251210.mbx

251210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 246 Headlines ACTIVEHOURS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Albinda Alleges ANGEION GROUP: Barclay Sues Over Qualified Settlement Fund Scheme BEAUTY BY IMAGINATION: Beltran Sues Over Unsafe Curling Irons CAL-MAINE FOODS: Birchmans Parisian Sues For Shell Egg Price Fixing CARGO SOLUTION: Camacho Sues Over Worker Misclassification CENTRAL ONE: Scott Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info CONDUENT BUSINESS: Faces Burton et al. Data Breach Class Suit CSAA INSURANCE: Dickson et al. Sue Over Unlawful Insurance Scheme CURBSURE LLC: Scanlon Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices ENGELBERT STRAUSS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations GARDEN OF LIFE: Protein Products Contains Heavy Metals, Suit Says GEMINI TRUST: Bao Family et al. Allege Securities Law Violations HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Benedettini Sues Over Private Data Breach JACKSON, MS: 5th Cir. Revives Portion of Sterling Suit LAWYER.COM INC: Greenlee Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LENNAR CORPORATION: Blaise Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. LES HOLDINGS DORAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property LOTTERY.COM INC: Continues to Defend "Million" in New York LOTTERY.COM INC: Nonsuit Notice Filed in "Nettles" LXX FOODS INC: Cobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: Hoeft Suit Transferred to C.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Lennard Suit Transferred to C.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Phelps Suit Transferred to C.D. California NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS: Denial of Retiree's COLA Benefits Upheld OP2 LABS: Bautista Sues Over Deceptive Nutrition Labeling ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baril Suit Says PALACIOS MARINE: Fails to Protect Private Data, Cunningham Says PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, English Alleges PHOENIX EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Dawson" in Illinois PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ramirez Says R&R RESTAURANTS: 9th Cir. Rules on Employer Retaliation RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Nazarov Sues Over Deceptive Real Estate Scheme ROCKET LAB: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit SANDOVAL'S MEXICAN: Property Not Disabled-Friendly, Ramos Says SMITH COUNTY: Settlement in Over-Detention Suit Has Prelim OK SUPPLYING DEMAND: Diuguid Sues Over Liquid Death's False Ads TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH: Faces LaRocco Suit Over Data Breach UCARE MINNESOTA: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Santiago Says UNITED STATES: Denies Detainees' Rights to Religious Practice WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Reyes Says WEL COMPANIES: Ewing Files Suit Over Data Breach WEL COMPANIES: Kersey Sues Over Data Breach ZARATECORP LTD: Cruz Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit Policy ********* ACTIVEHOURS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Albinda Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN ALBINDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC., d/b/a EARNIN, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-09963-SVK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2025) alleges violation of the South Dakota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, on April 2025, the Defendant determined that an unauthorized party accessed and acquired personal data from the Defendant's banking partner. Investigation determined that the unauthorized party gained access to the personally identifiable information ("PII") of over 21,178 customers, including, but not limited to: Name, address, Social Security number, and date of birth (hereafter, the "Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered an actual injury, similar to an intangible harm remedied at common law. Defendant's failure to implement an information security program resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff's PII constitutes an invasion of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendant's failure to adequately secure the PII in its custody, and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. Activehours, Inc., doing business as Earnin, designs and develops application software. The Company offers a smartphone-based application that enables users to get paid for the hours worked when they need it. Earnin serves customers in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. Strauss Borrelli PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com ANGEION GROUP: Barclay Sues Over Qualified Settlement Fund Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BARCLAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGEION GROUP LLC; EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.; JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION; TREMENDOUS LLC; BLACKHAWK NETWORK HOLDINGS, INC.; DIGITAL SETTLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC dba DIGITAL DISBURSEMENTS PAYMENTS; HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK; WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06514 (E.D.P.A., Nov. 19, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants conspired and agreed among themselves to defraud the Plaintiff and Class members through a scheme involving improper retention of qualified settlement fund ("QSF") and kickbacks, and omissions and/or fraudulent misrepresentations about pricing and improper retention of portions of the QSFs in settlements nationwide. The Defendants agreed to participate in a coordinated scheme to deceive the Plaintiff and Class Members about the true nature of their business relationships, pricing, kickbacks and improper retention of QSF funds. The Defendants knowingly and intentionally agreed to participate in the conspiracy with the intent to induce the Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase settlement administration services at artificially inflated prices and improperly retain portions of the QSF without disclosing it to the Plaintiff, Class Members or the Court, says the suit. Angeion Group LLC specializes in managing class actions and other types of mass litigation. Angeion Group serves clients in the United States and United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Barger, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Email: jbarger@awkolaw.com - and - Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com BEAUTY BY IMAGINATION: Beltran Sues Over Unsafe Curling Irons ------------------------------------------------------------- GISELLE BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUTY BY IMAGINATION, LLC d/b/a BIO IONIC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-06350 (E.D.N.Y., November 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's manufacture, distribution, and sale of its Bio Ionic 1-Inch Long Barrel Curling Irons, Model Number LXT-CL-1.0, with a date code between 0722 and 1223. The Defendant's product manual and online instructions emphasize general safety precautions regarding heat and storage, but omit any warning about the possibility of the barrel detaching or snapping off during normal use, despite the serious risk of burns this defect presents. Moreover, the Defendant's safety-related representations omitted critical details regarding the Curling Iron's structural weakness and the foreseeable risk of injury, rendering their marketing and instructions deceptive by omission. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals for equitable relief and to recover damages and restitution for unjust enrichment and for violations of New York General Business Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Headquartered in Hauppauge, NY, Beauty By Imagination, Inc. own and operates J&D Brush, which manufactures and markets hairbrushes and beauty products for women and men. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Birchmans Parisian Sues For Shell Egg Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIRCHMANS PARISIAN, LLC, individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC, ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS CORP., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14030 (N.D. Ill., November 14, 2025) seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief, for Defendants' per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case arises from a per se unlawful conspiracy among Defendants, the dominant producers of conventional shell eggs in the United States, to fix and raise prices to artificially high levels throughout the United States. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants have allegedly leveraged their collective market dominance and effective control over the Urner Barry Egg Index, the industry's so-called independent pricing mechanism, to exploit the Avian Influenza crisis, artificially inflating and maintaining supra-competitive prices, says the suit. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces and distributes eggs products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Amelia Burroughs, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. Robin Stemen, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law aburroughs@burke.law klv@burke.law rsteman@burke.law - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. Nicholas A. Vona, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 Facsimile: (716) 332-0336 E-mail: cercone@rupppfalzgraf.com vona@rupppfalzgraf.com - and - Amanda M. Williams, Esq. Daniel R. Olson, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE P.A. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 Facsimile: (612) 333-8829 E-mail: awilliams@bassford.com dolson@bassford.com CARGO SOLUTION: Camacho Sues Over Worker Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------- IVAN CAMACHO, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARGO SOLUTION EXPRESS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-03061 (C.D. Cal., November 14, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, other damages, and restitution from Defendant Cargo Solution Express, Inc. Plaintiff Camacho worked for Defendant as a yard driver from approximately March 2025 to September 2025. He regularly worked more than eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. However, the Defendant never paid them overtime compensation. Instead of paying overtime, the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the other salaried employee as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation. Among other things, Defendant failed to provide these employees with compliant meal and rest periods. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in Fontana, CA , Cargo Solution Express, Inc. operates as a trucking and logistics company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua I. White, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-9221 Facsimile: (310) 564-4093 E-mail: josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com william@laurelemploymentlaw.com CENTRAL ONE: Scott Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL ONE FEDERAL CREDITТ UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2585CV1603C (Mass. Super., Worchester Cty., November 18, 2025) is a class action against Central One for its failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff and over 57,000 other individuals' personably identifiable information and private and confidential medical information. Between August 26, 2025 and August 30, 2025, unauthorized individuals accessed and copied the sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class Members from Central One's network. Central One owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect and safeguard their sensitive information against unauthorized access and disclosure. Allegedly, Central One breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its members' information from unauthorized access and disclosure, says the suit. As a result of Central One's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the data breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information was accessed and disclosed, exposing Plaintiff and Class Members to a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences, the suit contends. Central One is a Massachusetts credit union that provides financial products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Faces Burton et al. Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ANITA BURTON, DENNIS E. KWIATKOWSKI, RACHEL ANN ZAFRA, and ADAM ROGERS, individually and on behalf of minor children C.A.R. and C.M.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17595-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., November 14, 2025) asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and statutory claims under Illinois state law in connection with Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard private information entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. An unauthorized third-party accessed Defendants' IT Network from October 21, 2024, to January 13, 2025, and exfiltrated from Conduent's IT Network files containing private information of individuals obtained by Conduent's Clients. On or around October 24, 2025--ten months after discovering the data breach--Conduent issued a notice of public disclosure about the data breach. Moreover, Conduent failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this class action lawsuit to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to affected patients, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, of the Breach and the types of information unlawfully accessed. Headquartered in Morris County, New Jersey, Conduent Business Services, LLC provides digital business solutions and services to clients across the healthcare, commercial, government, and transportation sectors. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Kira Hessekiel, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com khessekiel@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com CSAA INSURANCE: Dickson et al. Sue Over Unlawful Insurance Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE DICKSON, WILLIAM WAGNER, and KRISTINE VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CSAA Insurance Services, Inc., Mobilitas Insurance Company of Arizona, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-09836 (N.D. Cal., November 14, 2025) challenges a systemic and unlawful insurance scheme conceived and implemented by both Defendants CSAA Insurance Services, Inc. and Mobilitas Insurance Company of Arizona. Allegedly, the Defendants' policy contains illegal provisions that render its Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage secondary, not primary, and that unlawfully excludes entire categories of damages, such as all medical expenses for injured drivers. Moreover, the scheme allowed Defendants to offer artificially low premiums to Lyft by drastically reducing its own risk exposure, gaining a decisive competitive advantage at the direct expense of Plaintiffs and other passengers who fund the unlawful policy. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, and for violations of the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in Walnut Creek, CA, CSAA Insurance Services, Inc. offers automobile, homeowners, and other lines of insurance in 23 states and the District of Columbia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 630 1st Ave, Ste 219 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net - and - Michael A. VanGalio, Esq. VANGALIO LAW CORP 7710 Hazard Center Dr. Ste E401 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (805) 720-3938 E-mail: michael@vangaliolaw.com CURBSURE LLC: Scanlon Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SCANLON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURBSURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13434-PGL (D. Mass., November 18, 2025) is an action to enforce the consumer privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text message calls to residential telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff's, despite their presence on the National Do Not Call Registry, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant. Curbsure, LLC offers several consumer products including insurance policy offerings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 Telephone: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com ENGELBERT STRAUSS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Engelbert Strauss, Inc. d/b/a Strauss, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04344 (D. Minn., November 14, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content. Moreover, the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures fail to ensure that its website does not discriminate against people who are blind or have low vision, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Venice, CA, Engelbert Strauss, Inc. owns and operates the website, us.strauss.com, which offers workwear and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lackie Drug Store, Inc., on behalf of itself and Arkansas similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Express Scripts, Inc., ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc., ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01669-MAL (E.D. Mo.), Judge Maria A. Lanahan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted the motion to strike class allegations. Express Scripts contracts with third-party payors such as health plan sponsors to facilitate the delivery of prescription drugs to health plan members. Express Scripts does this by maintaining a pharmacy provider network and contracts directly with pharmacies to serve health plan members in that network. Lackie is a member of Express Scripts' pharmacy provider network through a contract known as a Pharmacy Provider Agreement which governs all aspects of Lackie's relationship with Express Scripts. The PPA states that it is governed by Missouri law. When Lackie fills prescriptions for patients, the patient's plan identification numbers are entered into a computer system which provides information about the plan, such as co-pays and deductibles. Lackie then claims reimbursement from Express Scripts, which is adjudicated through the computer system at the point of sale. For plans contracting with Express Scripts, Express Scripts sets the reimbursement rate for each prescription filled by the pharmacies. Express Scripts' reimbursement formula dictates that medication reimbursements not exceed Maximum Allowable Cost. Express Scripts unilaterally sets the MAC. Arkansas law requires PBMs like Express Scripts to take certain actions pertaining to a MAC list, including providing each pharmacy access to the MAC list, updating the MAC list on a timely basis, providing each pharmacy prompt notice of updates to the MAC list, and providing a reasonable administrative appeal procedure for pharmacies to challenge MAC reimbursements. On December 20, 2023, Lackie filed this lawsuit alleging Express Scripts violated various laws in five counts: (1) Violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for failure to comply with Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507; (2) Violation of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act for treating Express Script entities more favorably than Lackie; (3) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; (4) Unjust Enrichment; and (5) Equitable Estoppel. Lackie also included a request for class certification in its complaint. The Defendant moved to dismiss Lackie's claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and to strike Lackie's class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against the non-PBM Express Scripts Entities. The Court found that Lackie asserts no claims against them, as the complaint contains no factual allegations that put the non-PBM entities on notice of any act that could result in their liability. Lackie brings its complaint against four defendants: Express Scripts, Inc., ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc., ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., yet Lackie alleges that only Express Scripts, Inc. did anything wrong. Though Lackie's opposition brief claims that it does assert claims against the non-PBM entities, Lackie never explains what claims those are or what actions those entities took that give rise to those claims. Lackie's complaint alleges the three non-PBM entities own and operate pharmacy services in the United States that dispense prescription medication through the mail to consumers in the State of Arkansas, but it does not explain how these actions give rise to any legal liability. This is not sufficient to put the non-PBM entities on fair notice of the grounds for the claims as required by Rule 8(a). The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against Defendants ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc., ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., without prejudice. The Court granted the motion to strike class action allegations. The Defendant moved to strike the class action allegations on the basis that Express Scripts, Inc. and Lackie agreed in their PPA to waive class-action litigation. Lackie does not dispute that the words of the PPA's class-action waiver would encompass this case. Instead, Lackie argues that the PPA is unconscionable and, therefore, this Court should decline to apply the class-action waiver. The PPA states: Claims shall not be consolidated or coordinated in any action with the claim of any other individual or entity. No claim or other dispute may be litigated on a coordinated, class, mass, or consolidated basis. No claim may be brought as a private attorney general. Lackie does not dispute the PPA bars class litigation, but rather argues its terms are unconscionable. Because it is not unconscionable, the Court applies the PPA's no-class-action provision. Regarding procedural unconscionability, Lackie argues the PPA is procedurally unconscionable because of the disparity in bargaining power between Lackie and Express Scripts and because the PPA allows Express Scripts to terminate the PPA without cause but does not provide the same right to Lackie. The Court found that like the pharmacy in Park Irmat, Lackie is a sophisticated consumer, not an average customer. Lackie is a corporate entity, and it does not claim that it lacks access to other PBM networks. Regarding substantive unconscionability, Lackie claims the PPA is substantively unconscionable because the terms of the PPA are more favorable to Express Scripts than to Lackie. However, Lackie admits that a class action waiver, in and of itself, is not sufficient to rise to the level of unconscionability. The Court found that the fact that the PPA allows Express Scripts to terminate the PPA does not make the contract unconscionable either. Given the totality of the circumstances, none of these terms rise to the level that would make the PPA unconscionable between two sophisticated business entities such as Lackie and Express Scripts. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Count I for violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In Count I, Lackie alleges that Express Scripts violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Section 4-88-101, et seq., for violations of Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507. That provision imposes restrictions surrounding maximum allowable cost lists. Lackie argues that Express Scripts violated Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507 by subjecting Lackie to Express Scripts' MAC list without complying with the requirements in Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507. The motion to dismiss Count One is denied because Lackie pleaded a plausible claim for violation of Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Count II for violation of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act. The motion to dismiss Count Two is granted because Lackie failed to plead a plausible claim. Under Burge, this is precisely the type of claim that would not be covered because a buyer is suing a seller. Thus, Lackie has not pled a cause of action under AUPA. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Count III for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court found that it could issue a declaratory judgment that Express Scripts violated Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507 because this Court would need to determine that Express Scripts violated Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507 as a prerequisite to finding an ADTPA violation. Lackie can thus pursue injunctive relief as a remedy for ADTPA violations. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Count IV for unjust enrichment. It is true that the existence of an adequate legal remedy precludes an equitable claim. Accordingly, the court granted Express Scripts' motion to dismiss Count IV. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Count V for equitable estoppel. Under both Missouri and Arkansas law, equitable estoppel is an affirmative defense, not a cause of action. Accordingly, this Court granted Express Scripts' motion to dismiss Count V. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7JTsnE from PacerMonitor.com GARDEN OF LIFE: Protein Products Contains Heavy Metals, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNE-MARIE DEHERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARDEN OF LIFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03118 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2025) is an action against the Defendant alleging that its Organic Plant-Based Protein ("the Products") contains excessive and unsafe levels of heavy metals. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's marketing does not disclose that the Product contains lead in excessive amounts or should be limited to about a single serving per week. No such warnings appear on the packaging or ingredients list. The omission of this critical fact misleads consumers and undermines their ability to make informed purchasing decisions. Instead, the Defendant concealed the risk and continued to market the Product as safe. Defendant recklessly disregarded its duty to ensure the Product was manufactured safely, resulting in products tainted with toxic contaminants. As a result of the Defendant's concealments and misrepresentations, consumers paid a price premium for contaminated products, says the suit. Garden Of Life, LLC offers a range of organic and whole-food based dietary supplements for overall health and well-being. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com GEMINI TRUST: Bao Family et al. Allege Securities Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- BAO FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC and BRETT A. OSBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEMINI TRUST COMPANY LLC, CAMERON WINKLEVOSS, an individual, TYLER WINKLEVOSS an individual, and JOHN DOES 1-10, unknown persons, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-81421-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 11, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating Securities Act of 1933 by engaging in the unregistered offer and sale of securities to U.S. retail investors. According to the complaint, Gemini consistently marketed the Gemini Earn program as a safe, secure, and flexible means of earning yield on digital assets, and repeatedly represented that customers could redeem or withdraw their assets "at any time However, on November 16, 2022, Genesis Global Capital announced it would cease honoring redemption requests from investors, including Plaintiffs, could redeem assets which were tendered to Gemini. On the same date, Gemini notified Plaintiffs and other members of the Class who had custodied their assets with Gemini that withdrawals from the Gemini Earn program were suspended. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this action on behalf of all investors who invested in securities offered by Defendant Gemini through the so-called "Gemini Earn" program conducted between approximately February 2021 and through November 2022. Headquartered in New York, Gemini operates as a limited purpose trust company regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric S. Medina, Esq. MEDINA LAW FIRM LLC 1200 N. Federal Highway. Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33142 Telephone: (954) 859-2000 Facsimile: (888) 833-9534 E-mail: emedina@medinafirm.com HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Benedettini Sues Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- GRETCHEN BENEDETTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02561 (C.D. Cal., November 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive the personal identifying information of Plaintiff and other Defendant's current and former customers and employees. On March 1, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a cyber incident that impacted its information technology environment. The Defendant's investigation determined that the unauthorized activity appears to have begun on February 22, 2025, and the last observed unauthorized activity occurred on March 2, 2025. On or around October 30, 2025--nearly eight months after being made aware of the data breach--Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure about the data breach and began sending notice letters to impacted individuals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Headquartered in Fountain Valley, CA, Hyundai Autoever America, LLC is the in-house IT and software company for the Hyundai Motor Group, which owns the Hyundai, Kia and Genesis car brands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com JACKSON, MS: 5th Cir. Revives Portion of Sterling Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case styled Priscilla Sterling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Raine Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Shawn Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; John Bennett, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. The City of Jackson, Mississippi; Chokwe A. Lumumba; Tony Yarber; Kishia Powell; Robert Miller; Jerriot Smash; Trilogy Engineering Services, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-60370 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses in part and affirms in part the dismissal of the class action lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (USDC No. 3:22-CV-531). The Fifth Circuit panel consists of James L. Dennis, Catharina Haynes, and Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Judge Haynes writes the majority opinion in full. Judge Dennis concurs with the entire opinion except the qualified immunity analysis at Section III.A.3. Judge Engelhardt dissents from the entire opinion except the qualified immunity analysis at Section III.A.3, where he concurs. The Panel, therefore, refers to Judge Haynes's opinion as the majority opinion, and Judge Engelhardt's opinion as the dissenting opinion. Because Judge Dennis' opinion is only a dissent from the qualified immunity, the majority opinion refers to it as the QI dissenting opinion. According to Judge Haynes's Opinion, the alleged facts of this case mirror one of the greatest public health emergencies in the United States in the last decade--the Flint water crisis. Instead of Flint, Michigan, these events take place in Jackson, Mississippi. Here, the Plaintiffs allege that the City introduced lead into the drinking water, pumped the toxic water into people's homes, and lied about the safety of the water. In reliance on those lies, residents drank, cooked with, and bathed in toxic water. They now face tragic, lifelong health effects. Because the alleged facts plausibly state that the City violated the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily autonomy, the lawsuit may proceed. The Plaintiffs allege that the City knowingly contaminated drinking water with lead and then encouraged residents to drink the toxic water. The Panel details the facts in three parts: the City's aging public water system, the City's creation and exacerbation of the water crisis, and the resulting health effects. Because the district court dismissed the case based on the pleadings, the Panel accepts the well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true. The Plaintiffs, as representatives of residents of the City, filed a class action asserting two substantive due process claims--bodily integrity and state-created danger--and three state-law claims. The substantive due process claims are brought against the City, Mayor Chokwe Lumumba, former Mayor Tony Yarber, former Public Works Directors Kishia Powell and Robert Miller, and Interim Public Works Director Jerriot Smash. The district court granted the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. As to the substantive due process claims, the district court reasoned that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the City and that City officials are entitled to qualified immunity. As to the state-law claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs appealed. Judge Haynes notes that at issue here is whether one's substantive due process rights are infringed when a City introduces toxins into the water, the City pumps the water into people's homes, the City lies to citizens about the safety of the water, and citizens rely on that guarantee in drinking the water, suffering irreparable physical harm. The Plaintiffs urge that the answer is yes under two substantive due process rights--the right to bodily integrity, and the right to be free from state-created danger. The Panel concludes that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendants' conduct violated their constitutional right to bodily autonomy. The Panel also concludes that the Plaintiffs state a plausible claim that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' right to bodily integrity. The Panel further concludes, among other things, that the City official Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the bodily integrity claim against them must be dismissed. The Panel, thus, reverses the district court's dismissal of the claim and remands for the district court to assess whether the Plaintiffs' allegations against the City state a plausible state-created danger claim. However, a never-established right cannot be clearly established, so the Panel affirms on qualified immunity grounds the dismissal of the state-created-danger claim as to the City official Defendants. Because the Panel reverses the dismissal of the federal-law claims, the Panel vacates the dismissal of the state-law claims over which the district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reverses as to the due process claims against the City, affirms as to the due process claims against the City official Defendants, vacates the dismissal of the state-law claims, and remands. Circuit Judge James L. Dennis, concurring in part and dissenting in part says he concurs in the majority opinion except insofar as it affirms the district court's ruling that the City of Jackson officials are entitled to qualified immunity from the Plaintiffs' bodily-integrity claim. Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, dissenting, says the Court of Appeals' decision channels a fictitious power. Judge Engelhardt points out that it eschews the Court's limits, using the long-recognized fundamental right to bodily integrity and an unbridled "conscience-shocking" analysis as a subterfuge to recognize a new fundamental right both parties agree has no home in history or tradition--a right to the competent provision of municipal water services. The decision goes even further, endorsing the novel theory that a constitutional violation occurs whenever an elected official's "lies" about the quality of governmental services negatively impact his constituents, Judge Engelhardt opines. And though the Plaintiffs disclaimed it at oral argument, Judge Engelhardt points out that the majority adopts the state-created danger theory without a single mention of history or tradition. Because the Constitution does not secure the rights the majority creates and provides no haven for such judicial caprice, Judge Engelhardt dissents. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhxdbfw from GovInfo.gov. LAWYER.COM INC: Greenlee Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Greenlee, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. LAWYER.COM, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-1777 (D.N.J., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Class for the time that they were engaged to wait for incoming calls; Defendant required Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Class to immediately answer all incoming phone calls. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Class for the time that they were engaged to wait. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and the proposed FLSA Class any overtime premium for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 in a week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on July 25, 2022 and continued working for Defendant through November 2024. The Defendant provides referral services for lawyers, by capturing leads and sending them to the law firms who have entered into marketing agreements with them.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Franklin J. Rooks, Jr., Esq. MORGAN ROOKS, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 104 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 874-8999 Facsimile: (856) 494-1707 Email: fjrooks@morganrooks.com - and - James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 394-0541 Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com LENNAR CORPORATION: Blaise Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lennar Corporation. The case is styled as Loumyr Blaise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lennar Corporation, Case No. CACE25017855 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 20, 2025). Lennar Corporation -- https://www.lennar.com/ -- is an American home construction company based in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: 813-340-8838 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com LES HOLDINGS DORAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. LES HOLDINGS DORAL LLC and OPUSTONE L.L.C. D/B/A OPUSTONE STONE & TILE CONCEPTS, Case No. 1:25-cv-25425-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 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. LES HOLDINGS DORAL, 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.[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 LOTTERY.COM INC: Continues to Defend "Million" in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Lottery.com Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit filed by Preston Million in a New York court. On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") against the Company and certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York (the "SDNY"), styled Preston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). The Class Action Complaint alleged violations by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), U.S.C. Section 78u-4 et seq. (collectively "Federal Securities Laws"). On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered the appointment of RTD Bros, LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian (collectively "Lottery Investor Group") as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case. On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the Company's legal counsel timely filed its Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants in the case. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter. Plaintiffs were expected to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the Company's deadline to file its reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the SDNY granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On June 12, 2024, plaintiffs amended their complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"). On July 12, 2024, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (the "MTD Third Amended Complaint"). On August 8, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed its reply on August 22, 2024 to plaintiffs' response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. On February 25, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the MTD Third Amended Complaint (the "Order). As set forth in the Order, the Class Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim shall proceed against Defendant Dickinson and the Company based on post−merger representations regarding Lottery's financial performance and financial reporting. Class Plaintiffs' and Hoffman's Section 20(a) claim premised on Section 10(b) shall likewise proceed against Defendant Dickinson. Class Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim shall proceed against the Company and Defendants DiMatteo, Clemenson and Dickinson with respect to certain legal and regulatory compliance statements in the Proxy. The remainder of Plaintiffs claims were dismissed, including all claims against Komissarov. The Court also ordered that Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend within twenty−one (21) days of this opinion and order. On March 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff Hoffman's motion for leave for additional time to amend his complaint. Accordingly, Hoffman's' Third Amended Complaint shall be due April 24, 2025. Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be due June 30, 2025; Plaintiff Hoffman's opposition brief will be due August 14, 2025; and Defendants' reply briefs shall be due September 17, 2025. On or about September 5, 2025, the Government filed a motion to intervene and requested the court to stay the action in its entirety. On or about September 5, 2025, the Court granted the Government's motion to intervene and its motion to stay the case. LOTTERY.COM INC: Nonsuit Notice Filed in "Nettles" -------------------------------------------------- Lottery.com Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a notice of nonsuit was filed by plaintiff Dawn Nettles in the class action lawsuit pending in a Texas court. On February 14, 2025, Dawn Nettles, et. al ("Nettles" or "Plaintiff") filed a verified original class action (the "Complaint") against Lottery.com ("Lottery.com" or the "Company"), Rook TX LP, Gary N. Grief, IGT Solutions Corporation ("IGT") (collectively the "Defendants") in the District Court of Harris County, 333rd Judicial District (the "Court") alleging that the Defendants engaged in systematic fraud, misappropriated lottery funds, illegally sold tickets across state lines, and manipulated the outcome of lottery games, including, but not limited to the April 22, 2023 Lotto Texas drawing. On March 25, 2025, the judge issued a ruling that the claims against IGT be dismissed without prejudice. Nettles filed a notice on May 30, 2025 that she is "taking a Nonsuit Without Prejudice Against All Parties Effective Immediately." The Notice, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162, terminated the case effective immediately. LXX FOODS INC: Cobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LXX Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Cobos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LXX Foods, Inc., Luevano Food, Inc., Case No. 25STCV34111 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[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 MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA CAVALLARO-KEARINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODERNIZING MEDICINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-81443-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")—together "PII/PHI"—about its current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Modernizing Medicine, Inc. develops a health care software. The Company designs specialty-specific medical practice platform to simplify and enhance patient experience, clinical workflow, and medical billing and operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Andrew Hausdorff, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com hausdorff@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. Milberg, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Strauss Borrelli PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hoeft Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Walter Hoeft, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00917 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10023-VC 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: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM, PC 940 N. Lincoln St. Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lennard Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dennis Lennard, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01109 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10024-VC 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: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM, PC 940 N. Lincoln St. Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Phelps Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rebecca B. Phelps on behalf of the Estate of Matthew J. Phelps, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-02052 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10025-VC 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: Mark W.D. O'Halloran, Esq. GOSANKO & O'HALLORAN, PLLC 7900 SE 28th Street, Ste 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: (206) 275-0700 Email: mark@gosankolaw.com NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS: Denial of Retiree's COLA Benefits Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the denial of cost-of-living allowances as part of retirement benefits in the lawsuit titled BETTY JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, and ROSA A. CAMACHO, Retiree and Member of the Settlement Class, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RALPH DLG. TORRES, Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Defendant, and NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS SETTLEMENT FUND, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 23-16074 (9th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Mariana Islands (D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00023, Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Susan P. Graber and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges. Judge Graber wrote the Opinion of the Court. The Panel affirms the district court's order holding that Plaintiff Rosa A. Camacho, a retired Class II member of the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund, was not entitled to cost-of-living allowances ("COLAs") as part of her retirement benefits. The Panel previously certified to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the question of whether section 8334(e) of the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund Act of 1988 (1989 Act) granted Class II members, who were already employed by the Commonwealth when the Act took effect, an accrued cost-of-living-increase benefit. The Panel held that in accordance with the Commonwealth Supreme Court's authoritative interpretation of Commonwealth law, which answered the certified question in the negative, Camacho did not acquire a constitutionally protected accrued benefit, in the form of COLAs, through section 8334(e) of the 1989 Act. Accordingly, the Panel affirmed the district court's decision holding that Camacho was not entitled to COLAs as part of her retirement benefits. Camacho timely appeals the district court's COLA order. The outcome of this appeal depends on the resolution of a question that the Panel certified to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Johnson v. Torres, 122 F.4th 1140 (9th Cir. 2024)). On Nov. 3, 2025, the Commonwealth Supreme Court issued an opinion answering the certified question in the negative. The court determined that the Commonwealth Constitution "cannot be extended to transform COLAs into constitutional entitlements" and that any legislative changes to COLAs do not constitute a contractual impairment. The court concluded that "section 8334(e) of the [1989 Act] did not create a constitutionally protected accrued benefit under Article III, section 20(a) for members already employed by the Commonwealth when the Act took effect." In accordance with the Commonwealth Supreme Court's authoritative interpretation of Commonwealth law, the Court of Appeals holds that the Plaintiff did not acquire a constitutionally protected accrued benefit, in the form of COLAs, through section 8334(e) of the 1989 Act. In light of the Commonwealth Supreme Court's answer, the Court of Appeals affirms the district court's decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 20, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2z9snfdb from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jeanne H. Rayphand, Northern Marianas Protection & Advocacy Systems Inc., in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. G. Patrick Civille -- pciville@civilletang.com -- Civille & Tang PLLC, in Hagatna, Guam; Nicole M. Torres-Ripple -- nicole.m.torres-ripple@nmisf.com -- NMI Settlement Fund, in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, for the Defendant-Appellee. OP2 LABS: Bautista Sues Over Deceptive Nutrition Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- INNA BAUTISTA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OP2 LABS, LLC, D/B/A FROG FUEL, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01573 (E.D. Cal., November 14, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive nutrition labeling practices associated with its Frog Fuel Daily Recovery Protein products. The nutrition label of the said product states that they contain 15 grams of protein, or 30% of the Daily Value, and 22 amino acids. However, based on third-party testing results to factor out added "free" amino acids, Defendant fails to meet the 15 grams it claims to contain, which is required as a Class I nutrient. Moreover, testing reveals the Product instead contains 13.4 grams of protein per serving size. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now alleges violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and also brings claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Texas, OP2 Labs, LLC makes and distributes health supplements, pre-workout, and protein products throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com - and - Jane Manwarring, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jmanwarring@classlawdc.com - and - Sara J. Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: swatkins@peircelaw.com ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baril Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MARY JO BARIL; MARY DEFATTE; MONIQUE GAMEZ; BRIANNE HUIZAR; DANIEL Mc GINTY; AARON PENTZ; JOSE SANTOS; BARRY SCHWARTZE; DEIDRE SWOOPE; and KYLE TROSKOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORACLE CORPORATION; AFL CORPORATION; LKQ MANAGEMENT COMPANY; RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY; COX ENTERPRISES, INC.; MKS INC.; GLOBALLOGIC, INC.; DAVID YURMAN HOLDINGS LLC; ENVOY AIR INC.; TRIMBLE INC.; MASTEC INC.; MILGARD MANUFACTURING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01873 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 19, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving the Defendants wherein the notorious cybergang, Cl0p ("Clop"), gained unauthorized access to the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' personally identifiably information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed to adequately protect the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect employees' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard employees' PII and give employees' timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. Oracle Corporation supplies software for enterprise information management. The Company offers databases and relational servers, application development and decision support tools, and enterprise business applications. Oracle's software runs on network computers, personal digital assistants, set-top devices, PCs, workstations, minicomputers, mainframes, and massively parallel computers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 Central Express Way, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com PALACIOS MARINE: Fails to Protect Private Data, Cunningham Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALACIOS MARINE & INDUSTRIAL COATINGS, INC. d/b/a PALACIOS MARINE & INDUSTRIAL, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00067 (S.D. Tex., November 14, 2025) arises out of Defendant's failure to adequately protect its employees' information and failure to timely and adequately notify them about the breach. On or about November 4, 2025, various organizations that track dark web activity began to report that Defendant lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personally identifiable information stored therein in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. Moreover, the Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the earliest opportunity to guard herself against the data breach's effects by failing to notify her about the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Headquartered in Port Lavaca, TX, Palacios Marine Industrial Coatings operates as a full service general mechanical contractor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, English Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BOYCE ENGLISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04343-MTL (D. Ariz., Nov. 19, 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 English was employed by the Defendant as a delivery helper. Penske Logistics, LLC offers solutions including dedicated transportation, distribution center management, 4PL and lead logistics, transportation management, and freight brokerage. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Email: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com PHOENIX EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Dawson" in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Phoenix Education Partners, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit filed by Janielle Dawson in an Illinois court. On April 1, 2025, Janielle Dawson filed a class action complaint against University of Phoenix in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that University of Phoenix violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, and the Illinois Eavesdropping Act by integrating third-party tracking technology in its website and thereby disclosing to third parties its users' personally identifiable and other protected information. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other members of the class. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company stated. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ramirez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-17654 (D.N.J., November 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Princeton for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, as part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Princeton obtained and stored the personal information of its students, applicants, donors, and faculty, and persons who have otherwise used Princeton's services, including the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, Princeton assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. On November 10, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed a Princeton University Advancement Database through a phone-based phishing attempt. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the personal lives of thousands of individuals including Plaintiff. Princeton breached its own privacy policies in failing to adequately safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information from disclosure to unauthorized third-parties, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems proper. Princeton University is a private institution of higher learning located within Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton offers academic degrees in a variety of disciplines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginovm, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com R&R RESTAURANTS: 9th Cir. Rules on Employer Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ZOE HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant v. R&R RESTAURANTS, INC., an Oregon corporation doing business as Sassy's; STACY MAYHOOD; IAN HANNIGAN; FRANK FAILLACE, Defendants - Appellees, Case No. 24-2464 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on a retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00965-YY, Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of M. Margaret McKeown, Richard A. Paez, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges. Judge Paez wrote the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff Zoe Hollis, a dancer at a Portland strip club called Sassy's, sued the club's owners and managers under the FLSA for misclassifying its dancers as independent contractors and violating corresponding wage and hours provisions. After Hollis filed the complaint, Frank Faillace, a partner and manager of both Sassy's and another club called Dante's, canceled an agreement for Hollis to perform at a weekly variety show at Dante's. Hollis then amended the complaint to allege that Faillace's decision to cancel the performance at Dante's constituted retaliation in violation of the FLSA. The district court granted summary judgment on the ground that to have a private right of action for retaliation, Hollis must have been employed at Dante's when Faillace canceled the scheduled performance. The Panel held that, while the FLSA requires an underlying employment relationship, it covers retaliation committed by the employer or "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee." Thus, the alleged retaliator need not be the actual employer, and the plaintiff need not have been employed by the actual employer when the retaliation occurred. The Panel held that, in the context of retaliation, the phrase "indirectly in the interest of an employer" does not require an agency relationship with the actual employer or the conferral of any direct benefit to the employer. The employee-employer relationship at issue was the one between Hollis and Sassy's. The Panel left it to the district court to determine on remand whether Hollis's work at Sassy's satisfied the "economic realities" test for establishing employee status. The Panel held that in ascertaining whether Hollis was an employee of Sassy's, it was not relevant that any FLSA wage and hour claims based on the alleged misclassification were time-barred. The Panel also left it to the district court or trier of fact to determine on remand whether Faillace's acts in canceling the scheduled performance and barring Hollis from future work at Dante's constituted retaliation. The Panel reverses the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants and remands for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 18, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2dsmy8dw from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. John P. Kristensen -- john@kristensen.law -- Kristensen LLP, in Santa Barbara, California; S. Amanda Marshall, S. Amanda Marshall LLC, in Portland, Oregon, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. Anthony D. Kuchulis -- SDueno@dunncarney.com -- Sara M. Dueno -- SDueno@dunncarney.com -- Dunn Carney LLP, in Portland, Oregon, for the Defendants-Appellees. RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Nazarov Sues Over Deceptive Real Estate Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- LILIA NAZAROV, DAHIANA GRULLON, SYLVANA MARMOLEJOS, and FRANCISCO MONTERO, all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RE/MAX HOLDINGS INC., RE/MAX, LLC, RMCO, LLC, RIHI, INC., ERIK CARLSON, ADAM CONTOS, STEPHEN P. JOYCE, KERI CALLAHAN, DAVID LINIGER, and GAIL LINIGER, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-17683 (D.N.J., November 18, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of multiple consumer-protection statutes, including the New Jersey Real Estate Full Disclosure Act, the New Jersey Real Estate License Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as well as other state and federal laws designed to safeguard consumers from exactly this type of deceptive cross-border real estate scheme. The suit is a putative class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and hundreds of United States citizens and residents who fell victim to what Dominican authorities have described as an "enormous real estate scheme," orchestrated by individuals whom Defendants falsely promoted and misrepresented as "trusted," duly licensed RE/MAX agents possessing "deep local insights," assuring consumers they could "have confidence in any market with us." However, the RE/MAX Syndicate knowingly orchestrated, authorized, and enabled agents within its Dominican Republic enterprise to capitalize upon the enterprise's falsely cultivated image of trust and legitimacy, using the RE/MAX name and branding as instruments of deception, asserts the complaint. Acting with actual or apparent authority, these agents perpetrated a calculated, multi-year fraud targeting United States consumers, inducing them to invest in purported real estate developments that did not, in fact, exist, and profiting from the fraud, the complaint adds. Throughout the Class Period, the Plaintiffs and the putative Class were allegedly defrauded of tens of millions of dollars as a direct result of Defendants' willful participation, authorization, continuation, and concealment of this fraudulent enterprise. This action also asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; and claims for common-law fraud arising from Defendants' deliberate misrepresentations and omissions regarding the integrity, qualifications, and oversight of their RE/MAX agents. RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. operates as a franchisor of real estate brokerage services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. DiPisa III, Esq. YOOK DIPISA LLC 2143 Route 4 East, 2nd Floor Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (201) 655-9428 E-mail: joe@yookdipisa.com ROCKET LAB: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Calif. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rocket Lab Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss the putative securities suit pending in a California court. The Company and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed in February 2025 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was purportedly filed on behalf of persons who claim to have suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the Company's Neutron rocket development. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on August 27, 2025. Relying on many of the same allegations as the securities class action, in April 2025 two shareholders filed putative shareholder derivative actions on behalf of the Company against its directors and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court has granted the parties' stipulation to stay these actions pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss the securities class action. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims and is currently unable to predict the timing, outcome or consequences of these actions, or estimate any probable range of loss. SANDOVAL'S MEXICAN: Property Not Disabled-Friendly, Ramos Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Ramos, Plaintiff v. Sandoval's Mexican Food, LLC, individually and dba Sandoval's; Robert Whitehead, Trustee; Ellen Whitehead, Trustee; and Does 1 to 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-01585 (E.D. Cal., November 18, 2025) is a class action complaint for injunctive relief and damages and denial of civil rights of Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended, and the California's Civil Rights Statutes. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide barrier free access to their restaurant establishment as required under federal and California state law. Further, the Defendants failed to provide compliance with the law relating to accessibility of restrooms, interior and exterior dining seating, sales and service counter, as well as dining seating at the bar. The said barriers interfered with Plaintiff's access to the facilities at the business, and continue to deter Plaintiff from visiting said facilities, and as a legal result, Plaintiff has suffered and suffers violations of his civil rights to full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities and privileges, and has suffered and will suffer embarrassment and humiliation, says the suit. Sandoval's Mexican Good owns and operates a restaurant located in Benicia, California. The real property is owned by Robert Whiteheand and Ellen Whitehead.[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 Telephone: (415) 730-6289 E-mail: richardmacbridelaw@gmail.com SMITH COUNTY: Settlement in Over-Detention Suit Has Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as LADARION HUGHES, ANGELA ALONZO, and DEMARCUS LIVELY, Plaintiffs, v. SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-344-JDK (E.D. Tex.), Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the Plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement and conditionally certified a settlement class. The settlement is subject to further consideration at a final approval hearing. This civil rights case arose when the named Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Smith County on July 11, 2023, alleging that the County violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to release them and similarly situated individuals within a reasonable period of time after they had completed their felony criminal sentences. Plaintiffs alleged that they and putative class members were wrongfully incarcerated and over-detained for different periods of time due to the County’s unlawful policies and practices related to timely release. After mediation, negotiations, and two formal settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, the parties reached a global settlement on April 5, 2025, and filed a notice of settlement. The parties stipulated to a settlement class defined as: all individuals who were detained at the Smith County Jail between July 11, 2021, and December 31, 2024, and who (1) were convicted of a felony offense; (2) completed their custodial felony sentence at the Smith County Jail; and (3) were not released within two days following the completion of their custodial felony sentence. In exchange for a non-reversionary settlement fund of 1,500,000 dollars, the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members agreed to fully and finally acquit, relinquish, and discharge all claims that relate to or arise out of the allegations set forth in the complaint. A total of 1,000,000 dollars will be distributed to class members in proportion to the number of compensable detention days, with the remainder allocated to attorneys fees, costs and expenses, class administration costs, and a service award to the named Plaintiffs. The Court counted 104 members in the proposed settlement class and found that this number satisfies the numerosity requirement for class certification. Plaintiffs motion asked the Court to preliminarily approve the 1,500,000 dollar settlement, conditionally certify the settlement class, appoint identified counsel as class counsel, appoint American Legal Claims Services, Inc. as the settlement administrator, approve the proposed notice program, and set deadlines and a final approval hearing schedule, and the County did not oppose the motion. Upon careful examination, the Court first considered Article III standing and found that the named Plaintiffs alleged an injury in fact traceable to the County's conduct and likely to be redressed by a damage award because they alleged they were wrongfully detained after completing their criminal sentences as a result of Smith County’s unlawful practices and policies. The Court concluded that these allegations satisfy the requirements of Article III standing for the named representatives and noted that the same alleged harm applies to potential class members fitting the class definition. According to the Court, the proposed settlement class satisfies Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The Court found commonality because a central issue is whether Smith County maintained adequate policies and practices to ensure that individuals sentenced to felony custodial terms were released within a reasonable time after they were entitled to release, and all class members injuries stem from this common issue even though detention length varied. The Court held that typicality is satisfied because the named Plaintiffs claims arise from a similar course of conduct, namely the County’s alleged failure to implement policies to ensure timely completion of the pen packet and release, and they claim the same type of injury—detention of two or more days past their release entitlement. The Court determined that the named Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class because there is no evidence of conflict among them and the proposed class members, and counsel have provided substantial evidence that they are able to protect absent class members, including securing a favorable settlement. The Court appointed as class counsel attorneys Meg Gould and Jon Loevy of Loevy and Loevy, Nathan Fennell and Camilla Hsu of the Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at SMU Dedman School of Law, and Akeeb Dami Animashaun, and authorized them to act on behalf of the settlement class in all acts required by the settlement. The Court concluded that Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied because the common key issue of whether Plaintiffs were injured by Smith County’s alleged failure to promulgate adequate policies and practices to ensure timely release after completion of felony sentences predominates over individual questions. The Court further found that a class action is superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, noting that class members have no interest in individually controlling prosecution of their claims and that resolution through the settlement is preferable to multiple separate proceedings. The Court next assessed preliminary fairness and found that the proposed settlement discloses no reason to doubt its fairness, has no obvious deficiencies, does not grant improper preferential treatment, and appears within the range of possible approval. The Court explained that the settlement fund will cover notice and administration costs, incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs, all attorneys fees and costs, and valid claims of settlement class members, and it accepted a service award of 5,000 dollars for each named Plaintiff as reasonable because it totals only one percent of the common fund and reflects substantial time and effort devoted to the litigation. The Court found that attorneys fees of twenty-nine percent of the settlement amount are reasonable under the percentage-of-the-recovery method and the Johnson factors because counsel billed more than 800 hours over three years, incurred 11,260 dollars in costs, litigated novel and complex issues, forewent other cases, conducted extensive written discovery, and secured a favorable settlement despite uncertainty of compensation. In comparing the settlement recovery of 1,000,000 dollars for 104 class members to likely rewards after a successful trial, the Court concluded that the recovery is within the range of possible outcomes and that there is an overriding public interest in favor of settlement of complex class actions. Notice plan and administration The Court approved the proposed form of notice and notice process, finding that the notice clearly and concisely states the nature of the action, the class definition, the class claims and defenses, the right to appear through counsel, the right to request exclusion, the time and manner for exclusion, and the binding effect of a class judgment. The Court held that the notice program satisfies Rule 23 because Smith County will provide a complete list of eligible members to class counsel and the settlement administrator, who will send notice and claim forms by U.S. mail and, if available, by email, and will remail undelivered notices. The Court appointed American Legal Claim Services LLC as the settlement administrator and ordered that the cost of preparing, publishing, and serving class notice and other expenses related to notice be paid from the settlement fund, not to exceed 50,000 dollars. The Court ordered that within thirty days of the preliminary approval order, the administrator will disseminate notice, and before the final approval hearing, the administrator must file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the notice dissemination requirements. The Court ordered that class members may opt out of the settlement by submitting a written request within forty-five days of the notice date, in accordance with procedures set forth in the class notice, and that any class member who does not properly and timely opt out will be included in the class and bound by all terms of the settlement agreement, including the release of claims, regardless of objection or participation in the fund. The Court further ordered that class members may object to the settlement agreement by submitting a written objection to the Court within forty-five days of the notice date and may indicate in the objection if they wish to appear at the final approval hearing. The Court ordered that class members submitting claim forms must postmark or deliver the claim form as described in the class notice no later than midnight 270 days after entry of the final approval order, with limited extensions allowed up to 365 days or further by written agreement of the parties. The Court retained discretion to appoint a United States Magistrate Judge to handle disputes relating to interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the settlement agreement and noted that the Court may itself resolve such disputes. The Court set a final approval hearing for February 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at the William M. Steger Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Tyler, Texas, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement agreement, whether a final approval order should be entered, and any other matters properly brought in connection with the settlement. The Court directed that the date and time of the final approval hearing be set forth in the class notice, subject to continuance without further notice to class members other than what may be posted at the Court. The ruling confirms that the case is proceeding as a certified settlement class action for purposes of settlement, with final approval to be decided after notice, opt-outs, objections, and the final hearing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRsGLB from PacerMonitor.com SUPPLYING DEMAND: Diuguid Sues Over Liquid Death's False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ RONALD DIUGUID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPPLYING DEMAND, INC. d/b/a LIQUID DEATH, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10941 (C.D. Cal., November 15, 2025) arises from Defendant's unlawful and deceptive representations regarding its product, Liquid Death. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant entices consumers to purchase its product by falsely advertising that it would donate a portion (at times, specifically ten percent) of the profits from each can sold to fight plastic pollution. Moreover, the Defendant prominently packages its products in aluminum cans, representing that its product is infinitely recyclable and is part of the company's mission in bringing about "Death to Plastic Bottles." However, the Defendant allegedly did not, in fact, donate 10% of the profits from every can sold to help kill plastic pollution. Instead, the Defendant manipulated the term "profits" to evade its obligations and mislead consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California False Advertising Law. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Supplying Demand, Inc. manufactures and markets beverage products, including mountain water, soda-flavored sparkling water, iced tea, and sparkling energy. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH: Faces LaRocco Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Dante LaRocco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-490 (D.N.H., November 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' names, Social Security numbers, and financial account information (the "Private Information") from hackers ("The Data Breach"). The complaint relates that in ordinary course of receiving services from Defendant, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to the Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration. According to online sources, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its computer systems between August 9, 2025 and August 12, 2025. Through the Data Breach, the unauthorized cybercriminals accessed a cache of highly sensitive Private Information, including names, Social Security numbers, and financial account information, of at least 1,494 individuals. On November 11, 2025, Cl0p claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' lives were severely disrupted. What's more, they have been harmed as a result of the Data Breach and now face an increased risk of future harm that includes fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members also lost the benefit of the bargain they made with Defendant, says the suit. Plaintiff Dante LaRocco is a citizen of the State of New York. Defendant Trustees of Dartmouth College, based in Hanover, New Hampshire, is a private university that serves thousands of students and former students throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 Facsimile: (504) 708-4512 E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.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 UCARE MINNESOTA: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Santiago Says --------------------------------------------------------------- IVELISSE SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UCARE MINNESOTA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04358 (D. Minn., November 18, 2025) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees of Defendant to recover for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff regularly worked at least 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and/or former CSRs for their boot-up and call ready work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service representative from August 2022 to June 2023. UCare Minnesota provides health coverage and services across Minnesota and western Wisconsin serving individuals and families choosing health coverage through the insurance marketplace MNsure, Medicare-eligible individuals, and individuals and families enrolled in MinnesotaCare and Medical Assistance.[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 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and - Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Suite 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com UNITED STATES: Denies Detainees' Rights to Religious Practice ------------------------------------------------------------- COALITION FOR SPIRITUAL FOR AND PUBLIC LEADERSHIP; FR. LARRY DOWLING, SR.; JEREMY MIDURA; FR. DENNIS BERRY; FR. DAN HARTNETT; and MICHAEL N. OKINCZYC-CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM; TODD LYONS; MARCOS CHARLES; RUSSELL HOTT; RODNEY S. SCOTT; GREGORY BOVINO; PAMELA BONDI; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14168 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 19, 2025) alleges violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants denied the Plaintiffs' rights to practice their religion at a detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, without such denial serving any compelling governmental interest and without allowing such practice under the least restrictive means for serving any governmental interest in safety and security at the detention facility. The Defendants' conduct denying the Plaintiffs' rights has and continues to cause the Plaintiffs irreparable harm. The United States of America, also known as the United States (US) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Geoghegan, Esq. DESPRES, SCHWARTZ, & GEOGHEGAN, LTD. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 711 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-2511 Email: tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Reyes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY REYES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03713-TPO (D. Colo., November 18, 2025) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of Plaintiff and the Class members' sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of the Defendant. According to the complaint, Wakefield's data breach affects Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant's clients who had no direct relationship with Wakefield, never sought one, and never consented to Wakefield collecting and storing their information.  The complaint asserts that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class members' sensitive information. The Defendant's failures placed the Plaintiff and Class members' sensitive information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. Wakefield & Associates is a third-party company that handles healthcare providers' revenue operations and debt collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 WEL COMPANIES: Ewing Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ JOHN EWING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEL COMPANIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01884 (E.D. Wis., November 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information ("PII") stored within Defendant's information network. According to the complaint, WEL acquired the PII of its customers and employees as part of its business practices. By obtaining, collecting, and storing Plaintiff's PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's PII from unauthorized disclosure. On January 31, 2025, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was accessed and taken by unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected email accounts, affecting what is believed to be hundreds of thousands of victims. The data exposed in the Data Breach includes name, home addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state ID numbers, and non-U.S. national ID numbers ("Private Information"). On November 12, 2025, the Defendant began sending Notice letters of the Data Breach to affected individuals despite discovering the Breach sometime between January and March of 2025. Defendant delayed alerting victims of the Data Breach until on or around November 12, 2025. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable care, the Plaintiff is now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of his privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, and such risk may last for the rest of Plaintiff's life, the complaint asserts. Consequently, Plaintiff must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect himself, to the extent possible, from these crimes, adds the complaint. Plaintiff John Ewing worked as a truck driver from 1992-2016 on a contract basis with multiple companies including the Defendant. Defendant WEL Companies Inc. is a trucking company based in Wisconsin. It provides clients with a range of trucking and shipping services, including full truckload/less-than truckload shipping, integrated shipping logistics, and warehousing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820, San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-239-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd St., Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: 212-684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com WEL COMPANIES: Kersey Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- IAN KERSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01882 (E.D. Wis., November 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and state ID numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint states that the Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, WEL has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite WEL's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's computer network and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on January 31, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). It was not until around November 18, 2025 when Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant notifying him of the Data Breach and theft of his PII. The Notice Letter Plaintiff received was deficient in many respects. The Notice Letter failed to disclose the nature of the breach and the threat it posted—refusing to disclose when the Data Breach occurred, how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, and why it took Defendant until November 2025 to confirm that highly sensitive personal information of certain current and former contractors and employees was accessed, relates the complaint. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Ian Kersey was a resident and citizen of the State of Wisconsin. WEL Companies, Inc. is a transportation and logistics company that provides nationwide freight hauling, warehousing, and supply-chain services to commercial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com ZARATECORP LTD: Cruz Sues Over Unlawful Tip Credit Policy --------------------------------------------------------- KARLA CRUZ, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZARATECORP LTD., Defendant, Case No. Case No. 2:25-cv-01788 (E.D. Wis., November 14, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant took a tip credit to meet its minimum wage obligations for her and other servers. In addition, Defendant allegedly maintained a common policy and practice of requiring servers to pay out of their tips for food and beverages for which customers refuse to pay. Moreover, the Defendant failed to to obtain servers' written authorization prior to deducting servers' tips, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Mequon, WI, Zaratecorp Ltd. owns and operates La Fuente Restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Connor J. Clegg, Esq. Summer H. Murshid, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 E-mail: cclegg@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***