. Cook, Esq. WYLY & COOK, PLLC 1415 N. Loop W, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (713) 236-8330 Facsimile: (713) 863-8502 Email: kcook@wylycooklaw.com - and - Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com MDL 3062: Plaintiffs in Antitrust Suit Seek Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-MD-3062-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following classes: -- Rule 23(b)(3) Class: "All persons and entities in the Class States, who, at any time during the period from Oct. 27, 2018, until the anticompetitive effects of Corteva's conduct ceases (the "Class Period"), paid for a Corteva brand crop protection product that contained one or more of the following— acetocholor, rimsulfuron, oxamyl, and methoxyfenozide (the "Corteva Ais") -- for end use." -- Rule 23(b)(2) Class: "All persons and entities in the United States, who, at any time during the Class Period, paid for a Corteva brand crop protection product that contained one or more of the Corteva AIs for end use." The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Plaintiffs as representatives of the Classes; the appointment of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Korein Tillery LLC as Co Lead Class Counsel; and the appointment of Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC as Liaison Counsel for the Classes. The MDL 3062 lawsuits allege that certain crop protection companies engaged in anticompetitive practices through a "loyalty program". A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uINWoK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Jeremy Andersen, Esq. Aj Aiqiao Wood, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7345 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com ajaiqiaowood@quinnemanuel.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Margaret MacLean, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com mmaclean@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com - and - Jay J. Chaudhuri, Esq. Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. Zachary R. Glubiak, Esq. Nina Jaffe-Geffner, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 50 Fayetteville St., Suite 980 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone (919) 890-0560 Facsimile (919) 890-0567 E-mail: jchaudhuri@cohenmilstein.com meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com njaffegeffner@cohenmilstein.com - and - Carol O'Keefe, Esq. Rosemarie Fiorillo, Esq. Ian Moody, Esq. George Zelcs, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. Chad E. Bell, Esq. Labeat Rrahmani, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 N 7th St #3600, St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 E-mail: cokeefe@koreintillery.com rfiorillo@koreintillery.com imoody@koreintillery.com gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com cbell@koreintillery.com lrrahmani@koreintillery.com - and - Richard L. Pinto, Esq. Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Esq. Lyn K. Broom, Esq. PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC 3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410 Telephone: (336) 282-8848 Facsimile: (336) 282-8409 E-mail: rpinto@pckb-law.com kkyre@pckb-law.com lbroom@pckb-law.com MEISSNER MFG. CO.: Villanueva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meissner MFG. Co. Inc. The case is styled as Brenda Villanueva, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Meissner MFG. Co. Inc., Case No. 25STCV33965 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction). Meissner Filtration Products -- https://www.meissner.com/ -- is a prominent, world-leading manufacturer specializing in advanced microfiltration products and single-use systems (SUS) for the biopharmaceutical and other critical process industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Fl. Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com METRO CARE: Obaoye Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN OBAOYE, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. METRO CARE MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a ESSEN HEALTH CARE, Case No. 1:25-cv-04920-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order: (1) Conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action consisting of "current and former non-managerial employees of the Defendant, who at any time between June 11, 2022, and the present, performed any work for the Defendant as a clinical care coordinator, or in a similar role, and who consent to file a claim to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages that are legally due to them." ("potential collective action members"); (2) Requiring the Defendant, within fourteen days of the Court's Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile telephone numbers, and dates of employment of all potential collective action members; (3) Permitting the Plaintiff to disseminate to the potential collective action members the Notice of Lawsuit and Consent to Join Form in the form attached to the Declaration of Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. as Exhibits A, C, D, and E, via regular mail, email, text message, and Defendant’s cloud- based software application, and permitting a sixty-day opt- in period; (4) Permitting Plaintiff to disseminate the proposed Reminder Notice to the potential collective action members, in the form attached to the Rivera Decl. as Exhibit B, via regular mail, email, text message, and the Defendant's cloud based software application, thirty days after sending the initial Notice; (5) Equitably tolling the FLSA statute of limitations from the date on which Plaintiff filed this motion until that date on which the Court decides this motion; and (6) Granting any other further relief that the Court deems just and proper. Essen offers medical services across the Bronx and New York City. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kRxdEd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 MHC AREA 8: Mahan Sues Over Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Mahan, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. MHC AREA 8, LLC d/b/a HAVEN HOME HEALTH CARE, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-01055 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's recurrent and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid back wages owed as the result of Defendant's failure to pay all overtime wages owed. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek, but were not paid overtime premiums for their overtime hours. The Defendant's practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and those similarly situated overtime premiums for all their hours worked over 40 each workweek violates the overtime provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Physical Therapist. The Defendant is a home healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esquire, B.C.S. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: 954-327-5369 Fax: 954-327-3016 Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com MIAMI MART PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. MIAMI MART PLAZA, LLC, and LAMPARAS DISTINLAMP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-25360-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. MIAMI MART PLAZA, LLC owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property; to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property.[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 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com MINDPATH HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Mindpath Health agreed to a $3.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumers from a 2022 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals who received a notice from Mindpath Health informing them they were potentially impacted by a data breach in March and July 2022. Mindpath Health is a mental health provider that offers services in person and through telehealth. The company has locations across the country and is headquartered in California. According to a class action lawsuit against Mindpath, the company failed to protect consumers from a 2022 data breach. In March and July 2022, an unauthorized third party allegedly gained access to Mindpath's Microsoft Office 365 business email accounts, the plaintiffs contend. The data breach reportedly compromised the personal information and protected health information of thousands of patients. In the wake of the data breach, affected consumers took legal action against Mindpath, arguing the company could have prevented the breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Mindpath has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.5 million settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Mindpath Health settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount of time they spent dealing with the data breach and any losses they experienced as a result of the breach. Class members can also receive three years of credit monitoring services or an alternative cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. California subclass members can receive an additional statutory payment of $50. These payments may be adjusted depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 5, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Mindpath Health settlement is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 5, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who were identified by Mindpath as being potentially impacted by the data breaches in March and July 2022, including those who were sent a notice of the incidents in January 2023. The California subclass includes Mindpath patients who were identified as being potentially impacted by the data breaches and who resided in California at the time of one of the incidents. Potential Award Varies, but includes a California Statutory Payment of $50 Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, bills and invoices. Claim Form Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/05/2026 Case Name Lowrey, et al. v. Community Psychiatry Management LLC, Case No. 24STCV30135 Final Hearing 02/19/2026 Settlement Website MindPathSettlement.com Claims Administrator Mindpath Data Incident c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Ste 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@MindpathSettlement.com (866) 402-4105 Class Counsel Nicholas A. Migliaccio Jason S. Rathod Saran Q. Edwards MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP Thiago Coelho WILSHIRE LAW FIRM PLC Laura Van Note COLE & VAN NOTE Defense Counsel Laura Ashpole Starr T. Drum LEGAL COUNSEL COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY MANAGEMENT LLC [GN] MINOLTA BUSINESS: Cezus Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CEZUS, v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00792-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court to grant the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Konica provides management technologies and IT Services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WKjRiG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna H. Clancy, Esq. THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C. 40 Wall Street, 25th Fl New York, NY10005 Telephone: (212) 747-1744 E-mail: dhc@dhclancylaw.com - and - Sara Kaplan- -Khodorovsky, Esq. GREEN SAVITS, LLC 25B Vreeland Road, Suite 207 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 695-7777 E-mail: skaplan@greensavits.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin S. Sostowski, Esq. Richard Zackin, Esq. Bria Beaufort, Esq. GIBBONS, P.C. One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102-5310 MONSANTO COMPANY: Ford Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------ Deborah Ford, and others similarly situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-02334 (E.D. La., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto, since it began selling Roundup, has represented it as safe to humans and the environment. Indeed, Monsanto and has repeatedly proclaimed and continues to proclaim to the world, and particularly to United States consumers, that glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, create no unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Roundup in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and at other locations for decades before she was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2025. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Phone: (504) 525-8000 Fax: (833) 277-4214 Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Harris Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Douglas Harris, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-05786 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02095-DWD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM, PC 940 N. Lincoln St. Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: Awagstaff@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 645-7800 Fax: (312) 645-7711 - and - Ian Worthington Forgie, Esq. LAWSON & LAWSON LLP One Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 484-4359 Email: ianforgie@lawson2.com - and - John Backes Prior, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC 22 West Washington St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 955-0545 Fax: (312) 645-7711 Email: jprior@hmelegal.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Negligent Sale and Labeling --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Johnson, and others similarly situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-02326 (E.D. La., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto, since it began selling Roundup, has represented it as safe to humans and the environment. Indeed, Monsanto and has repeatedly proclaimed and continues to proclaim to the world, and particularly to United States consumers, that glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, create no unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was exposed to Roundup in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and at other locations for decades before she was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2025. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Phone: (504) 525-8000 Fax: (833) 277-4214 Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com MONTGOMERY LITTLE & SORAN: Crane Files Suit in D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montgomery Little & Soran, PC. The case is styled as Daniel Crane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Montgomery Little & Soran, PC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03708-SKC-CYC (D. Colo., Nov. 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Montgomery Little & Soran -- https://www.montgomerylittle.com/ -- provides comprehensive legal services in business, family law, litigation and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com MRA: Settlement Agreement in Giasson Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN GIASSON, v. MRA -- THE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00839-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement. The Court further entered an order that the Federal Rule of Procedure 23 class defined in Plaintiff's motion for class certification: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Personal Information may have been compromised in the Security Incident, including all those individuals who received notice of the breach." Excluded from the Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Litigation, and members of their immediate families; (2) Defendant, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest, and their current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. The Plaintiff Susan Giasson shall SERVE as representative of the Rule 23 class. Strauss Borrelli PLLC is appointed as class counsel of the Rule 23 class. In July 2024, Plaintiff Giasson filed this putative class action against the Defendant MRA for "failure to protect highly sensitive data" in a data breach. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BGkzX2 at no extra charge.[CC] NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Myers Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jhisaiah Myers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. County of Nassau, Case No. 2:22-cv-07023-SJB-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Certifying the Proposed Classes of (a) a class of Black and Hispanic applicants for police officer positions in Nassau County disqualified during the background investigation phase of the 2018 and subsequent hiring cycles, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), and (b) a class of Black and Hispanic applicants for police officer positions in Nassau County disqualified during the Background Investigation of the 2018 hiring cycle pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), or, in the alternative to the 23(b)(3) Class, pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4); Rule 23(g); 2. Appointing the Plaintiff Jhisaiah Myers as Class Representative pursuant to pursuant to Rule 23(g); and 3. Appointing Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; the Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington; and Newman Ferrara LLP as Co-Class Counsel. Nassau is a suburban county located on Long Island, immediately to the east of New York City. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4NmAVr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorin L. Reisner, Esq. Liza M. Velazquez, Esq. Johan E. Tatoy, Esq. B. Aubrey Smith, Esq. Maria Helen Keane, Esq. Natalie M. Pita, Esq. Alexander K. Harper, Esq. Devon B. Himelman, Esq. Omar A. Lewis, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: lreisner@paulweiss.com lvelazquez@paulweiss.com jtatoy@paulweiss.com asmith@paulweiss.com mkeane@paulweiss.com npita@paulweiss.com aharper@paulweiss.com dhimelman@paulweiss.com olewis@paulweiss.com - and - Frederick K. Brewington, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON 556 Peninsula Blvd. Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 489-6959 E-mail: fred@brewingtonlaw.com - and - Randolph M. McLaughlin, Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 E-mail: rmclaughlin@nfllp.com NATIONAL INDEMNITY: Discovery in Bailey Due June 30, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA BAILEY, et al., v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-01247-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order: Any initial disclosures shall be made by Dec. 15, 2025. Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by Dec. 30, 2025. All discovery shall be completed by June 30, 2026. Any dispositive motion shall be filed by Sept. 15, 2026. Primary expert reports must be produced by July 15, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by Aug. 17, 2026. The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by Feb. 2, 2026. The Defendants shall respond by Mar. 2, 2026. Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Restitution/Monetary Relief for alleged statewide class of 1099 Employees who were denied Auto Medical Payments Coverage by National Indemnity Company. There is a jury demand. National offers commercial auto, garage, and general liability insurance service. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SF8Vyw at no extra charge.[CC] NEUROMONITORING ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chua Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL CHUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEUROMONITORING ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02266 (D.NV., Nov. 17, 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 Chua was employed by the Defendant as a neurotechnologist. Neuromonitoring Associates, LLC is engaged in the practice of general or specialized medicine and surgery for various licensed practitioners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leah L. Jones, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LAW FIRM 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 284 -1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 Email: leah@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com prakash@nka.com copperman@nka.com NORTHEAST GROCERY: Discovery in Collins Due August 21, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gail Collins, et al. v. Northeast Grocery, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00080-DNH-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katz entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order: All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before Aug. 21, 2026. Dispositive motions are to be filed on or before Oct. 23, 2026. Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by Feb. 20, 2026. Northeast offers a retail supermarket chain with full-service grocery stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jau3C9 at no extra charge.[CC] NUMBZ LLC: Cuneo Sues Over False and Misleading Sales Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Cuneo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUMBZ LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11013 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its 7- Hydroxymitragynine ("7 OH") (the "Products") in violation of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 7-OH is an alkaloid (psychoactive chemical) found in the kratom plant (mitragyna speciosa). The plant originates from Southeast Asia where its leaves have long been ingested to produce stimulant and opiate-like effects. Use of kratom in the United States was practically non-existent until the last decade. Since then, kratom has become a massively popular substance. However, what consumers do not know is that the opiate-like effects produced by mitragynine and 7-OH are not the result of novel chemical interactions in the brain. Rather, these alkaloids behave, in part, exactly like opioids. When reasonable consumers think of opiates and opioids, they think of heroin, fentanyl, hydrocodone, oxycodone, and morphine; they do not expect that the "all natural" product bought at their local corner store operates like an opioid, with similar addiction and dependency risks. Kratom is perniciously addictive—on a whole different level than caffeine—and it has sunk its hooks into tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers and caused them serious physical, psychological, and financial harm. The Defendant intentionally and negligently failed to conspicuously disclose these material facts on its labeling, packaging, or marketing materials, and has violated warranty law and state consumer protection statutes in the process. The Defendant relies on its Products' innocuous packaging and the public's limited knowledge about kratom and its pharmacology to get users addicted, while reaping profits along the way. Reasonable consumers do not expect the tablets, which they can purchase at gas stations and corner stores, to perform like an opioid with the same addictive potential of morphine and its analogs. The Defendant relies on this ignorance and does nothing to correct it. Such activity is outrageous and is in contravention of both law and public policy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Numbz 7-OH Kratom Tablets (15 mg tablets, 300 mg bottle) on or around May 2025 at a CBD store in Georgetown, Texas. Numbz, LLC markets sells and distributes the Products throughout the United States, including in California and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com O'REILLY AUTO: Raymond Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as KHEMARI RAYMOND, an individual, ASHLEY MOORE, an individual, ISRAEL GUTIERREZ, an individual, GEOFFRY BEACH, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU048916N, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on November 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 25-CV-3238 to the proceeding. In this operative Complaint, Plaintiffs assert 13 causes of action against O'Reilly, including: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay All Wages; (4) Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due At Termination; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Employees; (7) Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses; (8) Failure to Provide Suitable Seating; (9) Violation of Labor Code section 212; (10) Violation of Paid Sick Leave; (11) Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked, Including Overtime; (12) Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and for Penalties under the Private Attorney General Act. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC owns and operates retail auto parts stores. The company provides private-label and generic automotive products for domestic and imported cars, including new and remanufactured automotive replacement parts, maintenance items, and accessories. It serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: James M. Peterson, Esq. Edwin M. Boniske, Esq. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-7910 Telephone: (619) 236-1551 Facsimile: (619) 696-1410 E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com boniske@higgslaw.com O'REILLY AUTO: Smith Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as MICHAEL SMITH and JAMES KEEFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-12367-2, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on November 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06037 to the proceeding. The complaint purports to seek relief pursuant to Washington's Industrial Welfare Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and related regulations promulgated by Washington State. Specifically, the Complaint seeks (1) compensatory damages for alleged violations; (2) attorney's fees, (3) injunctive relief; and (4) declaratory relief. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC owns and operates retail auto parts stores. The company provides private-label and generic automotive products for domestic and imported cars, including new and remanufactured automotive replacement parts, maintenance items, and accessories. It serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Suzanne K. Michael, Esq. Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Sieu Che, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-682-2308 Facsimile: 206-682-7908 E-mail: smichael@fisherphillips.com E-mail: mmacario@fisherphillips.com E-mail: sche@fisherphillips.com OMAC REAL ESTATE: Pinero Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ---------------------------------------------------- Emilio Pinero, and the others similarly situated v. OMAC REAL ESTATE, LLC, and BIRD ROAD SUBARU COLLISION & SERVICES L.L.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-25378-XXXX (S.D. Fla., 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 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 OMNI HOTELS: Banuelos Wage Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MARCO BANUELOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; OMNI RANCHO LAS PALMAS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. TC25-5807, 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 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-3141 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (5) Failure to Indemnify; (6) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (8) Unfair Business Practices. Omni Hotels Management Corporation operates hotels and resorts, offering personalized services, benefits, rewards to guests, and sensational kids programs to individuals and families. Omni Rancho Las Palmas, LLC operates a resort and spa.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ack S. Sholkoff, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Juliana C. Vallier, 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: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com juliana.vallier@ogletree.com ONCOLOGY INSTITUTE: Stacy Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCES STACY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ONCOLOGY INSTITUTE OF HOPE AND INNOVATION PATIENT SAFETY ORGANIZATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10819 (C.D. Cal., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach. 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. The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation Patient Safety Organization, LLC is a provider of specialized care to cancer patients based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com OOMA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bachhuber August 21, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, v. OOMA, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-07394-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a case management order as follows: Event Date or Deadline Last day file motion class certification: Aug. 21, 2026 Last day to hear dispositive motions: May 6, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Aug. 5, 2027 at 1:30 pm Trial: Sept. 13, 2027 Ooma is a telecommunications company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OLuOI8 at no extra charge.[CC] ORCHARDS AT TULARE: Quintero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orchards at Tulare LLC. The case is styled as Zamira Quintero, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Orchards at Tulare LLC, Case No. VCU328301 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., Nov. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited-Visalia." Orchards at Tulare LLC specialize in post-acute rehabilitation and complex care needs.[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 ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Bernal Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Orthofix Medical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bernal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On August 21, 2024, a securities class action complaint captioned Bernal v. Orthofix Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-00690, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the "Bernal Complaint"). The plaintiff, a purported Company shareholder, alleges through the complaint violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and names as defendants the Company and the following former Company directors and officers: Jon Serbousek (former director and former President and Chief Executive Officer), Keith Valentine (former director and former President and Chief Executive Officer), John Bostjancic (former Chief Financial Officer), and Patrick Keran (former Chief Legal Officer). The complaint alleges that the Company made, and the named former directors and officers caused the Company to make, materially false and misleading statements between October 11, 2022, and September 12, 2023, that, according to the complaint, falsely assured the market regarding Messrs. Valentine, Bostjancic, and Keran's respective commitments to, among other things, ethical and legal standards and corporate responsibility. The Company disagrees with the legal claims asserted in these complaints and is vigorously defending them. Orthofix Medical Inc. is a global medical technology company headquartered in Lewisville, Texas that provides medical technologies that heal musculoskeletal pathologies. ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Orthofix Medical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On September 6, 2024, a securities class action complaint captioned O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-01593, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "O'Hara Complaint"). The plaintiff, a purported former shareholder of SeaSpine at the time of the SeaSpine Merger, alleges through the complaint violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and names most of the same defendants as the Bernal Complaint, as well as certain additional current and/or former Company directors and officers. The complaint makes similar assertions to the Bernal complaint, and alleges that the Company's registration statement on Form S-4 filed in 2022 in connection with the SeaSpine Merger, as well as related written and oral offering materials, contained untrue statements of material fact and material omissions, including, among other things, with respect to the effectiveness of the Company's internal controls. On November 26, 2024, the O'Hara Complaint was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas, and on December 11, 2024, the O'Hara Complaint was consolidated with the Bernal Complaint. On April 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action, captioned In re Orthofix Medical Inc. Securities Litigation, with substantially the same allegations contained in the Bernal Complaint and the O'Hara Complaint. The consolidated case is captioned In re Orthofix Medical Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-00690 and is pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on May 15, 2025. Orthofix Medical Inc. is a global medical technology company headquartered in Lewisville, Texas that provides medical technologies that heal musculoskeletal pathologies. PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Sossman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Sossman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD D/B/A DULCICH INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01921-AR (D. Ore., Oct. 17, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a cyber incident (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. On September 29, 2025, Defendant learned of unusual activity within its network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant learned that Private Information contained in its network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party on or around June 24, 2024.3 Upon information and belief, the following types of Private Information were exposed as a result of the Data Breach: name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license or state identification, passport, financial account information, and medical and/or health insurance information. On October 14, 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 practices 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. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a family-owned seafood company, headquartered in Clackamas, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kstephens@tousley.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Dismissal of BIPA-Related Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Paylocity Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on April 22, 2025, two putative class actions alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act were dismissed with prejudice. On May 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On November 16, 2020, the first complaint was filed against the company with the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees and other costs. On September 11, 2023, a second potential class action complaint was filed against the company with the Circuit Court of Cook County that alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act that overlap with claims in the first action. Paylocity Holding Corporation is a cloud-based provider of human capital management and payroll software solutions. PCF RESTAURANT: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------ Dennis Maurer, and others similarly situated v. PCF RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-17625 (D.N.J., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff continues to encounter architectural barriers at many of the places that he visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property many times over the years his last visit to the Property occurred on August 22, 2025. The Plaintiff 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. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. The Defendants' property/place of public accommodation--a restaurant known as Pizza Hut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com PERRIGO COMPANY: French Sues Over Exchange Act Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Tanner French, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, PATRICK LOCKWOOD-TAYLOR, MURRAY KESSLER, and EDUARDO BEZERRA, Case No. 1:25-cv-09596 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Perrigo securities between February 27, 2023 and November 4, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In November 2022, Perrigo acquired Nestlé's Gateway infant formula plant in Wisconsin, along with the U.S. and Canadian rights to Nestle's Good Start infant formula brand, for $170 million. In the related press release, the Company touted the purchase as a strategic investment to expand and strengthen its U.S. infant formula manufacturing," with $110 million allotted to the purchase and an additional "$60 million to expand Gateway's 29 million pound per year production capacity." The acquisition would increase the Company's supply, as "prior to the Gateway plant purchase, Perrigo had insufficient capacity to meet consumer demand" and "was also unable to fully meet demand for contract manufacturing customers." However, on February 27, 2024, before the market opened, the Company reported fiscal year 2023 earnings, revealing significant acquisition and integration-related charges, including a purported one-time cash cost of an additional $35 million to $45 million for remediations to address production and facility issues in the infant formula business. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.87 or 15.14%, to close at $27.30 on February 27, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: that the infant formula business acquired from Nestlé suffered from significant underinvestment in maintenance, operational improvements, and repairs; that Perrigo needed to make substantial capital and operational expenditures above the Company's outwardly stated cost estimates to remediate the infant formula business; (3) that there were significant manufacturing deficiencies in the facility for the Company's infant formula business; that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results, including earnings and cash flow, were overstated; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Perrigo securities during the Class Period. Perrigo provides over-the-counter health and wellness solutions in the United States, Europe, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 914-5007 PHI HEALTH: Tow Wage and Hour Suit Removed to D.N.M. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DANA TOW, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PHI HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. D-117-CV-2025-00395, was removed from the First Judicial District Court in and for the County of Rio Arriba to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-1171 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for PHI in New Mexico for approximately 10 weeks between September and December 2022. The Plaintiff alleges she was paid approximately $32 an hour, and that she regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. She seeks recovery of unpaid overtime wages in the amount equal to 1.5 times the regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a seven-day week for herself and similarly situated PHI employees, an additional amount equal to twice the unpaid wages as treble damages, and all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action. PHI Health, LLC, doing business as PHI Air Medical, operates as an air ambulance providing company. It specializes in air medical services and outreach education to local communities and leading healthcare systems and serves patients in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeremy K. Harrison, Esq. MODRALL, SPERLING, ROEHL, HARRIS & SISK, P.A. Post Office Box 2168 500 Fourth Street NW, Suite 1000 Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168 Telephone: 505-848-1800 E-mail: jkh@modrall.com - and - Alexander M. Baggio, Esq. Amanda E. Becker, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 250 Nicollet Mall, Suite 1150 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 333-3434 E-mail: abaggio@hinshawlaw.com abecker@hinshawlaw.com PHOENIX DINING: Gonzalez Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Gonzalez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. PHOENIX DINING OF 36TH ST LLC, d/b/a Denny's of 36th St 7459, and CHARAF INVESTMENTS OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-25382-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 "Denny's of 36th St 7459" to inquire about and/or use its services and to test its compliance with the ADA and ADAAG. Due to the fact that he uses a wheelchair for mobility, 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. Phoenix Dining of 36th St, LLC, is the owner and operator of the "Denny's of 36th St 7459" restaurant.[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 PISCES BAR & TAVERN: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ------------------------------------------------------------------ Graciela Doncouse, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. PISCES BAR & TAVERN, INC., and 541 CONSTRUCTION CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-09588 (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 July 5, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises, which operates a local favorite authentic dive bar with a casual atmosphere known as "Wakamba Bar" which offers an extensive selection of uniquely designed cocktails, food, and known for offering a variety of events. The distinguished Wakamba bar is also described as a hidden gem by the late Anthony Bourdain. Defendants' Premises is less than 1.2 miles from Plaintiff's home. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step 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. Pisces Bar is a domestic business corporation 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 PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Suit for $400,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Planned Parenthood of Montana has agreed to a $400,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit over an August 2024 cyberattack that allegedly compromised consumer information. The Planned Parenthood class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 12, 2025 and covers approximately 60,402 individuals in the United States who received notice that their private information may have been impacted by the August 2024 data breach. The court-approved website for the Planned Parenthood class action settlement can be found at https://www.PPMTSettlement.com/. According to the settlement site, Planned Parenthood settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment up to $5,000. The site specifies that reimbursable losses must have been incurred as a result of the data breach and include costs related to identity theft, credit reports, credit monitoring, and ID replacement. Furthermore, class members may also submit a Planned Parenthood claim form for reimbursement for lost time spent remedying issues stemming from the data breach, at a rate of $20 per hour, for a maximum of four hours. Per court documents, class members have the option to receive cash payouts via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days after issuance before expiration. In addition to monetary reimbursement, all settlement class members are also eligible to enroll in two free years of CyEx Medical Shield Pro, which provides data monitoring for health insurance information, medical records, health savings account spending, and medical identity fraud, the settlement website adds. To submit a Planned Parenthood settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member notice ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe that they may be a class member but did not receive a settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login details. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the bottom of the second page of the document. Planned Parenthood settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 12, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Planned Parenthood settlement at a hearing on December 15, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Intermountain Planned Parenthood class action lawsuit alleged that an unauthorized party attacked the Montana healthcare provider's systems in August 2024, potentially compromising the private information of over 60,000 individuals. Per court documents, the consumer data impacted by the data breach included, but was not limited to, names, addresses, dates of birth, medical history, health insurance information, contact information and treatment information. [GN] PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Hinton Seeks to Seal Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIRLEY HINTON and HEATHER SHIPLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04529-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether plaintiffs’ materials should be sealed. The Plaintiffs here seek to seal: (1) portions of Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification; (2) the entirety of Plaintiff Shirley Hinton's deposition transcript excerpts; (3) the entirety of Plaintiff Heather Shipley's deposition transcript excerpts; (4) portions of the Report of Plaintiffs' Expert, Zubair Shafiq. These documents contain Plaintiffs' personal and sensitive health information. The information in these documents is intimate in nature and identifiable as to each named Plaintiff and is the type of information intended to be protected by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Should this health information be made available to the public, it could be used for improper purposes, such as to embarrass or defraud the named Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have also narrowly tailored their requests by seeking to seal only the documents, or portions thereof, containing Plaintiffs’ personal and sensitive health information. The Defendant is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health care. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VTIvb4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Klint L. Bruno, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. Jamie A. Robinson, Esq. Adam J. Feuer, Esq. THE BRUNO FIRM, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 321-6481 Telephone: kb@brunolawus.com E-mail: msilverman@brunolawus.com jr@brunolawus.com af@brunolawus.com - and - Bradley A. Benbrook, Esq. Stephen M. Duvernay, Esq. BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC 701 University Avenue, Suite 106 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 E-mail: brad@benbrooklawgroup.com PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Hinton Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIRLEY HINTON and HEATHER SHIPLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04529-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 22, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following proposed Damages Class and Injunctive Relief Class: "All persons who, between Sept. 1, 2022, and July 6, 2023, while in California, (1) searched for any of the following healthcare topics using the plannedparenthood.org website search bar: abortion, STD testing, birth control, pregnancy testing, hormone therapy or emergency contraception; or (2) visited any of the following plannedparenthood.org healthcare webpages for services relating to abortion, STD testing, birth control, pregnancy testing, hormone therapy or emergency contraception: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion- access https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-care/our- services/stdtesting-treatment-vaccines https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-care/our- services/birthcontrol https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get- care/ourservices/abortion-services https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get- care/ourservices/pregnancy-testing-services https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get- care/ourservices/transgender-hormone-therapy https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get- care/ourservices/emergency-contraceptive. The Plaintiffs seek the appointment of Plaintiffs Shirley Hinton and Heather Shipley as Class Representatives, The Bruno Firm as Class Counsel and Benbrook Law, PC as Liaison Counsel. The case is about Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc.'s (PPFA) unauthorized sharing of its website users’ sensitive sexual and reproductive healthcare communications with advertising and analytics giants Google and Meta without users’ consent. The proposed Damages Class and Injunctive Relief Class are properly defined and ascertainable, as the definitions are precise and class membership can be determined by objective means. Class members can be identified through a manageable process, using Meta's records or class members' supporting declarations or affidavits. Accordingly, the proposed Classes satisfy any implicit ascertainability requirement. See Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., 308 F.R.D. 231, 236-240 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014) (ascertainability met where class members were objectively identifiable, even where class membership could not necessarily be determined from class members’ own records or those of defendant). The case turns on common factual and legal issues which will be proven or disproven by common evidence. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Damages Class and Injunctive Relief Class should be certified; Plaintiffs Hinton and Shipley should be appointed as class representatives; The Bruno Firm, LLC should be appointed as class counsel and Benbrook Law, PC should be appointed as liaison counsel. The Defendant is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health care. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W4W4y3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Klint L. Bruno, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. Jamie A. Robinson, Esq. Adam J. Feuer, Esq. THE BRUNO FIRM, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 321-6481 Telephone: kb@brunolawus.com E-mail: msilverman@brunolawus.com jr@brunolawus.com af@brunolawus.com - and - Bradley A. Benbrook, Esq. Stephen M. Duvernay, Esq. BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC 701 University Avenue, Suite 106 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 E-mail: brad@benbrooklawgroup.com PORTILLO'S INC: Continues to Defend PAGA Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Portillo's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the PAGA class suit in California. On September 3, 2024, a former team member from one of the Company's two California restaurants filed a class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations and unfair competition, as well as claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). At this time a loss is reasonably possible but not estimable, and as a result, no litigation reserve has been recorded on its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 28, 2025. Portillo's Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLO) together with its subsidiaries, engages in the ownership and operation of fast casual and quick service restaurants in the United States. The company offers Chicago-style hot dogs and sausages, Italian beef sandwiches, char-grilled burgers, chopped salads, crinkle-cut French fries, homemade chocolate cakes, and chocolate cake shakes. As of September 29, 2024, it operated in 88 locations across ten states. The company also offers its products through its website. Portillo's Inc. was founded in 1963 and is based in Oak Brook, Illinois. PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO: Ade-Fosudo Suit Removed to D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Oluwakemi Ade-Fosudo, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premium Brands Opco LLC, Case No. C-13-CV-25-000956 was removed from the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Nov. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03764-ELH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Premium Brands Opco LLC is a private company that operates in the retail trade industry, specifically within the clothing and clothing accessories sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Christopher Toppe, Esq. THE TOPPE FIRM, LLC 4900 O'Hear Avenue, Suite 100 N. Charleston, SC 29405 Phone: (301) 909-2011 Email: jct@toppefirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara Louise Alpert Lawson, Esq. William J. Murphy, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 E Pratt Street, Ste. 2440 Baltimore, MD 20037 Phone: (410) 949-1181 Fax: (410) 659-0436 Email: slawson@zuckerman.com wmurphy@zuckerman.com PRIMO BRANDS: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Rosenblum Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STUART ROSENBLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMO BRANDS CORPORATION, DAVID HASS, C. DEAN METROPOULOS, and ROBBERT RIETBROEK, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01902 (D. Conn., November 12, 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 concerning the merger of Primo Water Corporation and an affiliate of BlueTriton Brands, Inc. in order to trade the common stock of Primo Water and Primo Brands at artificially inflated prices between June 17, 2024 through November 8, 2024 and between November 11, 2024 through November 6, 2025, respectively. Specifically, the Defendants concealed material adverse facts concerning the merger integration process. Contrary to the Defendants' public statements during the Class Period, the merger integration was far more "complicated and more complex" than Primo Brands led investors to believe, leading to significant problems, including technology and customer service issues that materially affected Primo Brands' ability to supply customers. When the truth emerged, Primo Brands' stock price dropped $2.41 per share, or 9 percent, from $26.41 per share on August 6, 2025 to $24.00 per share on August 7, 2025. The price of the company's common stock further declined $8.20 per share, or more than 36 percent, from a close of $22.66 per share on November 5, 2025, to close at $14.46 per share on November 7, 2025, wiping out $2 billion in market capitalization in two trading days. The Plaintiff and similarly situated investors have sustained significant damages as a result of the Defendants' misleading statements, says the suit. Primo Brands Corporation is a beverage company based in Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zezula, Esq. MOTT ZEZULA LLC 750 East Main Street, Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (203) 408-6500 Facsimile: (203) 724-4179 Email: nzezula@lmzlegal.com - and - Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Vincent J. Pontrello, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (610) 722-8500 Email: kfisch@gelaw.com vpontrello@gelaw.com PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Cai Sues Over Inadequate Safeguarding ----------------------------------------------------------- Henggao Cai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:25-cv-17684 (D.N.J., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained. On no later than November 10, 2025, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII stored on Defendant's "University Advancement" database, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII (hereinafter the "Data Breach"). Defendant has since launched an investigation to determine how its database was compromised and the impact on Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The Defendant had numerous duties and obligations, including those based on affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' PII secure including, but not limited to, adequately securing and encrypting and/or more securely encrypting its servers generally, and implementing adequate security policies to protect individuals' PII. 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 PII, yet breached its duties by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's information was stored with Defendant as a result of their dealings with Defendant. Princeton University is a private Ivy League research university in Princeton, New Jersey, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com - and - Joseph D. DePalma, Esq. Catherine B. Derenze, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: 973-623-3000 Fax: 973-623-0858 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cderenze@litedepalma.com PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Data Security Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Knapp, writing for The Jersey Vindicator, reports that a Princeton University graduate has filed a federal class-action lawsuit accusing the Ivy League institution of negligence and breach of contract after a phone-based phishing attack exposed personal data belonging to students, parents, alumni, donors, and staff members. The suit, filed Nov. 24 in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges the university failed to secure and encrypt sensitive information stored in its University Advancement database -- including birth dates, home addresses, family details, employment histories, giving records, and wealth indicators -- allegedly leaving tens of thousands of people vulnerable to identity theft and long-term financial and privacy risks. "We believe this claim is without merit, and we plan to contest it vigorously," a spokesman for Princeton University said on Wednesday. The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Gary Penna, a Massachusetts resident and Princeton alum and past donor, seeks to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose data "may have been compromised" when cybercriminals infiltrated the system Nov. 10. Princeton officials have said the breach stemmed from a targeted phone phishing attack on an employee with access to the database, and that it is working with law enforcement and outside cybersecurity experts. Allegations of negligence and a failure to meet basic standards The 63-page complaint alleges that the university collected and stored highly sensitive information, yet failed to follow basic industry norms about encryption, data deletion, employee training, and network monitoring. Penna accuses Princeton of maintaining personal data "in an unencrypted and identifiable form," failing to monitor its systems for intrusions, failing to train staff on cybersecurity protocols, and failing to delete information it no longer needed, despite warnings that universities are increasingly targeted by cybercriminals. The lawsuit argues that Princeton's centralization of alumni and donor information made individuals "foreseeable victims" of any lapse in cybersecurity. The suit devotes several pages to detailing standards from the Federal Trade Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, all of which recommend encryption, multi-factor authentication, network monitoring, and regular employee training. Princeton's alleged failure to meet those benchmarks, the complaint argues, constitutes negligence. Because universities and their donors have become high-value targets for criminal groups, the complaint says, Princeton should have been acutely aware of the danger. Breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment claims added Beyond negligence, Penna accuses Princeton of breach of implied contract, arguing that the act of enrolling, donating, or working with Princeton constitutes an agreement that the university will safeguard personal information. According to the complaint, Princeton "entered into contracts with its students, alumni, faculty, and donors to safeguard the PII (personally identifiable information) that was to be provided to it," yet failed to uphold that obligation by allowing unauthorized access and by waiting days to notify affected people. The lawsuit also includes a claim of unjust enrichment, arguing that Princeton benefited financially by underinvesting in cybersecurity while continuing to collect vast amounts of personal data from its community. By failing to spend "the costs it reasonably should have expended on data security," the university effectively enriched itself while exposing class members to risk, the filing claims. The suit argues that Princeton should now pay out those savings to help compensate victims, potentially through a "constructive trust." Risk of long-term harm Because the information accessed includes data that cannot be changed -- names, birth dates, family details, donation histories, demographic profiles -- the suit says class members now face years of heightened risk. The filing devotes substantial space to describing how exposed personal data circulates on the dark web in so-called "Fullz" packages, which combine multiple data points to allow criminals to commit fraud, open accounts, file false tax returns, or impersonate victims. It argues that stolen information "may be sold and resold in perpetuity" and that victims might not discover fraud for years. Penna allegedly spends hours each week monitoring accounts and researching the breach. The complaint seeks monetary damages for time lost, emotional distress, and the diminished value of personal data, which it depicts as a commodity with economic worth. Injunction seeks sweeping overhaul of Princeton's data practices In addition to financial damages, the lawsuit seeks court-ordered reforms, including: -- Mandatory annual third-party security audits -- Routine database scanning and monitoring -- Comprehensive employee training -- Secure deletion of unnecessary data -- Lifetime credit monitoring and identity theft protection for all affected individuals The complaint argues that Princeton "still possesses" the compromised information and that there is "no reason to believe" its current security measures are any stronger than they were before the intrusion. Data breaches at universities have grown more common in recent years, and Penna's suit notes similar incidents at Columbia, Stanford, Penn, and Georgetown. The Princeton attack comes on the heels of a major Nov. 1 breach at the University of Pennsylvania, where a group claiming responsibility posted thousands of internal files, including donor memos, family details, talking points, bank records, and other sensitive information. The group said it extracted data on 1.2 million Penn students, alumni, and donors, though university officials dispute that figure, calling it "mischaracterized and overstated." Columbia University also faced a significant incident this past summer, when a hacker triggered a days-long IT outage and accessed roughly 460 gigabytes of data, including at least 1.8 million Social Security numbers tied to faculty, staff, applicants, students, and their families. Before you go, a quick but urgent request . . . The Jersey Vindicator is fighting every day to make life in the Garden State more transparent, more accountable, and more fair. Our reporting isn't funded by corporations, political insiders, or big advertisers. It's powered by readers who believe New Jersey deserves the truth -- no matter how uncomfortable it may be for those in power. If you've made it this far in the story, you already know how vital independent reporting is in a state where transparency is steadily eroding. Our investigations have exposed problems with Trenton Water Works, uncovered failures in lead-testing programs, revealed cracks in New Jersey's public-records system, and held leaders to account when few others were watching. But we can only keep doing this work if readers who value it step up. [GN] PROHEALTH CARE: Schutte Wins Rule 23 Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA SCHUTTE, v. PROHEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to certify class under Rule 23. The following class is certified: 1. Any person or entity who either: a. requested his or her own patient health care provider records, or authorized another in writing to obtain his or her own health care provider records, from ProHealth Care, Inc.; or b. was authorized in writing by the patient to request and obtain the patient’s health care provider records from ProHealth; and 2. was charged a "paper copy" rate under Wis. Stat. section 146.83(3f)(b)1 for electronic copies of the patient's health care provider records (the Challenged Fee) by Ciox Health LLC and/or ProHealth, on or after January 29, 2015, either directly or indirectly, and 3. incurred and ultimately paid the Challenged Fee, either directly or indirectly. The Court further entered an order that Donna Schutte is appointed as class representative and Cannon & Dunphy S.C. is appointed as class counsel. The Plaintiff Donna Schutte alleges that defendant charged her, and others similarly situated, a fee to retrieve electronic medical records in violation of Wisconsin Statute section 146.83(3f). ProHealth provides healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rEktHx at no extra charge.[CC] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Privacy Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Covington & Burling LLP reports that last week, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action asserting that defendant Quest Diagnostics violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA") by employing a website pixel to track and collect data about their website activity for advertising purposes. See Cole v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., No. 25-1449, 2025 WL 3172640 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2025). The Third Circuit held that Quest was not liable under CIPA for aiding and abetting wiretapping because no wiretapping had occurred, nor under CMIA because Plaintiffs had not alleged the disclosure of protected "medical information." Plaintiffs Angela Cole and Beatrice Roche asserted that Quest, a provider of diagnostic information services, aided and abetted a third-party pixel provider's alleged interception of their medical information and communications with Quest's websites. The district court had dismissed Plaintiffs' CMIA claim, without prejudice, on the ground that the information allegedly disclosed -- reflecting only that a patient had "received and [was] accessing test results" -- was not substantive "medical information" protected by CMIA, and, as we previously reported, dismissed Plaintiffs' CIPA claim, with prejudice. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' CIPA and CMIA claims on the following grounds: CIPA – The Party Exception Applies. Applying Third Circuit precedent in In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, 806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015), the Court held the third-party pixel provider was a "party to the communication" because Plaintiffs' browsers had "sen[t] a separate message" to the pixel provider's servers "concurrent with the communications with [Quest]." Accordingly, the pixel provider had directly received the communication from Plaintiffs' browsers, and Quest did not aid or assist any interception or eavesdropping, even where Plaintiffs lacked knowledge of the asserted transmissions. CMIA – Failure to Plead Disclosure of "Medical Information." The Court further held that Plaintiffs failed to allege the disclosure of substantive "medical information" under CMIA. Drawing on federal district court and California state court precedent, the Court explained that "medical information" must relate to "medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment." While the "nature of treatment" qualifies as "medical information," the "fact that treatment occurred [does] not." Here, the Court concluded, Plaintiffs' allegation that Quest disclosed the website URL that a patient accessed to view test results amounted to, at most, an assertion that "Quest disclosed Plaintiffs had been [Quest's] patients." This was not "medical information" protected under CMIA. [GN] RB GLOBAL: Enterprise Lodging Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Enterprise Lodging of Huntsville, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. RB GLOBAL, INC., ROUSE SERVICES LLC, ROUSE ANALYTICS LLC, UNITED RENTALS, INC., UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC., HERC HOLDINGS, INC., HERC RENTALS INC., SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES INC., SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00823 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10289 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RB Global -- https://rbglobal.com/ -- is your trusted global partner for insights, services, and transaction solutions for commercial assets and vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Slossberg, Esq. Timothy C. Cowan, Esq. Julie V. Pinette, Esq. HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG KNUFF, LLC 135 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 Phone: (203) 877-8000 Email: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com TCowan@hssklaw.com JPinette@hssklaw.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Kira Q. Le, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com kqle@locklaw.com - and - Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 456-7701 Email: sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. John M. Shaw, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 933-1000 Email: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com abarnett@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com jshaw@dicellolevitt.com - and - D. Anthony Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Holmes Ave NE, Suite 100 Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: (256) 532-2222 Fax: (256) 513-7489 Email: tony@mastandoartrip.com artrip@mastandoartrip.com RB GLOBAL: Strupp Trucking Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Strupp Trucking, Inc., individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RB Global, Inc.; Rouse Services LLC; United Rentals, Inc.; Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.; HERC Rentals Inc.; H&E Equipment Services, Inc.; and Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00846 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10291 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RB Global -- https://rbglobal.com/ -- is your trusted global partner for insights, services, and transaction solutions for commercial assets and vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: 914 934 9200 Facsimile: 914 934 9220 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Shashi K. Gowda, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com REALPAGE INC: Colby Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Gerald Conway, Hayden Johnson, Melissa McGuire, Robert Rowland, Andrew Williams, Domonique Wilson, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated v. RealPage Inc, Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC, Greystar RS National, LLC, Greystar Management Services, LLC, Camden Property Trust, Camden Operating, L.P., Camden Development, Inc., Camden Summit Partnership, L.P., LivCor, LLC, Cushman & Wakefield Inc, Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC, Cortland Management, LLC, Cortland Services, LLC, Willow Bridge Property Company, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-04980 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Nov. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01347 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. RealPage, Inc. -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- is an American software company specialized in property management software for algorithmic rent setting.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Lyle McMullen, Esq. Robert C. Hilliard, Esq. HILLIARD LAW 719 S. Shoreline Blvd Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 882-1612 Email: mmcmullen@hilliard-law.com bobh@hilliard-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Collin Joe Cox, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 811 Main St., Ste 3000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (346) 718-6600 Email: ccox@gibsondunn.com RICHARD O. HARRIS: Bynum Files Suit in 11th Tenn. Judicial Dist. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RICHARD O. HARRIS, et al. The case is styled as Jayne Bynum, Fernando Berguno, Michelle Marquez, Michael D. Herrera, Jeneane M. Herrerra, Trustee of Michael D. Herrera and Jeneane M. Herrerra revocable trust, Shawn Townsend, Betty Townsend, Sharon Perry, Jeffrey Fontana, individually and others similarly situated v. Richard O. Harris, Steve Clearly, individually as partners in Skyfall Development Group, G.P., a Tennessee General Partnership, Big Whiskey Land & Cattle, LLC, Bitterroot Land & Timber LLC, First National Community Bank, Case No. 25C1397 (11th Tenn. Judicial Dist., Hamilton Cty., Nov. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Complaint."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Horton, Esq. GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, PC 101 West Big Beaver Road, 10th Floor Troy, MI 48084 ROB WOODS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Garza Due August 7, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Garza, et al., v. Rob Woods, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01310-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Tuchi entered a Rule 16 Scheduling Order: 1. To satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), the parties shall file with the Clerk of the Court a Notice of Initial Disclosure, rather than copies of the actual disclosures. 2. Motions to amend the complaint and to join additional parties shall be filed no later than Jan. 16, 2026. 3. Fact discovery shall be completed by May 15, 2026. 4. All parties shall disclose the identity of all persons whom they may call at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, 704, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid.) no later than May 29, 2026. All parties shall disclose the identity of all persons providing rebuttal expert testimony no later than June 26, 2026. 5. All discovery must be completed by July 31, 2026, including depositions of parties, witnesses and experts; answers to interrogatories; and supplements to interrogatory answers. 6. The class certification motion shall be filed by no later than Aug. 7, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zQ2YLX at no extra charge.[CC] RYDER SYSTEM INC: Mack Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Lachundra Mack, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC. and RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-25332-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendants' 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. Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and other Representatives were required to work substantial amounts of uncompensated, off-the-clock time as part of their job duties. Defendants' Representative positions typically have schedules that require employees to work at least 8 hours per day, on average 5 days each week, and 40 hours or more in a workweek. However, in some workweeks, Defendants' Representatives work less than 40 hours in a week and in other weeks they work more than 40 hours. If Defendants' Representatives strictly adhere to Defendants' baseline 40 hour schedule, the Representative schedule results in Representatives working overtime on a weekly basis. Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and the other Representatives' job duties included fielding inbound calls and performing a wide range of support services to those callers with questions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a remote Representative from June 2021 to February 2023, when she was promoted. Ryder System, Inc. is a transportation and logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Maranges, Esq. MARANGES, PLLC 2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561-210-9151 Email: chris@marangeslaw.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com S&P GLOBAL: Amended Redaction & Sealing Sched Entered in DFG ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, and SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. S&P GLOBAL, INC., AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order regarding amended redaction and sealing schedule for class certification briefing. Redacting and Sealing Defendants' papers in opposition to class certification: a. Opposition Papers Filing Deadline: Nov. 26, 2025 b. Initial Proposed Redactions: Jan. 7, 2026 c. Redaction Deadline: Jan. 16, 2026 d. Letter Motion Filing Deadline: Jan. 30, 2026 e. Response to Letter Motion Filing Deadline: Feb. 11, 2026 Redacting and Sealing Plaintiffs' Reply Class Certification Papers: a. Reply Papers Filing Deadline: Feb. 4, 2026 b. Initial Proposed Redactions: Feb. 25, 2026 c. Redaction Deadline: Mar. 4, 2026 d. Letter Motion Filing Deadline: Mar. 11, 2026 e. Response to Letter Motion Filing Deadline: Mar. 20, 2026 Redacting and Sealing Defendants' reply on any motions to exclude Plaintiffs' experts' testimony, and opposition to any plaintiff motions to exclude Defendants' experts' testimony: a. Reply and Opposition Papers Filing Deadline: Apr. 1, 2026 b. Initial Proposed Redactions: Apr. 17, 2026 c. Redaction Deadline: Apr. 24, 2026 d. Letter Motion Filing Deadline: May 1, 2026 e. Response to Letter Motion Filing Deadline: May 12, 2026 Redacting and Sealing Plaintiffs' reply on any motion to exclude Defendants' experts' testimony: a. Reply Papers Filing Deadline: April 29, 2026 b. Initial Proposed Redactions: May 15, 2026 c. Redaction Deadline: May 22, 2026 d. Letter Motion Filing Deadline: May 29, 2026 e. Response to Letter Motion Filing Deadline: June 9, 2026 S&P is a US-based company providing financial information and analytics. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AYd3mw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. Ryan A. Kane, Esq. Joshua M. Slocum, Esq. Lyndon M. Tretter, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: raranoff@wmd-law.com rkane@wmd-law.com jslocum@wmd-law.com ltretter@wmd-law.com - and - Leiv Blad, Esq. Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. Meg Slachetka, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 742-4300 E-mail: leiv@competitionlawpartners.com jeff@competitionlawpartners.com meg@competitionlawpartners.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Ave., 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. Esther Lifshitz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com asouthwell@gibsondunn.com elifshitz@gibsondunn.com - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq. Amanda L. Dollinger, Esq. Craig E. Stewart, Esq. Caroline M. Mitchell, Esq. Paul C. Hines, Esq. Michelle K. Fischer, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com cestewart@jonesday.com mfischer@jonesday.com amaugeri@jonesday.com adollinger@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. Ellison A. Snider, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com esnider@scl-llp.com - and - W. Stephen Cannon, Esq. Seth D. Greenstein, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1300 N Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 204-3500 Facsimile: (202) 204-3501 E-mail: scannon@constantinecannon.com sgreenstein@constantinecannon.com SAM'S WEST: Garcia Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CHRISTINE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAM'S WEST, INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV30629, was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11203 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Sam's West "track[s] customers' journeys on [its] Website as soon as they land on any of its webpages through its use of various tracking pixels," including "those developed by TikTok, Facebook, and Pinterest." Plaintiff alleges two violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act: one for wiretapping and one for the installation or use of a trap and trace device. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and attorneys' fees. Sam's West, Inc. doing business as Sam's Club, is a division of Walmart that operates a chain of membership-only warehouse club retail stores.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Collin J. Vierra, Esq. Jonathan Breit, Esq. EIMER STAHL LLP 1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 1025 Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone: (408) 889-1668 E-mail: cvierra@eimerstahl.com jbreit@eimerstahl.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Duardo Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE DUARDO, NICK HIBBS AND JASON DENEAU, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:25-cv-02311-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of collective action, and facilitating notice to former or current employees who may be "similarly situated" to the Plaintiffs who may choose to opt-in to the case. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees and former employees of the City pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for the improper calculation of overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of Southern California, adjacent to the Mexico–United States border. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZJZ9fN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Cunningham, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES J. CUNNINGHAM, APC 10405 San Diego Mission Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108-2174 Telephone: (619) 819-9288 The Defendant is represented by: Heather Ferbert, Esq. Jean E. Jordan, Esq. Alison P. Adema, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101-4100 Telephone: (619) 533-5800 Facsimile: (619) 533-5856 SANDOVAL'S MEXICAN: Ramos Sues Over Inaccessible Accommodations --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Ramos, and others similarly situated v. Sandoval's Mexican Food, LLC, individually and dba Sandoval's; Robert Whitehead, Trustee; Ellen Whitehead, Trustee; and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03338-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought pursuant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as a result of the actions and failure to act of Defendants, and each of them, and as a result of the failure to provide proper and accessible entryways, and accessible accommodations for a store. On October 7, 2025 and November 14, 2025 (the "Visit Dates"), Plaintiff visited the Business for the purpose of buying food and drink. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's access to the Business as set forth herein. Said acts and omissions denied Plaintiff legal handicapped access to the Business and its facilities as required under state and federal law. The Plaintiff himself encountered the architectural barriers described herein, and/or is informed and believes that the architectural barriers described herein violate the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities ("ADAAG") issued by the Department of Justice, and that they existed and continue to exist, and thereby deny Plaintiff and others similarly situated full and equal access to the Business facilities. The Defendants, and each of them, by these barriers, discriminated against Plaintiff, on the basis of his physical disability, and interfered with his access to the Business and its facilities, in violation of California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "physically handicapped person," a "physically disabled person," and a "person with a disability" as those terms are used under applicable California law. The Defendants were and are the owners, operators, lessors, and/or lessees, franchisors and/or franchisees, of public facilities at the Business, known as Sandoval's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Mac Bride, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD A. MAC BRIDE 855 Marina Bay Parkway, Suite 210 Richmond, CA 94804 Phone 415-730-6289 Email: richardmacbridelaw@gmail.com SEATGEEK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharging Resale Tickets --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Max Weinstein filed a class action lawsuit against SeatGeek Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims SeatGeek overcharged him and other consumers for resale tickets to multiday or multievent concerts, entertainment events and recreational activities in Florida. Where: The SeatGeek class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges SeatGeek overcharges consumers for resale tickets to multiday or multievent concerts, entertainment events and recreational activities in Florida. Plaintiff Max Weinstein filed the class action complaint against SeatGeek on Oct. 23 in Florida federal court, alleging violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit alleges SeatGeek charges consumers more than what is legally permissible for certain resale tickets in Florida. Weinstein claims the company is charging customers more than $1 above the original ticket price for multiday or multievent tickets to concerts, entertainment events and recreational activities within parks or entertainment complexes in Florida. SeatGeek resale prices violate Florida law, lawsuit claims Florida law prohibits charging more than $1 above the original ticket price for such events, Weinstein argues. He claims SeatGeek's pricing practices are not only unfair but also deceptive, as consumers are unaware they are being overcharged. Weinstein claims he personally experienced this overcharging when he purchased tickets for the Formula 1 Miami Grand Prix through SeatGeek's website. He says he paid a total of $539.28 in fees for his April 2025 purchase and $6,310.84 in fees for his May 2025 purchase, amounts he argues are significantly higher than what Florida law allows. Weinstein wants to represent anyone who purchased resale tickets from SeatGeek's website and paid more than $1 above the original seller's price for a multiday or multievent ticket to a park or entertainment complex, or to a concert, entertainment event or recreational activity in a park or complex within Florida. He is suing for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Earlier this year, SeatGeek faced a class action lawsuit alleging it violated California law by installing tracers or pixels on its website to capture visitors' phone numbers, email addresses and other personal information. The plaintiff is represented by Eleanor R. Grasso and Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The SeatGeek class action lawsuit is Weinstein v. SeatGeek Inc., Case No. 9:25-cv-81314, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] SELECT PATROL AGENCY: Ritch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Patrol Agency, Inc. The case is styled as David Christopher Ritch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Select Patrol Agency, Inc., Case No. 25NNCV07965 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Select Patrol -- https://www.selectpatrolagency.com/ -- has provided top of the line security services to property management, homeowner associations and government entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Harteker, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave. 470, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 818-914-3433 Email: rebecca@frontierlawcenter.com SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shoals Technologies Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On March 21, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the wire insulation shrinkback matter. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, recovery of fees and costs, and other relief that the court may find appropriate. On May 8, 2024 and May 15, 2024, respectively, similar class action complaints were filed in the same court against the Company and certain current and former officers, but these complaints also named as defendants the Company's Board of Directors, and the selling stockholders and underwriters of the Company's secondary public offering. While the allegations are largely similar to the first complaint, these new complaints also alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. These cases were captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. and Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees Retirement Plan v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. On May 24, 2024, all of these cases were consolidated into one action captioned In re Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Securities Litigation. Plaintiff Erste Asset Management GmbH has been appointed Lead Plaintiff. On December 9, 2024, Lead Plaintiff and plaintiff Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees’ Retirement Plan filed a consolidated complaint, and on February 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 18, 2025. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 21, 2025. On September 30, the court issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Although the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims, there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. Accordingly, the Company is unable to determine the ultimate outcome of this consolidated lawsuit or determine the amount or range of potential losses associated with the consolidated lawsuit. Based in Portland, TN, Shoals Technologies provides EBOS products for solar energy projects in the United States. It sells solar products principally to engineering, procurement, and construction firms that build such solar energy projects. [BN] SPARTAN CONSULTING: Fitzgerald Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- William "Roy" Fitzgerald, and other similarly situated employees v. SPARTAN CONSULTING & SAFETY, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-00536 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the FLSA. The Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis and was entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA because it knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices were unlawful. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours per week. the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for the hours he worked in excess of forty per week "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed." Instead, Defendant paid Plaintiff a set salary regardless of the number of hours he worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a training instructor. The Defendant is a multifaceted business founded and operated in West Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex E. Reynolds, Esq. ATKINS, HOLLMANN, JONES, PEACOCK, LEWIS & LYON, INC. 3800 E. 42nd Street, Suite 500 Odessa, TX 79762 Phone: (432) 331-1600 Facsimile: (432) 363-1310 Email: areynolds@odessalawfirm.com STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Black & Decker Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Rammohan class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. sed, on March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00369-KAD (the "Rammohan Class Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors (together, "Defendants"). The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the Company's products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses. On October 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff General Retirement System of the City of Detroit filed an Amended Complaint that asserts the same claims and seeks the same forms of relief as the original complaint. On December 14, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. Briefing on that motion concluded on April 5, 2024. Following the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 24-2803 (2d Cir. 2025), Lead Plaintiff informed Defendants that it wished to amend its complaint. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, so ordered by the District Court on September 30, 2025, Lead Plaintiff provided Defendants with a proposed second amended complaint on October 30, 2025. By November 13, 2025, Defendants will advise the Court and Plaintiff whether they intend to consent to or oppose Plaintiff's filing of its proposed second amended complaint. In the event that either consent is given or leave is granted for the filing of a second amended complaint, Defendants would file a renewed motion to dismiss by December 18, 2025. In the meantime, the Court denied Defendants' initial motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all respects. Given the early stage of this litigation, at this time, the Company is not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss or adverse effect on its financial condition or to estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, from this action. Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.[BN] STASHER INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STASHER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13862 (N.D. Ill., November 12, 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://www.stasherbag.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, changing of content without advance warning, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, inaccurate focus order, 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. Stasher, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law STILLWATER MINING: Bertram Files FLSA Suit in D. Montana -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stillwater Mining Company. The case is styled as Alexander Bertram, Steven Dammann, individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. Stillwater Mining Company doing business as: Sibanye-Stillwater, Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-TJC (D. Mont., Nov. 19, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Collect Unpaid Wages. Stillwater Mining Company doing business as Sibanye-Stillwater -- https://www.sibanyestillwater.com/ -- is one of the world's leading international precious metals mining company, with a diverse asset portfolio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq. BECHTOLD LAW FIRM PO Box 7051 Missoula, MT 59807-7051 Phone: (406) 721-1435 Email: tim@bechtoldlaw.net STRIDE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with substantial losses that they have until January 12, 2026 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Stride, Inc. ("Stride" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN), if they purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between October 22, 2024 and October 28, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Stride and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by January 12, 2026. About the Lawsuit Stride and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On September 14, 2025, it was reported that the Gallup-McKinley County Schools Board of Education had filed a complaint against the Company, alleging fraud, deceptive trade practices, systemic violations of law, and intentional and tortious misconduct, including inflating enrollment numbers by retaining "ghost students" on rolls to secure state funding per student and ignoring compliance requirements, including background checks and licensure laws for its employees. On this news, the price of Stride's shares fell $18.60 per share, or 11.7%, to close at $139.76 per share on September 15, 2025. Then, on October 28, 2025, the Company disclosed that "poor customer experience" had resulted in "higher withdrawal rates," "lower conversion rates," and had driven students away, and that the Company estimated the impact caused approximately 10,000-15,000 fewer enrollments and that, because of this, its outlook is "muted" compared to prior years. On this news, the price of Stride's shares fell $83.48 per share, or more than 54%, to close at $70.05 per share on October 29, 2025. The case is MacMahon v. Stride, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-02019. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and private institutional investors, and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, and a representative office in Luxembourg. TOP 10 Plaintiff Law Firms -- According to ISS Securities Class Action Services To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 (877) 515-1850 lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com[GN] SUTTER CLUB: Dent Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutter Club, et al. The case is styled as Robert Dent, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sutter Club, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV027720 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." The Sutter Club -- https://www.sutterclub.org/ -- is a historic building located in Sacramento, California constructed in 1930 in a Spanish Eclectic style.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com SYRACUSE HAULERS: Cond'l Cert. Response Reset to Dec. 19 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sims v. Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01080 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe entered an order as follows: -- The deadline for Defendant's response to the motion to Certify Class (FLSA Conditional Certification) is reset to Dec. 19, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Syracuse is a full service refuse company.[CC] SYRACUSE HAULERS: Sims Seek to Conditionally Certify Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON SIMS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYRACUSE HAULERS WASTE REMOVAL, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01080-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification and notice to putative collective members. The Plaintiffs move this Court for an Order: (1) Conditionally certifying a collective of: "all hourly employees who worked for Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. throughout the United States in the past three years through the present and who were subject to the automatic meal break deduction" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) Approving the form of Plaintiff's proposed Notice; (3) Setting a sixty-day notice period; (4) Authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to mail, e-mail, and text-message the Notice at the beginning of the 60 notice period; (5) Authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder 30 days prior to the notice deadline; (6) Ordering the Defendant, Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. to post the Court-approved Notice in a conspicuous location next to the time clocks at all Syracuse Haulers worksites for the duration of the 60-day opt-in period; The Defendant offers residential and commercial waste, trash, and recycling collection services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rrPARP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carter T. Hastings, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael C. Conway, Esq. CONWAY, DONOVAN & MANLEY, PLLC 50 State Street, 2nd Floor Albany, NY Telephone: (518) 436-1661 Facsimile: (518) 432-1996 E-mail: mconway@lawcdm.com TACOS EL PORKY: Salcedo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Yanez Salcedo and Edgard Emil Sepulveda Diaz, and all others similarly situated v. TACOS EL PORKY I, LLC, FRANK A. NERI, and GIANCARLO MONSANTO, Case No. 1:25-cv-25377-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation. The Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs even the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour required by the FLSA for each of the hours she worked by not timely paying her for many of the hours she worked. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to timely pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage required by the FLSA the Defendants violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a cook, server, and busser during their employment. The Defendants operated as an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce in their marketing, preparing, cooking, serving, and selling foodstuffs, produce, meats, fish, rice, beverages, coffee, tea, and products that previously moved in interstate commerce through their marketing, sales, promotion, and operation of a restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Phone: 305.230.4884 Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com TALEN ENERGY: Dismissed from Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------- Talen Energy Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that Talen was dismissed from an antitrust case without prejudice by the plaintiffs on October 13, 2025. On July 11, 2025, two individuals filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Human Resources Consultants, LLC, Accelerant Technologies, and 26 nuclear power companies, including Talen, alleging that since at least May 2003 the defendants conspired to fix and suppress employee wages and benefits in violation of federal antitrust law. The proposed class includes a wide range of nuclear power generation workers, such as nuclear operators, engineers, and technicians, who were compensated with hourly wages or annual salaries, as well as benefits and other forms of compensation. The complaint alleges that the nuclear power operators used Accelerant and HR Consultants to facilitate a conspiracy to exchange employee compensation data and held in-person meetings where the power companies aligned on wage schedules, suppressed wages, and fixed compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ conduct violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. Talen is an energy generation and marketing company in North America with power plants in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and southwestern United States. TARGET CORP: Florida State Board Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as State Board of Administration of Florida, Steven Cook, Carol Bowe, Inspire Advisors, LLC, Laura Thompson, City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund, Brian Craig, State Teachers' Retirement System of Ohio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-00135 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Nov. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-04380-NEB-SGE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander J. Rodney, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Avenue New York City, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 446-8000 Fax: (212) 446-4900 Email: alexander.rodney@kirkland.com TARGET CORPORATION: Norman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation, et al. case is styled as Corina Marie Norman, individually, and on behalf of members of the general public and the putative class members similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2530157 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Oct. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC 1001 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 382-2222 Fax: (213) 382-2230 TD BANK: Wong Sues Over Discrimination and Wrongful Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Wong, Ka Po Wong, Anne Louie, April Ng, Millie Su, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD BANK GROUP and TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-09634 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code of the City of New York ("NYCHRL") as a result of the Defendants discrimination of the Plaintiffs who were wrongfully terminated by TD Bank. As a result of TD Bank's investigations of its Chinese and Chinese American employees in the NYC Chinatown Branches alone, more than 22 TD Bank employees were terminated or subject to adverse employment actions. All but one of the known terminated employees were Chinese or Chinese American, and at least one was terminated for a transaction with a Chinese American employee. None of the 22 terminated employees had piles of cash dumped on their desks. None withdrew cash from ATMs at huge multiples of permissible daily limits. None interacted with international drug traffickers. None were among or had anything to do with the five store-level employees mentioned in the 2024 plea agreement. None were ever targeted for criminal prosecution. The Plaintiffs herein were investigated and terminated because they are Chinese or Chinese American, because of stereotypes about Chinese or Chinese American, and/or because TD Bank's policy, practice, and procedure for evaluating transactions of its employees disparately impacts immigrant communities such as Chinese or Chinese Americans, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant. TD Bank Group is a multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq. Laine Armstrong, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS 225 Broadway, Suite 225 New York, New York 10007 Phone: (212) 285-1400 Email: aschwartz@afjlaw.com Laine@advocaesny.com TFORCE FREIGHT INC: Henry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TForce Freight, Inc. The case is styled as Aldie D. Henry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TForce Freight, Inc., Case No. 25CV155365 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." TForce Freight -- https://www.tforcefreight.com/ -- is an American less than truckload freight carrier based in Richmond, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 TOM HOMAN: Court Extends Response Time to Prelim Injunction Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Venegas v. Tom Homan, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00397 (S.D. Ala., Filed Sept. 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock entered an order granting in part and denying in part Motion for Extension of Time. -- Responses to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and Plaintiff's Motion for Third-Party Declarants to Proceed under a Pseudonym due by Dec. 11, 2025. -- Replies due by Dec. 18, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROBERT PHOENIX and ADRIENNE GENE VINCENT PHOENIX, et al., v. TOYOTA ARENA, LLC, CITY OF ONTARIO, SMG, a Pennsylvania General Partnership; and DOES 1 10, Inclusive, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal. The Plaintiffs have designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order spreadsheets produced by third parties Ticketmaster LLC; SeatGeek, Inc.; Vivid Seats, LLC; TickPick, LLC; and StubHub, Inc. pursuant to subpoenas from Plaintiffs requesting documents related to ticket purchases for mobility accessible seating, accessible parking, and inquiries regarding the same and other accessible features at the subject facility, Toyota Arena in Ontario, California. The Plaintiffs designated these ticket vendor lists as "Confidential" because they believe identifying information (i.e., names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers) should not be in the public record, especially when coupled with the intent of the subpoenas (i.e., requests for disability access), which may violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and other privacy rights. Ticketmaster agreed to the scope requested here of redacting the personal information in the produced spreadsheets. The Plaintiffs believe the material cannot be suitably redacted because the contents of the ticket vendor lists are critical to the Court evaluating this evidence (e.g., being able to independently confirm the number of unique users and/or transactions) and rendering a decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs are required to file this Application pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2 Toyota is the management company for the Toyota Arena, a large, modern multi-purpose indoor arena located in Ontario, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3OAcZM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Cabalo, Esq. Khushpreet Mehton, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3592 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: ccabalo@peifferwolf.com kmehton@peifferwolf.com - and - Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 1400 Coleman Avenue, Suite F28 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 E-mail: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com - and - Adam B. Wolf, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 866-9662 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: awolf@peifferwolf.com - and - Aaron Clefton, Esq. CLEFTON DISABILITY LAW 2601 Blanding Ave., Suite C #336 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 E-mail: aaron@cleftonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Frank J. Lizarraga Jr., Esq. LIZARRAGA LAW FIRM APC 3401 Centre Lake Drive, Ste. 600 Ontario, CA 91761 E-mail: frank@lizarragalaw.com - and - Stephen G. Larson, Esq. Steven E. Bledsoe, Esq. Paul A. Rigali, Esq. Andrew E. Calderón, Esq. Anahit Sargsyan, Esq. LARSON LLP 555 South Flower Street, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: slarson@larsonllp.com prigali@larsonllp.com sbledsoe@larsonllp.com acalderon@larsonllp.com asargsyan@larsonllp.com TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROBERT PHOENIX and ADRIENNE GENE VINCENT PHOENIX, et al., v. TOYOTA ARENA, LLC, a California limited liability company; CITY OF ONTARIO; SMG, a Pennsylvania General Partnership; and DOES 1-10, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 17, 2025, will move the Court for an Order granting class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and/or 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following proposed classes: 1. Disabled Patron Declaratory & Injunctive Relief Class "All persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters or other mobility aids who will attempt to purchase accessible seating for a public event at the Arena and who will be denied equal access to the Arena's facilities, services, accessible seating, parking, paths of travel, amenities, and privileges, including ticketing, during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint herein through the conclusion of this action." 2. Companion Patron Declaratory & Injunctive Relief Class "All persons who are companions of persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters or other mobility aids and who have used or will use companion seating for public events located at the Arena during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint herein through the conclusion of this action." 3. Damages Class "All persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, scooters or other mobility aids who have purchased, attempted to purchase, or for whom third parties purchased accessible seating and who have been denied equal access to the Arena's facilities, services, accessible seating, parking, paths of travel, amenities, and privileges during the two years prior to the filing of the Complaint herein through the conclusion of this action. The proposed classes should be certified because they plainly meet the requirements of Rule 23. Toyota is the management company for the Toyota Arena, a large, modern multi-purpose indoor arena located in Ontario, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nOGnlX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Cabalo, Esq. Khushpreet Mehton, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3592 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: ccabalo@peifferwolf.com kmehton@peifferwolf.com - and - Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 1400 Coleman Avenue, Suite F28 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 E-mail: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com - and - Adam B. Wolf, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 866-9662 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: awolf@peifferwolf.com - and - Aaron Clefton, Esq. CLEFTON DISABILITY LAW 2601 Blanding Ave., Suite C #336 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 E-mail: aaron@cleftonlaw.com TPUSA INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE PAYNE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TPUSA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00908-JNP-JCB (D. Utah), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 14 day extension, up to and including Dec. 12, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiff's opposed motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff filed her Motion on November 14, 2025, and TPUSA currently has until November 28, 2025 -- the day after Thanksgiving -- to file its response. TPUSA seeks this extension to allow their counsel sufficient time in light of the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday (during which defense counsel have family commitments) to evaluate and adequately prepare TPUSA's response to the Plaintiff's arguments. Moreover, as the Court's Local Rules already provide for 28-day response deadlines for similar types of motions filed under Federal Rule 23(c) (certifying or decertifying a class action), providing a similar timeframe for TPUSA to address the Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify a nationwide FLSA collective of current or former call center agents is consistent with this Court's rules. The Plaintiff's counsel, with whom the undersigned counsel conferred concerning this extension request, does not oppose the requested extension. TPUSA provides telecommunication services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I0iXMW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christopher Moon, Esq. Veronica T. Hunter, Esq. Anthony P. McNamara, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 215 South State Street, Suite 760 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 736-3199 E-mail: Christopher.Moon@jacksonlewis.com Veronica.Hunter@jacksonlewis.com Anthony.McNamara@jacksonlewis.com TYSON FOODS: Mckinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Isaiah Mckinnley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09638 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.ae.com, and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that both its Website and its brick-and-mortar retail stores become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired users, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content while using a computer or mobile device. The Defendant is a national retailer of apparel and accessories, operating over 800 brick-and-mortar stores nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com UNIQUE CONCEPTS: Odonnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- William Odonnell, and all others similarly situated v. UNIQUE CONCEPTS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-13428-IT (D. Mass., Nov. 17, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, www.anoushella.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant fails to communicate effectively with Plaintiff because its digital properties are not properly formatted to allow legally blind users such as content. Accordingly, legally blind customers such as Plaintiff are Plaintiff to access its digital deprived from accessing information about Defendant's products and using its online services, all of which are readily available to sighted customers. Because Defendant's website is not and has never been fully accessible, and because upon information and belief Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its website to become and remain accessible, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. The Defendant specializes in Eastern Mediterranean street-food classics, including online ordering and dine-in options at their Boston locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law UNITED AIRLINES: Reinauer Suit transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alvin Reinauer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-02358 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-14132 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Job Discrimination (Employment). United Airlines, Inc. -- https://www.united.com/ -- is a major U.S. airline headquartered at Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois and operates a large domestic and international route network spanning cities large and small across the United States and all six inhabited continents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Cline, Esq. Jessica Wallace, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD 20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (888) 747-4529 Email: ccline@sirillp.com jwallace@sirillp.com - and - John C. Sullivan, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Phone: (469) 523-1351 Email: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Eliot Pedrosa, Esq. JONES DAY 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 714-9700 Email: epedrosa@jonesday.com - and - Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 326-3880 Email: amaugeri@jonesday.com - and - Jordan M. Matthews, Esq. JONES DAY - CHICAGO 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 269-4169 Email: jmatthews@jonesday.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Magliocca Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOANNE MAGLIOCCA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVCV25-01739, was removed from the Yuba County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03388-SCR to the proceeding. The Complaint lodges a claim on behalf of the putative Nationwide Class under the federal wiretap statute (the "Federal Wiretap Act"), and a claim on behalf of the putative California Subclass under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), as well as two other state law claims. Each claim is predicated on the Defendant's alleged use of technologies on the Website. United Healthcare Services, Inc. provides hospital, medical, and other health services to subscribers or members.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Vassi Iliadis, 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: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com - and - Adam A. Cooke, Esq. Derrick Williams, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street NW Washington D.C., 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-3600 Facsimile: (202) 637-3610 E-mail: adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com derrick.williams@hoganlovells.com UNITED STATES: Ruiz Sues Over Inhumane Conditions of Detainees -------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO GOMEZ RUIZ; FERNANDO VIERA REYES; JOSE RUIZ CANIZALES; YURI ALEXANDER ROQUE CAMPOS; SOKHEAN KEO; GUSTAVO GUEVARA ALARCON; and ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA ESCUTIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Acting Director of San Francisco Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09757 (N.D. Cal., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fifth Amendment and First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The case arises from the alleged inhumane conditions of confinement at the California City Detention Facility, a previously shuttered state prison in the Mojave Desert that the Defendants have repurposed as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility for people facing civil immigration enforcement. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to provide for the basic human needs of the people for whose lives and wellbeing they are legally responsible. The Defendants house people in small concrete cells without adequate clothing, food, or water. They deny people basic medical care, disability accommodations, and access to their lawyers and their loved ones, suit says. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiffs' and Class members' legal, constitutional, and human rights have been violated. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a federal executive agency in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margot Mendelson, Esq. Tess Borden, Esq. Patrick Booth, Esq. Alison Hardy, Esq. Rana Anabtawi, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com tess@prisonlaw.com patrick@prisonlaw.com ahardy@prisonlaw.com rana@prisonlaw.com - and - Priya Arvind Patel, Esq. Mariel Villarreal, Esq. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 1999 Harrison Street #1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (650) 762-8990 Email: priya@ccijustice.org mariel@ccijustice.org - and - Steven P. Ragland, Esq. Cody S. Harris, Esq. Carlos C. Martinez, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Email: sragland@keker.com charris@keker.com cmartinez@keker.com - and - Kyle Virgien, Esq. Felipe Hernandez, Esq. Marisol Dominguez-Ruiz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 Email: kvirgien@aclu.org npp_fhernandez@aclu.org mdominguez-ruiz@aclu.org - and - Carmen Iguina Gonzalez, Esq. 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 Email: ciguinagonzalez@aclu.org UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VONDA JONES; ROCHELLE ST. JOHN; CHRISTINA DAVIES; MARIA GARCIA PAGAN, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; LORI CHAVEZ DEREMER, in her official capacity as Secretary of Labor; EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION; LORI FRAZIER BEARDEN, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training Administration; U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; RUSSELL BOUGHT, Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-12653-NMG (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of up to and including Dec. 1, 2025, for the motion to dismiss and opposition to the motion for class certification. On September 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint, alleging that funding for national nonprofit organizations under the Senior Community Service Employment Program had been unreasonably delayed. On September 29, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and a Memorandum of Law in support of that motion. As the Defendants have advised Plaintiff's counsel, the 2025 awards under the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) have been disbursed for all national grantees that had requested funds. The Defendant administers federal labor laws to guarantee workers' rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HLsgtC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Shawna Yen, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3100 E-mail: Shawna.Yen@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Withrow Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE WITHROW, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04073-ZMF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification: "All current and future civilian employees of the named defendants and their agencies whose gender identity differs from their "biological classification as either male or female" as defined in EO 14168 and who have been or will be prevented from using restrooms that align with their gender identity." The proposed class readily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Regarding Rule 23(a), joinder is impracticable because the class includes approximately 6,200 current members and an unknown number of future ones. The proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted, or will act, on grounds that apply generally to the class. Ms. Withrow is a transgender woman who has served since August 2016 as a commended civilian federal government employee in the Illinois National Guard and who served as a decorated staff sergeant in the Illinois Army National Guard until 2023. United States is a country primarily located in North America. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZyPorO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana Knizhnik, Esq. Harper Seldin, Esq. Joshua Block, Esq. Barbara Schwabauer, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St., NY, NY 10004 Telephone: (917) 716-0609 E-mail: sknizhnik@aclu.org hseldin@aclu.org jblock@aclu.org bschwabauer@aclu.org - and - Michael Perloff, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 601-4267 E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org mperloff@acludc.org - and - Kaitlyn Golden, Esq. Madeline Gitomer, Esq. Paul Wolfson, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 701-1789 E-mail: kgolden@democracyforward.org mgitomer@democracyforward.org pwolfson@democracyforward.org - and - Michelle Teresa García, Esq. Priyanka Menon, Esq. ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. 150 N Michigan, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 ext. 319 E-mail: mgarcia@aclu-il.org - and - Jonathan Gleklen, Esq. Rachel Forman, Esq. Darrel Pae, Esq. Whitney Turk, Esq. Sangeeta Shastry, Esq. Allissa Pollard, Esq. Christopher Odell, Esq. Summer Perez, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: jonathan.gleklen@arnoldporter.com rachel.forman@arnoldporter.com darrell.pae@arnoldporter.com whitney.turk@arnoldporter.com sangeeta.shastry@arnoldporter.com allissa.pollard@arnoldporter.com christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com summer.perez@arnoldporter.com UNITED THREE: Reza Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Cashiers ---------------------------------------------------------- K. M. JASHIM REZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED THREE INC. d/b/a Ponce Citgo, NASREEN MAVANI, IMRAN MAVANI, and KAMRAN MAVANI, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-03106 (M.D. Fla., November 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Reza was employed by the Defendants as a cashier at Ponce Citgo from March 2015 through about October 17, 2025. United Three Inc., doing business as Ponce Citgo, is an owner and operator of a gas station and minimart in St. Petersburg, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LEGAL, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, #1A Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-2332 Email: tiffanytroy@troypllc.com - and - John Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend Beef Antitrust Suits -------------------------------------------------------- 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 beef antitrust lawsuits in the United States and in Canada. NBPis a defendant in (i) five putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging that NBP violated some combination of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws (the "US Class Actions") and (ii) putative class action lawsuits in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Superior Court of Quebec for the district of Montreal alleging that it violated the Canadian Competition Act and various provincial laws (the "Canadian Class Actions" and the "US Class Actions" are collectively referred to as the "Beef Class Actions"). The Beef Class Actions are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, which was filed originally on April 23, 2019; Peterson et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; In re DPP Beef Litigation, which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; Erbert & Gerbert's, Inc. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on June 18, 2020; Specht v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 31, 2022; Giang Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated, et al. which was filed originally on February 18, 2022; and Sylvie De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 24, 2022. Since the original class action complaints were filed, certain purchasers of beef products have opted to file individual complaints and to proceed with direct actions making similar claims (the "Opt-Out Cases"), and others may do so in the future. The Opt-Out Cases are entitled Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding, LLC v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on August 2, 2021 in the United States District Court, Minnesota; Cheney Brothers, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed on January 31, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Subway v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed on February 22, 2022 in the United States District Court, Connecticut; Amory Investments LLC v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on March 8, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of New York; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on May 12, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on June 8, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Sysco Corporation v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 30, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas; John Soules Foods, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on August 5, 2022 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas; Associated Grocers of the South et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 15, 2022 in the United States District Court, District of Montana; The Kroger Co. et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 15, 2022 in the United States District Court, District of Montana; Spartannash Co vs. Cargill, Inc. et al, which was filed originally on September 21, 2022 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Kraft Heinz Food Company v. Cargill Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 30, 2022 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Aramark Food and Support Services Group., Inc. v. Cargill Inc., et al., which was filed originally on September 30, 2022 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; ARCOP, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 19, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 19, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Sonic Industries Services Inc. v. Cargill, Inc. et al., which was filed originally on December 20, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Restaurant Services, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 20, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Whatabrands LLC et al. vs. Cargill, Inc., et al. which was filed originally on December 20, 2022 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Sherwood Food Distributors, LLC et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on March 7, 2023 in the United States District Court, Easter District of New York; McClane Company, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on April 3, 2023 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Aldi, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on August 28. 2023 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Quirich Foods, LLC et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 9, 2023 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Conagra Brands, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 31, 2023 in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Compass Group USA, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on October 31, 2023 in the United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina; Target Corp v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Glazier Foods Co et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Jetro Holdings, Inc v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; Quality Supply Chain Co-Op, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on December 29, 2023 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; and Sodexo, Inc., et al. v. Cargill, Inc., et al., which was filed originally on April 29, 2024 in the United States District Court of Maryland, and McDonald's Corporation v. Cargill, Inc., et. al., which was originally file on October 4, 2024 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. On October 4, 2022, the US Class Actions and Opt-Out Cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court, Minnesota District under the style In re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs in these cases seek treble damages and other relief under various laws including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Canadian Competition Act, the Packers & Stockyards Act, and/or the Commodities Exchange Act and various state and provincial laws and attorneys' fees. NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on NBP's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. NBP has negotiated a settlement with the plaintiffs in the Canadian Class Actions and has paid into a trust account CAN $495,000 to resolve these claims. The settlement is subject to approval of the Canadian courts overseeing the matters. If the settlement is not ultimately approved, there can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of the Canadian Class Actions or the impact on the NBP's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. VIA ROMA PIZZERIA: Coghlan Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Via Roma Pizzeria & Caterers, et al. The case is styled as Mia Coghlan, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees v. Via Roma Pizzeria & Caterers, Nader Gobran, Mark Cataliotti, Joseph Di rienzo, Case No. 624869/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Commercial - Contract." Via Roma Pizza -- http://www.viaromapizza.net/-- offers pick-up and delivery, as well as on premises casual dining.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Debra Lynne Wabnik, Esq. STAGG WABNIK LAW GROUP LLP Phone: (516) 812-4504 Fax: (516) 812-4604 Email: dwabnik@staggwabnik.com VIATRIS INC: 3d Cir. Rejects Appeal from Securities Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Viatris 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected an appeal from the order dismissing the putative class action lawsuit filed against the Company in a Western District of Pennsylvania court. Beginning in May 2023, putative class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers, directors, and employees in the WDPA on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company. These actions have been consolidated and, on October 23, 2023, a consolidated amended putative class action complaint was filed in the WDPA against the Company, a director, and a former officer and director ("WDPA Viatris Class Action Litigation"). The operative complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Company's projected financial performance and biosimilars business. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of Company securities between March 1, 2021 and February 25, 2022. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, reasonable costs and expenses, and certain other relief. On September 20, 2024, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was rejected in November 2025. VIATRIS INC: Agrees to $335MM Settlement in Opioid Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Viatris Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed in April 2025. The Company, along with other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare providers, is a defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United States and Canada filed by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities and other local governmental entities, asserting civil claims related to sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid products. In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids. The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages (including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment. The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Ohio. In April 2025, the Company reached a nationwide settlement framework to resolve opioid-related claims by States, local governments, and Native American tribes against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Under the agreed upon framework, which has been initiated by a process to determine the level of participation in the settlement, the Company would pay up to a maximum of $335 million, consisting of annual payments over a nine-year period of between approximately $27.5 and $40 million each, to help support state and local efforts to address opioid-related issues. The settlement framework is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability. VIATRIS INC: Claims in WDPA Mylan Suit Proceeds to Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ Viatris 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 claims in the putative class action lawsuit filed against Mylan N.V. in a Western District of Pennsylvania court can proceed to discovery. On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V., certain of Mylan N.V.'s former directors and officers, and a former officer/current director of the Company (collectively for the purposes of this paragraph, the "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("WDPA") on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. ("WDPA Mylan N.V. Class Action Litigation"). The amended complaint includes allegations that defendants engaged in a scheme and made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the Nashik and Morgantown manufacturing plants and inspections at the plants by the FDA. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019. In July 2025, the Court held that Plaintiffs' misstatements claim as to 1 of the 46 challenged statements, and their scheme claim, may proceed to discovery. The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff's fees and costs. VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------ Viatris Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed in April 2025. In April 2025, a putative class action complaint, which was subsequently amended in September 2025, was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers, one of whom is also a director, in the WDPA on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's securities. The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions of material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to regulatory issues and actions concerning the Company's Indore manufacturing facility. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of Company securities between February 28, 2024 and February 26, 2025. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages, costs and fees. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Murphy Seeks to Certify Class of Tenants ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MURPHY AND MARIA MURPHY, as guardians of OLIVIA MURPHY; et.al., and all other persons similarly situated; v. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S LANDING LTD., a Florida limited partnership; et.al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00022-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class defined as: "Any and all tenants of the Villages of Noah's Landing from June 10, 2016 to the present time, who were denied Supportive Housing activities, programs and services, without charge or who received limited services only on condition of additional payment"; 2. Certifying the class for purposes of Counts IV (Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices), V (Breach of Contract as Third-Party Beneficiaries), and VI (Fraud) of the Second Amended Complaint; 3. Certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3) for monetary damages and under Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) for declaratory and injunctive relief; 4. Designating Mark Murphy and Maria Murphy, as guardians of Olivia Murphy; Bernita Gigowski, as guardian of Sarah Melissa Gigowski; Luanne Sells, as guardian of Tyler Raymond Sells; and Suzanne Prevatt Trueblood, as guardian of Austin James Trueblood, as class representatives; 5. Appointing Jack Scarola, Victoria Mesa-Estrada, and Matthew Dietz as class counsel; 6. Authorizing notice to the class in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and approve the form of notice to be submitted by Plaintiffs; and 7. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The suit is brought pursuant to 42, U.S.C. section1331, and 28 U.S.C. section1343, for the Plaintiffs' claims arising under The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHA"), and for state law claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1367, for Fraud, Breach of Contract as Third-Party Beneficiaries, and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices. Villages is a dynamic residential community for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NcoZ2i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Dietz, Esq. DISABILITY INCLUSION & ADVOCACY LAW CLINIC NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SHEPARD BROAD COLLEGE OF LAW 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 262-6138 E-mail: mdietz@nova.edu - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. Victoria Mesa-Estrada, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com vmestrada@searcylaw.com; MesaTeam@searcylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Allan J. Rotlewicz, Esq. CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 940 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (877) 618-9770 Facsimile: (954) 252-2308 E-mail: arotlewicz@callahanfusco.com eserve@callahanfusco.com - and - Noel F. Johnson, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2401 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 957-1157 Facsimile: (786) 957-1158 E-mail: Noel.Johnson@Dinsmore.com Jessica.SanMartin@Dinsmore.com - and - Jeffrey M. Partlow, Esq. Geraldine P. Asher, Esq. Allaa M. Tayeb, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 400 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, FL 32810 Telephone: (321) 972-0079 Facsimile: (321) 972-0099 E-mail: jeffrey.partlow@csklegal.com geraldine.asher@csklegal.com deeana.bryant@csklegal.com allaa.tayeb@csklegal.com kirbie.andrews@csklegal.com VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Colby Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Susan Colby, Oluwakemi Fosudo Ade, Dana Berkley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VisionWorks of America, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00387 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Nov. 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01512-JKP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Visionworks of America, Inc. -- https://www.visionworks.com/ -- is an American company which operates or manages 711 optical retail stores in 40 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sonjay Singh, PHV, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (646) 829-1389 - and - Catherine Elizabeth Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 297-3807 Fax: (646) 417-5967 The Defendants are represented by: Lori Chang, Esq. Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq. David Marenberg, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 586-7700 VJC HOSPITALITY: Askew Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gretavia Askew, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VJC HOSPITALITY OF SMYRNA, INC. d/b/a CHICAGO PIZZA AND SPORTS GRILLE, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and VICTOR COMASTRO, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-06415-SEG (N.D. Ga., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover from Defendants minimum wage and overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week as part of their regular job duties. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at a rate of no less than time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiff were eligible for overtime provided they worked more than 40 hours per week. As a result, Plaintiff and those similarly situated, should have received compensation at time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond the 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from July 2024 to August 2025. Chicago Pizza is a sports bar and restaurant that offers food and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com VT MOTORS: Class Cert Bid in Straker Filing Due July 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sam Straker, v. V.T. Motors LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00707-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an Amended Scheduling Order as follows: Disclosure of expert reports in March 19, 2026 support of class certification: Deadline to file motion for class July 20, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file response to motion for August 10, 2026 class certification Deadline to file reply in support of August 31, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline to complete all fact discovery: March 4, 2027 Deadline for completion of all March 4, 2027 expert depositions: V.T. is a retail company that sells new and used automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QBkAh5 at no extra charge.[CC] VUORI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 2, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRENCE BUCHANAN, v. VUORI, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01121-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cousins entered an amended case management scheduling order as follows: -- Next CMC: Jan. 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom videoconference; joint statement due Jan. 7, 2026 -- Fact discovery cut-off: Jan. 19, 2026 -- File class certification motion: Feb. 2, 2026 -- Expert discovery cut-off: March 16, 2026 -- File motions for summary judgment / dispositive motions: March 30, 2026 -- Deadline for hearing on dispositive motions: May 6, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. -- Pretrial Conference filings, including motions in limine: June 10, 2026 -- Pretrial Conference: June 24, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. -- Jury Trial: July 6, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. The trial will take place in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, U.S. District Court, 280 S. First Street, San Jose, California. A future order will set time limits and rules for trial. All hearings, conferences, and pretrial proceedings will be by phone or video conference via Zoom until further Court order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Vuori provides online apparel products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ynUyR8 at no extra charge.[CC] WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Hanson Files Suit in D. Colorado -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Hanson, Brandy Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03731-GPG-KAS (D. Colo., Nov. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM LLP 4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: Lmontgomery@eksm.com WAYFAIR LLC: Limas Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOSEPH LIMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYFAIR LLC, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV30609, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11185 to the proceeding. In this complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Wayfair for alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: (1) violations of California Penal Code for allegedly reading or attempting to read or learn the contents or meaning of electronic communications of Plaintiff and Class Members while the communications were in transit without consent and for allegedly aiding, agreeing with, conspiring, or employing third party "Tracking Entities" to accomplish the alleged wrongful conduct at issue; and (2) violations of California Penal Code for allegedly using "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices on its website by deploying "Tracking Tools" without obtaining a court order and without consent. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class consisting of "All California citizens who visited Defendant's Website while physically in California and whose personal information was shared with Tracking Entities or other third parties by Defendant without effective and informed prior consent. Wayfair LLC provides home improvement products online. It offers furniture, home furnishings, rugs, outdoor, bed, bath, lighting, kitchen, storage, kids, housewares, decor, decorative accents, and other household goods.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Justin R. Donoho, Esq. Hayley H. Ryan, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Telephone: +1 312 499 6700 Facsimile: +1 312 499 6701 E-mail: GMaatman@duanemorris.com JRDonoho@duanemorris.com HHRyan@duanemorris.com - and - Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Telephone: +1 213 689 7400 Facsimile: +1 213 689 7401 E-mail: JARiley@duanemorris.com WAYFAIR LLC: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair LLC, et al. The case is styled as Charles White, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Wayfair LLC, Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV155144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Wayfair Inc. -- https://www.wayfair.com/ -- is an American e-commerce company based in Boston, Massachusetts that sells furniture and home goods online.[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 WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 26, 2026, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following Class: "Clients of Wells Fargo who had cash deposits or balances in Wells Fargo's Cash Sweep Program from Aug. 1, 2018, through Nov. 20, 2025, and were damaged thereby." The Plaintiffs also seek to certify the following "Retirement Account Subclass": "Clients of Wells Fargo who maintained an Individual Retirement Account ("IRA") with Wells Fargo and had cash deposits or balances in Wells Fargo's Cash Sweep Program from Aug. 1, 2018, through Nov. 20, 2025, and were damaged thereby." The Plaintiffs also seek to certify the following "Advisory Subclass": "Clients of Wells Fargo who maintained an advisory relationship with Wells Fargo and had cash deposits or balances in Wells Fargo's Cash Sweep Program from Aug. 1, 2018, through Nov. 20, 2025, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are Wells Fargo and any of its affiliates, legal representatives, employees, or officers, and the judicial officer(s) and any judicial staff overseeing this litigation. The Class and each Subclass satisfy the elements of Rule 23(a) because there are thousands of members of the Class and each Subclass sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement; there are common claims of fact and law among the Class and Subclasses; Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of other Class members; and Plaintiffs, as class representatives, and their counsel are adequate to represent the interests of each Subclass. Plaintiffs satisfy the elements of Rule 23(b)(3), in that common issues predominate over any individualized issues for the Class and each Subclass and because a class action is the superior procedural mechanism for resolving this dispute. The Plaintiffs further move to designate Plaintiffs as class representatives of the respective Class and Subclasses, with Plaintiffs as class representatives of the Class and the Retirement Account Subclass, and Nadolny as class representative of the Advisory Subclass. Plaintiffs also seek the appointment of Berger Montague PC (BMPC), Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLB&G), and Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP (SHC) as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The case arises from the uniform underpayment of interest to clients enrolled in Wells Fargo's CSP. The Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo failed to pay its clients a reasonable rate of interest on their cash held in its CSP, thereby breaching its contractual and implied duties. The Plaintiffs also allege that Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duties to advisory clients, including by failing to act in the best interest of advisory clients. Wells is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FGPnVD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net kgibboney@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net aheller@bm.net rraghavan@bergermontague.com jsamuel@bergermontague.com - and - Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market St., Ste. 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to consider whether material designated by the Defendant Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC as Confidential, and which have been attached as exhibits, quoted from, or otherwise referred to in Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, should be filed under seal. Specifically, the Declaration of Michael Dell'Angelo in support of this administrative motion identifies the Class. Cert. Mot. and exhibits 1, 5, 8–42, and 44 thereto as the documents that quote from, refer to, or were themselves designated as Confidential by Defendant. The Defendant is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aomEIm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net kgibboney@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net aheller@bm.net rraghavan@bergermontague.com jsamuel@bergermontague.com - and - Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 455 Market St., Ste. 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in "Abarca" ------------------------------------------------------------- Werner Enterprises, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of the settlement entered in the class action lawsuit entitled Abarca et al. v. Werner. "In October 2025, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits entitled Abarca et al. v. Werner that are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, to settle these cases for a combined $18.0 million after more than a decade of litigation. "The proceeding was instituted on June 4, 2014 in the Superior Court for Alameda County, California and was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on October 20, 2014. "The cases, which were brought by a small group of drivers and later certified as a class action with tens of thousands of class members and covered the years from mid-2010 to late 2023, involved claims for failure to provide meal and rest breaks (and such meal and rest break claims were dismissed via summary judgment on June 1, 2021), alleged unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions, and other items. The settlement is subject to court approval," the Company stated. WEYERHAEUSER NR: Dec. 3 Pretrial Scheduling Conference Vacated -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Audelo v. Weyerhaeuser NR Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-00877 (E.D. Cal., Filed March 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order vacating Pretrial Scheduling Conference for Dec. 3, 2025. In light of the parties' representations in the most recent status report, the case will be scheduled on the papers. Within 14 days of this order, the parties shall file a Further Joint Status Report addressing the following matters: (1) proposed deadlines for initial disclosures and Phase I discovery limited to matters relevant to class certification; (2) whether a deadline should be set at this time for plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification, and if so a proposed deadline; and (3) clarification regarding a possible motion to compel arbitration. The suit states Labor Litigation. Weyerhaeuser operates as a forest products manufacturing company.[CC] WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mckinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Isaiah Mckinnley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-09649 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.maytag.com, and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that both its Website and its brick-and-mortar retail stores become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired users, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content while using a computer or mobile device. Whirlpool is a global manufacturer of home appliances and markets the Maytag brand through its website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com WILCREST VILLAGE: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Garcia, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WILCREST VILLAGE WEST CENTER, L.P., Case No. 4:25-cv-05530 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Ocean Crawfish, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. WILCREST VILLAGE WEST CENTER, L.P. is a Texas company that transacts business in the State of Texas and within this judicial district..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com WOEO LLC: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WOEO, LLC and LISACUL INC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81429-AMC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WOEO, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its common areas, paths of travel, general parking lot and/or parking spots specific to the business therein, located in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com WOLFSPEED INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfspeed, 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 a securities class action lawsuit pending in a New York court. On November 15, 2024, the Company and certain of its former executive officers were named as defendants ("Defendants") in a securities class action lawsuit captioned Gary Zagami v Wolfspeed, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-01395, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements between August 16, 2023 and November 6, 2024 in connection with the operational status, profitability, and growth potential of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility, among other things. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On January 8, 2025 and January 13, 2025, respectively, two additional lawsuits captioned Maizner v. Wolfspeed, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00046 and Ferreira v. Wolfspeed, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:25-CV-00062 were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York by shareholders regarding these same matters and naming the same Defendants. On February 24, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York consolidated the Zagami, Maizner, and Ferreira actions and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On May 5, 2025, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 4, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the consolidated action to the US. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and as of July 22, 2025, briefing on the motion to transfer was complete. Oral arguments were heard on the motion to transfer by the Magistrate Judge virtually on October 23, 2025. The Magistrate Judge will issue his report and recommendation and will give the parties opportunity to object to the ruling. The Magistrate Judge did not give guidance on when he will issue his ruling or recommendation. WORKHOUSE WORLDWIDE: Tehrani Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Workhouse Worldwide, LLC. The case is styled as Josephine Tehrani, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. The Workhouse Worldwide, LLC, Case No. 25STCV33022 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Workhouse Worldwide LLC, also doing business as Superprime, is in the Motion Picture and Video Industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2013 Phone: 323-482-3300 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com ZIFF DAVIS: IGN Entertainment Loses Bid to Dismiss "Josue" ---------------------------------------------------------- Ziff Davis, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its subsdiary, IGN Entertainment, Inc., lost its motion to dismiss the putative class action filed by Joseph Josue. On June 18, 2024, a putative class action captioned Joseph Josue v. IGN Entertainment, Inc., 24-cv-11579, was filed against IGN Entertainment, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that IGN disclosed to third parties the titles and URLs of the videos that plaintiff viewed on the IGN website in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The complaint seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney's fees, expenses, and costs of suit. On July 10, 2025, the court denied IGN's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. ZIFF DAVIS: Mashable Loses Bid to Dismiss "Fregosa" --------------------------------------------------- Ziff Davis, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its subsdiary, Mashable, Inc., lost its motion to dismiss the putative class action filed by Dawn Fregosa. On December 17, 2024, a putative class action captioned Dawn Fregosa v. Mashable, Inc., 24CV103566, was filed against Mashable, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint alleges that the Mashable website uses third-party "trackers" in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and seeks statutory damages, interest, attorney's fees, expenses, and costs of suit. On February 3, 2025, Mashable removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 25-cv-01094. On April 10, 2025, the court granted Mashable's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend. On October 9, 2025, the court denied Mashable's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. ZIFF DAVIS: Units Face Employment Law Violation Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Ziff Davis, 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 certain of its subsidiaries are facing a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of employment law. On June 13, 2025, a putative class action captioned John Milito v. Ookla, LLC, et al., 25-2-17772-6 SEA, was filed against certain subsidiaries of the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, alleging that subsidiaries of the Company posted certain job openings without disclosing either wage scales or salary ranges in violation of Washington law and seeking statutory damages, interest, attorney's fees, expenses, and costs of suit, as well as injunctive and other relief. ZOA ENERGY: Class Settlement in Gershzon Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZOA ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-05444-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donato entered an order re preliminary approval of class action settlement. Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who, from March 1, 2021, to the present, purchased in the United States, for personal or household consumption and not for resale or distribution, one or more Products bearing the statement "0 Preservatives" on the label." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the presiding Judge(s) in the Action; (2) any member of those Judge(s)' immediate families; (3) Defendant; (4) any of Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (5) counsel for the Parties; and (6) any persons who timely opt-out of the Settlement Class. Mikhail Gershzon is appointed as the Representative Class Counsel. Michael D. Braun of Kuzyk Law, LLP and Peter N. Wasylyk of Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk are appointed Class Counsel. The Court shall conduct a Final Approval Hearing to determine final approval of the Agreement on March 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The Defendant provides energy-crafted drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l9P8gd at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***