251211.mbx

251211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 247 Headlines 2K GAMES: J.A.'s Class Certification Bid Continued to Feb. 5, 2026 600 NORTH BRUSH: Underpays Registered Nurses, Tall Suit Alleges A1 DEVELOPMENT: Estep Suit Seeks to Recover Gambling Losses AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in BIPA Suit to 7th Cir. AMAZON.COM INC: Unsealing Portions of Class Cert Docs Sought AMERICAN MEDICAL: Post Seeks to Reset Class Cert Deadlines AMERICAN PLUMBING: Marston Seeks to Certify Class of Plumbers ANAVEX LIFE: Continues to Defend ANVEX 2-73 Shareholder Class Suit ANNAPOLIS, MD: Seeks to Decertify Class in Johnson Suit APPLE INC: Potter Handy Appeals Final Judgment Order in Lopez Suit ARAMARK: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Georgia ARB RISK: Trejo Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme ASHLYNN MARKETING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 8, 2026 AVEN FINANCIAL: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Marino Suit BAE SYSTEMS: Rocha Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 23, 2026 BATON ROUGE: Haynes Files Suit Over Racial Discrimination BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Heins Files Suit in N.D. California BERT OGDEN MOTORS: Ximenes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas BIOGEN INC: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Shash Tossed BROCKMAN SITE: Mester Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice BUFFALO, NY: Galbraith Appeals Remand & Dismissal Order to 2nd Cir. BURGER KING: Court Denies Bid to Certify "Coleman" Class BYHEART INC: Sells Contaminated Baby Formulas, Valenzuela Claims CENTRAL ONE: Curran Files Suit Over Data Breach CENTRAL VALLEY PAINTING: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CERENCE INC: Continues to Defend BIPA Suit in Illinois CERENCE INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Securities Class Suit COMFRT LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CONDUENT INCORPORATED: Dekenipp Files Suit in D. New Jersey COOK COUNTY, IL: Wilhoite Sues Over Denial of Detainees' Rights CUSTOMS AND BORDER: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid DISTRESSED ASSET: Schmidt Files Suit in D. New Jersey DOORDASH INC: Alexander Files Suit Over Data Breach EACO CORP: $7.5MM Settlement in Workers' Suit Has Court OK EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Taylor Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia EVERLAST SIGN: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Rafter Wage Suit EXACT BENEFITS GROUP: Clark Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Ohio FARADAY FUTURE: "Hof" Remains Pending in New York FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Hallman FLSA Suit FLUENCE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit FOODS ALIVE INC: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FORWARD SOLUTIONS: Martin Suit Seeks Conditional Status FROEDTERT HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 4, 2026 GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL: Bid for Summary Judgment Due Oct. 15, 2026 GECU FEDERAL: Trevino Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Circuit GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Wyman Suit Seeks Conditional Certification GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks Final OK of $12.5MM Settlement GOOGLE LLC: Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to the Federal Circuit GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Joyce Files Suit in N.D. California HOMELAND SECURITY: Appeals Court Order in Nava Suit to 7th Circuit HRB DIGITAL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Rios Suit to 9th Circuit HUNGRY POT: Cao Seeks Collective Action Status I.C. SYSTEM INC: Esquivel Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California I3 VERTICALS: Continues to Defend "Hess" in New York JEA SENIOR LIVING: Manning Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Writ of Certiorari Extension to Sup. Ct. JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Gabbert Gets Initial Nod JPAY LLC: Zielinski Appeals Court Order to 2nd Circuit KEURIG GREEN: Burkley Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 2nd Circuit KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in Hagins Gets Initial Nod LAKEVIEW LENDING: Margulis Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines LINDBERGH PLAZA: Kirchner Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers MADISONVILLE, KY: Wedding Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Lynch Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK, NY: Stroman Seeks Unpaid OT for DHS Officers & Sergeants ONCOLOGY INSTITUTE: Wyatt Sues Over Compromised PII/PHI of Patients OPENLOOP HEALTH: Day Sues Over Unlawful Weight Loss Pill ORACLE CORPORATION: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Barnes Says PALM BEACH TAN: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 5, 2026 PANDA RESTAURANT: Fenn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation PB SOUTH CONSTRUCTION: Ardigo Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida PENTAGON FEDERAL: Appeals Court Order in Boczek Suit to 4th Cir. PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Reyes Says PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 23 POST UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wright Due July 24, 2026 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sanchez Balks at Tampon Product's Lead Content PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply R&S TOWER: Wors Seeks to Conditionally Certify Employee Collective R.T. FARM: Mondragon Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Campbell Says SHIPWRIGHT SPAC: Richards Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. SHOTS NO CHASER: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Dunham Says SKYWEST AIRLINES: Faces Penn Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Calif. SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Lyngaas SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Seeks to Strike Renewed Bid for Class Cert. SSA HOLDINGS: Ando Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive data SSA HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gomez Alleges STEVEN BOWMAN: Loses Bid to Stay Prelim Injunction in "Monroe" STRONGHOLD CONTRACTING: Toole Seeks to Recover Laborers' Unpaid OT SUNSHINE VENTURE: Hoven Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. SUNTRUST BANK: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court TEAM DISCOVERY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 17, 2026 TODD SNYDER: Faces Stevens Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal UNITED HEALTHCARE: Thomas-Cole Sues Over Unpaid Wages UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunction & Class Cert. Order to 2nd Cir. UNITED STATES: Braxton Appeals Injunction Order to D.C. Circuit UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid UNITED STATES: Withrow Sues Over Discriminative Restroom Facilities VALOR TECHNICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Technicians, Thornton Says VIRTU FINANCIAL: Opposition to Class Cert Extended to Jan. 22, 2026 WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Risper Files Suit in D. Colorado WALGREEN EASTERN: Class Certification Bids Due August 24, 2026 WESTMORELAND ABSALOKA: Salazar Seeks Equipment Operators' Unpaid OT YIPPEE ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 9th Circuit ********* 2K GAMES: J.A.'s Class Certification Bid Continued to Feb. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.A. v. 2K Games, Inc. et al Case No. 3:23-cv-05961 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order continuing to Feb. 5, 2026, the following: -- The hearings on J.A.'s motion to strike, -- J.A.'s class certification motion, and -- 2K Games, Inc.'s motion to strike. The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicl -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. 2K is an American video game publisher.[CC] 600 NORTH BRUSH: Underpays Registered Nurses, Tall Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL TALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 600 NORTH BRUSH OPCO, LLC, 670 OH OPCO, LLC, 2473 NORTH ROAD NE OPCO, LLC, 5000 SOWUL BOULEVARD OPCO, LLC, 17322 EUCLID AVENUE COMPANY, LLC, MARION OPCO, LLC, NEWARK OPCO, LLC, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02466 (N.D. Ohio, November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly registered nurse at the Defendants' facility in Fremont, Ohio from approximately June 2025 until October 2025. 600 North Brush Opco, LLC is a nursing facility owner and operator in Ohio. 670 OH OPCO, LLC is a nursing facility owner and operator in Ohio. 2473 North Road NE OPCO, LLC is a nursing facility owner and operator in Ohio. 5000 Sowul Boulevard Opco, LLC is a nursing facility owner and operator in Ohio. 17322 Euclid Avenue Company, LLC is a nursing facility owner and operator in Ohio. Marion Opco, LLC is a nursing facility owner and operator in Ohio. Newark Opco, LLC is a nursing facility owner and operator in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com A1 DEVELOPMENT: Estep Suit Seeks to Recover Gambling Losses ----------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT ESTEP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A1 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01337-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 19, 2025) alleges violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of illegal gambling losses by Ohio residents who played the Defendant's illegal online gambling games. A1 Development LLC is a technology-driven entertainment company, combining creativity and modern solutions to design and publish world-class free-to-play games and mobile applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Rockwell, Esq. Rockwell LLC 47 East Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, Ohio 43085 Telephone: (614) 806-7672 Email: jrockwell@lawrockwell.com AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in BIPA Suit to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMAZON.COM INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Michael Gunderson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05061, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). On Nov. 6, 2025, Judge Franklin U. Valderrama entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Th Court grants the motion to certify class and finds that Plaintiffs Christopher Block and Jason Stebbins are proper class representatives, but denies it as to Gunderson, finding that he is not a proper class representative. The Court hereby certifies a class composed of "all natural persons in Illinois for whom Amazon created a voiceprint on or after June 27, 2014." The Court terminates without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to bar. The appellate case is captioned Michael Gunderson, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 25-8032, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 20, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners AMAZON.COM INC., et al. are represented by: Stephanie Schuster, Esq. Raechel Keay Anglin, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-3000 - and - Elizabeth B. Herrington, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-1000 - and - Matthew D. Klayman, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 - and - J. Warren Rissier, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue, Floor 22 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 AMAZON.COM INC: Unsealing Portions of Class Cert Docs Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding unsealing portions of class certification materials. The parties stipulate and agree (subject to the Court’s approval) as follows: 1. By Feb. 2, 2026, or four weeks following the completion of Daubert briefing (whichever is later), the Parties shall prepare public, redacted versions of (a) the Plaintiffs' briefs supporting certification of a class ("Plaintiffs' Class Certification Papers"), (b) Amazon's brief opposing certification of a class ("Amazon's Class Certification Papers"); (c) Amazon's briefs on its motion to exclude testimony of Parag Pathak, Ph.D, and any reply ("Amazon's Daubert Papers"); and (d) the Plaintiffs' brief opposing Amazon's Daubert motion; however, any declarations and accompanying exhibits to those briefs, including expert reports, shall continue to remain under seal. 2. The Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. shall propose sealing recommendations for (a) all Amazon sensitive information and/or information designated by Amazon under the Amended Stipulated Protective Order, contained in both the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Papers, Amazon's Class Certification Papers, Amazon's Daubert papers, and the Plaintiff's Daubert opposition; and (b) all sensitive information and/or information designated by or pertaining to Non Parties under the Amended Stipulated Protective Order contained in Amazon's Class Certification Papers and Amazon's Daubert papers, after meeting and conferring with the Non- Parties regarding the need to file such sensitive or designated material under seal. 3. The Plaintiffs shall propose sealing recommendations for (a) all sensitive information and/or information designated by or pertaining to Non-Parties under the Amended Stipulated Protective Order contained in the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Papers and Plaintiff's Daubert opposition, after meeting and conferring with the Non-Parties regarding the need to file such sensitive or designated material under seal; and (b) all sensitive information and/or information designated by or pertaining to Plaintiffs under the Amended Stipulated Protective Order contained in Amazon's Class Certification Papers, Plaintiffs' Class Certification Papers, Amazon's Daubert papers, and Plaintiff’s Daubert opposition. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SUY3IO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Elle Mahdavi, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Matthew Hosen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com ellemahdavi@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com EmilyParsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Post Seeks to Reset Class Cert Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE POST on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01329-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to stay but resetting the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification to 30 days after the issuance of an order resolving the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that a stay is warranted because filing a motion for class certification by the current December 4, 2025, deadline is not feasible considering (1) "discovery is not at a stage where moving for class certification is feasible," (2) the MJOP may impact which claims remain, and (3) the purported settlement of a related class action "will in all likelihood impact this action." The Defendant provides ambulance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=chDJfj at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN PLUMBING: Marston Seeks to Certify Class of Plumbers ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH EZRA MARSTON on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. AMERICAN PLUMBING PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05122-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: (i) Conditionally certifying the class of: "all current and former Apprentices and/or Technicians a/k/a Plumber Techs or Plumbers who worked at any location of the Defendant" (ii) directing the Defendant to produce to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members who worked for Defendant from three years prior to the Order granting this Motion to the present; (iii) authorizing undersigned counsel to send a notice and consent, in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A&B, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-class mail and e-mail and also requiring the Defendant to post a hard copy of the notice in English in all common areas located within all of Defendant' locations; (iv) authorizing undersigned counsel to send a reminder notice, in the form attached as Exhibit C, to all putative class members who have not responded to the initial notice thirty (30) days after the initial notices are mailed; (v) providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendant counsel with sixty (60) days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff Marston, in the form attached hereto as Exhibits B; and (vi) any other relief that is just and appropriate. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated alleging that he and other employees who have worked or currently work as an Apprentice and/or Technician a/k/a Plumbing Tech and/or Plumber for Defendant have been deprived of proper minimum wage and overtime wages by virtue of the Defendant's unwillingness to pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime. The Defendant is a full-service plumbing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bnxmOa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com ANAVEX LIFE: Continues to Defend ANVEX 2-73 Shareholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anavex Life Sciences Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the ANVEX 2-73 shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 13, 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and it named the Company and an officer of the Company as Defendants. The complaint was amended on July 12, 2024 (the "Initial Action"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 associated with disclosures and statements made with respect to certain clinical trials for ANAVEX 2-73 related to Rett syndrome. This lawsuit was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 18, 2025. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 17, 2025. Briefing on the appeal concluded October 30, 2025. No decision has been entered. No amount has been recorded in its consolidated financial statements for any loss contingencies associated with this lawsuit as the Company believes that it is not probable that any loss will occur. Anavex is a biopharmaceutical company researching treatments for central nervous system diseases. ANNAPOLIS, MD: Seeks to Decertify Class in Johnson Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA JOHNSON, et al., v. CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01120-MJM (D. Md.), the Defendant asks the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), to enter an order decertifying the class previously certified in this action. Annapolis is the capital of the U.S. state of Maryland. It is the county seat of Anne Arundel County and its only incorporated city. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5He1ep at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: D. Michael Lyles, Esq. Jessica D. Corace, Esq. CITY OF ANNAPOLIS OFFICE OF LAW 160 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 263-7954 Facsimile: (410) 268-3916 E-mail: dmlyles@annapolis.gov jcorace@annapolis.gov APPLE INC: Potter Handy Appeals Final Judgment Order in Lopez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ POTTER HANDY, LLP, a third party, is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' proposed second amended final approval order and final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Fumiko Lopez, as guardian of A.L., a minor, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04577-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed this suit against the Defendant for its unlawful and intentional recording of individuals' confidential communications without their consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law. On Oct. 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a joint motion to amend/correct joint submission regarding their proposed second amended final approval order and final judgment, which Judge Jeffrey S. White granted on Oct. 14, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Lopez, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 25-7160, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 13, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 18, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 4, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees FUMIKO LOPEZ, as guardian of A.L., a minor, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark N. Todzo, Esq. Patrick R. Carey, Esq. Eric Somers, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 - and - Margaret C. MacLean, Esq. Andrea Farah, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC 44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street Colchester, CT 06415 - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Defendant-Appellee APPLE INC. is represented by: Isabelle L. Ord, Esq. DLA PIPER, LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Purvi Govindlal Patel, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Arturo Jorge Gonzalez, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Objector-Appellant POTTER HANDY, LLP appears pro se. ARAMARK: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- Aramark disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending October 3, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On May 17, 2024, a purported shareholder of Vestis, the Company's former Uniform segment that was spun-off from Aramark in September 2023, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Vestis and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Vestis' common stock between October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly false or misleading statements generally related to Vestis' business and operations, pricing practices, and financial results and outlook. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On November 22, 2024, the complaint was amended to add the Company and its Chief Executive Officer as additional defendants. On September 30, 2025, the motion to dismiss the case was denied. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Aramark is a leading global provider of food and facilities services to education, healthcare, business & industry, and sports, leisure & corrections clients. ARB RISK: Trejo Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- BEATRIZ TREJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANLEY CHAO; ARB RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARB RISK MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, LLC; AGUSTIN GARCIA; SARAH BROWN GARCIA; APRIL POPADITCH; PENNY MORANDA; and JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09758 (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), California's Usury Law, and California's Business and Professions Code, quasi-contract, civil conspiracy, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' engagement in a rent-a-tribe scheme wherein non-tribal payday lenders use a Native American tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all amounts paid on her and other Class members' loans, as well as their costs and attorneys' fees. ARB Risk Management, LLC is a company that operates an online lending website based in Delaware ARB Risk Management Holdings, LLC is a company that operates an online lending website based in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marika O'Connor Grant, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: moconnorgrant@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 8, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to modify pre-trial schedule: Event Date Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for Jan. 8, 2026 class certification and disclose supporting experts: Deadline for Defendant to file opposition Feb. 19, 2026 to motion for class certification and disclose supporting experts: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file reply in Mar. 19, 2026 support of motion for class certification: Fact discovery cutoff: March 23, 2026 Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure deadline: Apr. 30 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: June 11, 2026 Final pretrial conference: Nov. 6, 2026 A proposed Order is submitted herewith. Ashlynn specializes in the marketing and distribution of tobacco products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Utvk8C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone:(619) 762-1910 Facsimile:(858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER PC 475 14th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew P. Young, Esq. Rachel A. McMains, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 3611 Valley Centre Dr., #500 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 434-5020 E-mail: apyoung@swlaw.com rmcmains@swlaw.com AVEN FINANCIAL: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Marino Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- AVEN FINANCIAL, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Arianna Marino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aven Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00503-BAS-DEB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. On May 12, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. On May 21, 2025, the Defendant filed an amended motion to compel arbitration. On Oct. 23, 2025, Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and amended motion to compel arbitration. In sum, the Court first finds that the arbitration agreement in the Terms of Service does not clearly require the arbitrator to decide the arbitrability of the Plaintiff's claims, and thus, enables the Court to decide arbitrability. Next, the Court finds that the Terms of Service cannot be interpreted to preclude the Plaintiff's claims from judicial review based on the plain text of the Parties' agreement and based on Section 1414 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The appellate case is captioned Marino v. Aven Financial, Inc., Case No. 25-7291, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 19, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 24, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 29, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ARIANNA MARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Spencer Pfeiff, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Defendant-Appellant AVEN FINANCIAL, INC. is represented by: Laura G. Brys, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 BAE SYSTEMS: Rocha Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS QUIRINO ROCHA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; TRADE TEAM USA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 29CU062206C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., November 19, 2025) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for their: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) wage statement violations; (7) failure to timely pay wages; (8) failure to indemnify; and (9) engagement in unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, cleaning and maintaining company facilities. Bae Systems, Inc. is an American subsidiary of British multinational defense, security, and aerospace company BAE Systems plc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 23, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mohamed v. Bank of America N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01283 (D. Md., Filed May 24, 2021), the Hon. Judge Brendan Abell Hurson entered an order granting the Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on or before March 23, 2026. The Defendant shall file any opposition motion on or before May 15, 2026. All other deadlines shall remain unchanged. The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, and mortgage services.[CC] BATON ROUGE: Haynes Files Suit Over Racial Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- KALEB DEWAYNE HAYNES, Plaintiff v. BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01049-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., November 19, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of others similarly situated, against Baton Rouge General for violations of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. On December 2, 2024, the Plaintiff sent an email to Vice President Sean Casteel expressing concerns about the treatment he was receiving from his supervisor, Emily Guidoz, including exclusion from key departmental decisions, unauthorized staff shadowing, and undermining of his authority. Just seven days later, on December 9, the Plaintiff was abruptly terminated. Ms. Guidoz provided no written documentation of any performance concerns and stated only that Plaintiff was "not a good fit" for the department's new direction. The temporal proximity between Plaintiff's December 2, 2024 written complaint and his termination on December 9, -- only seven days later -- demonstrates a causal connection between his protected complaint regarding discriminatory treatment and the adverse employment action, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's conduct was intentional, malicious, and carried out with reckless disregard for his federally protected rights, entitling him to compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII. The Plaintiff is an African American male who began his employment with Defendant Baton Rouge General Industrial Group on or about April 2024. Baton Rouge General Medical Center is a nonprofit hospital and healthcare provider operating within the State of Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Minias, Esq. THE MINIAS LAW FIRM 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 900 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 777-7529 Facsimile: (504) 556-2866 E-mail: chris@miniaslaw.com BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Heins Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al. The case is styled as Damone Heins, Janice Kawasaki, N.H., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Gerber Products Company, Nestle USA, Inc., Nestle Enterprises S.A., Societe des Products Nestle S.A., Walmart, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-10048-JSC (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation -- https://www.beechnut.com/ -- is a baby food company owned by the Swiss branded consumer-goods firm Hero Group.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura Kessler Stemkowski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 216-9165 Fax: (843) 216-9450 Email: lstemkowski@motleyrice.com BERT OGDEN MOTORS: Ximenes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bert Ogden Motors, Inc. The case is styled as Antonio Ximenes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bert Ogden Motors, Inc. doing business as: Bert Ogden Buick GMC, Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00533 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Bert Ogden Motors, Inc. -- https://www.bertogden.com/ -- retails automobiles and offers sale of new and used automobiles. Bert Ogden Motors serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com BIOGEN INC: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Shash Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shash, et al., v. Biogen Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479 (D. Mass., Filed March 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order denying the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply and denying without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class where the parties’ briefing and proposed briefing will cause the unnecessary work for the court and delay. The Plaintiffs may refile their motion for class certification and a revised Memorandum in Support of the Motion, the Defendants may file a revised Opposition, and Plaintiffs may file a revised Reply. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company.[CC] BROCKMAN SITE: Mester Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- CORY MESTER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROCKMAN SITE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-02224 (M.D. Fla., November 19, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, for failing to timely provide Plaintiff and similarly situated persons with a COBRA notice. The Named Plaintiff and the putative class members were employees of Defendant who were terminated without cause on their part on December 15, 2024, or within 30 days thereof, as part of or as the reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff or plant closing, which was effectuated by Defendant on that date. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and the putative class members with the 60 days advance written notice that is required by the WARN Act. Thus, Plaintiff and the putative class members seek all remedies available to them under the WARN Act against Defendant. Brockman Site Development, LLC is a civil construction company that performs various construction-related work for its customers, including site clearing, earthwork, installation of underground utilities, as well as parking lot and roadway work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com BUFFALO, NY: Galbraith Appeals Remand & Dismissal Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT GALBRAITH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to remand and granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Robert Galbraith, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Buffalo, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00814, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The suit, which was removed from State of New York Supreme Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, is brought against the Defendants for personal injury claims. On Oct. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand to State Court, which Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. denied on Feb. 12, 2024. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Sinatra granted on Oct. 20, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Galbraith v. City of Buffalo, Case No. 25-2966, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT GALBRAITH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert MacWilliams Corp, Esq. LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 Buffalo, NY 14202 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF BUFFALO, et al. are represented by: Charles C. Martorana, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON, LLP 200 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200 Buffalo, NY - and - Alina Artunian, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 BURGER KING: Court Denies Bid to Certify "Coleman" Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Walter Coleman, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Burger King Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-20925-ALTMAN/Reid (S.D. Fla.), Judge Roy K. Altman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consumer protection action challenging the size of Burger King's advertised menu items. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Defendant, Burger King Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals who purchased a Burger King menu item based on false and misleading advertising concerning the size and/or the amount of ingredients contained in said menu item. The Plaintiffs alleged that Burger King advertises its burgers as large burgers compared to competitors and containing oversized meat patties and ingredients that overflow over the bun to make it appear that the burgers are approximately 35% larger in size, and contain more than double the meat, than the actual burger. The Court previously allowed the Plaintiffs' allegations to survive two motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs sought certification of three nationwide classes: (1) a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) class; (2) a breach-of-contract class under Florida common law; and (3) an unjust-enrichment class under Florida common law. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs requested certification of state classes under the laws for Florida, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Arizona. During a status conference on June 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs agreed to limit their proposed classes to purchasers of the Whopper and the Big King only. Regarding the FDUTPA class, the Court concluded that courts in the Circuit have routinely held that the consumer-protection laws of the state in which the sale of the product occurred must be applied. The Court stated that the state with the most significant relationship to each class member's claim is the state where the individual purchased the item. To each Plaintiff's consumer-protection claim, the Court must apply the consumer-protection law of the state in which that Plaintiff purchased either a Whopper or a Big King. The Plaintiffs' Motion did not provide any analysis of potential state-law conflicts. They thus utterly failed to meet their burden of showing that common issues of law predominate in their proposed nationwide FDUTPA class. For the breach-of-contract class, the Court noted that under Florida law, breach-of-contract claims are governed by the law of the state in which the contract was made. Florida follows the rule of lex loci contractus in determining which law applies to a breach-of-contract claim. In the case of a consumer product, the place of contracting is generally where the consumer purchased the product. Again, the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden by not analyzing the various states' contract laws. The Court found this lack of analysis particularly troubling because this is not a case in which the proposed class members all signed the same form contract. Regarding the unjust-enrichment class, the Court stated that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the homogeneity of different states' laws, or at least to show that any variation they contain is manageable. The Plaintiffs merely asserted that nationwide unjust enrichment classes are easily suitable for certification because there is general agreement among courts that the minor variations in the elements of unjust enrichment under the laws of the various states are not material and do not create an actual conflict. The Court found this insufficient, noting that the Plaintiffs had not cited a single state's unjust-enrichment cases, outlined the elements of any state's unjust-enrichment cause of action, compared or contrasted the differences between the various states' unjust-enrichment laws, or explained how the Court might overcome any such differences in jury instructions. The Court determined that common issues of fact do not predominate if, as a practical matter, the resolution of an overarching issue breaks down into an unmanageable variety of individual legal and factual issues. For the FDUTPA claim, the Court found that the Plaintiffs lack common evidence. The Defendant showed that the proposed class members were exposed to a wide variety of advertisements. During discovery, the Defendant produced to Plaintiffs over a thousand different advertisements disseminated during the putative class period, using hundreds of different food photos. The Court stated that the number of different advertisements the Defendant disseminated over the class period, coupled with the lack of common evidence about where and when any specific advertisement was displayed, strongly suggests that individual issues predominate in this case. The Court explained that judges in the District have routinely found that FDUTPA-class certification is inappropriate where the putative class members were exposed to a wide diversity of advertisements. The apparent variability in the offers that consumers see demonstrates that individual issues predominate. Without evidence that the proposed class members were exposed to the same misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs cannot prove with common evidence that all class members suffered from the same injury. The Court also noted that the Plaintiffs have not introduced or described how they would go about introducing any class-wide evidence to show that the Defendant's advertisements actually overstated the size of their burgers. Every sandwich served to a Burger King guest is hand-crafted in a restaurant before being wrapped, potentially placed in a bag, and perhaps transported from one place to another, leading to wide variations of what it may look like by the time the guest opens and consumes it. To determine whether any single advertisement was misleading, the Court would need to compare that advertisement to the photographs of the burgers that were purchased by the class members who saw that advertisement. That is a highly individualized inquiry. Regarding the Defendant's affirmative defenses, the Court noted that the Defendant has a loyalty rewards program called Royal Perks. When customers enroll in that program, they agree to an arbitration clause and a class-action waiver. Some 17.8 million people in the United States are Royal Perks members, and no one can place an order using the Burger King mobile application without joining Royal Perks and accepting the Terms of Service. While the presence of an affirmative defense does not standing alone preclude a finding of predominance, it can provide additional support for a defendant's view that the case presents mostly individualized questions. The Court found this affirmative defense presents yet another complicated, individualized issue that affects the claims of a large proportion of putative class members. For the breach-of-contract class, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs couldnot prove with common evidence that each proposed class member saw the challenged advertisement and considered it an offer. To establish that each class member saw a Defendant advertisement, interpreted it as an offer, and then relied on it in a material way, the Plaintiffs would have to call each class member to swear to these facts. That is the opposite of common proof. The Court also found that the Defendant's affirmative defense that Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims on behalf of themselves or some or all of the proposed class are barred because Plaintiffs or proposed class members did not properly notify the Defendant of the alleged breaches within a reasonable time after Plaintiffs or proposed class members discovered or should have discovered the alleged breaches presents individualized issues. For the unjust-enrichment class, the Court stated that it is well established that common questions will rarely, if ever, predominate an unjust enrichment claim, the resolution of which turns on individualized facts. Before it can grant relief on this equitable claim, a court must examine the particular circumstances of an individual case and assure itself that, without a remedy, inequity would result or persist. The Plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment and breach-of-contract claims trigger the very same individualized inquiries. The record suggests that the circumstances of each class member vary greatly. The Court found that under Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis. The Plaintiffs proposed calculating damages as the approximate price paid by consumers for the Menu Items, less the percentage of the value by which the jury finds that the Menu Items were overstated. The Court identified three problems with this approach. First, a cursory review of the Defendant's public website shows that the prices of the Defendant's menu items vary by location. Second, the proposed class stretches from April 1, 2018 to the final disposition of this action, a period of more than seven years, during which the Defendant's prices undoubtedly waxed and waned. Third, the Plaintiffs have not explained how a jury could find that any specific menu item was overstated by 35% or by any other percentage. The Plaintiffs' lack of common, class-wide evidence thus makes it impossible for the fact-finder to calculate the Plaintiffs' alleged damages by the application of a consistent overstatement percentage. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs' proposed classes do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement. The Court must consider the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and the likely difficulties in managing a class action. The Court found that the Plaintiffs fall well short on the final factor, the likely difficulties in managing a class action. The proposed class involves millions of consumers, stretching back to 2018, very few of whom are likely to have retained proof of or even remember their fast-food purchases. The Plaintiffs insist that the Court can identify class members by reviewing the Defendant's online sales records, third-party delivery service data, and potential class members' affidavits. The Court found all three of these proposed methods suffer from serious flaws. The Defendant's online sales records likely reflect only a small portion of the Defendant's overall sales. Customers who used third-party-delivery services were not exposed to the Defendant's menu boards. The Plaintiffs' suggestion that class members self-identify via affidavits would result in a series of mini-trials, defeating the purpose of class-action treatment. The Court also addressed Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement. The Court stated that what matters to class certification is not the raising of common questions, even in droves, but rather, the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. For all the reasons described in its analysis, the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the common questions they raised can be resolved through class-wide evidence, so they have not satisfied Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement. While the predominance inquiry is far more demanding than Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, the Plaintiffs' inability to resolve the key issues in this case through the use of class-wide evidence is fatal to both. After careful review of the parties' filings, the record, and the governing law, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QyFuHY from PacerMonitor.com BYHEART INC: Sells Contaminated Baby Formulas, Valenzuela Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYHEART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06333 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its baby formula products. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to consumers on its packaging that the products are contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, which can cause infant botulism. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products. The Plaintiff and the Class seek economic damages. ByHeart, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby formula products, with its principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com CENTRAL ONE: Curran Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- LYNNE MARIE CURRAN and ROBERT G. CURRAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2585CV01662B, filed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court on November 26, 2025, is a class action seeking to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief from the Defendant. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of providing its banking services, the Defendant requires that each customer must provide Defendant with sensitive, personal and private information such as name, address, phone number, and email address; date of birth; Social Security number; Marital status; employer with contact information; primary and secondary insurance policy holder's name and address; demographic information; driver's license; medical history; insurance information and coverage; and banking and/or credit card information. Between August 26, 2025 and August 30, 2025, an unauthorized party had access to Central One systems and acquired copies of some files from its network. However, despite apparently learning of the Data Breach during September 2025, the Defendant did not begin sending notices to the victims of the Data Breach until November 10, 2025. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included the current and former customers' Private Information, including that of Plaintiffs'. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information; failed to safeguard Private Information that it collected and maintained; and failed to provide timely and adequate notice precisely what specific types of information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. Plaintiffs Lynne Marie Curran and Robert G. Curran are citizens of Massachusetts who were customers of the Defendant. Defendant Central One is one of Central Massachusetts largest federal credit unions that provides banking services including checking, savings, loans, insurance and retirement accounts for approximately 17,799 current customers, including Plaintiffs and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Roddy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 101 Arch Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com CENTRAL VALLEY PAINTING: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Valley Painting, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lusio Santacrus Rodrigues, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central Valley Painting, Inc., Nor-Cal Painting, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV028101 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Central Valley Painting -- https://cvpaint.com/ -- is a premier residential painting business, offering services throughout Central, Northern California and Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Talar DerOhannessian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 CERENCE INC: Continues to Defend BIPA Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ Cerence Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act pending in an Illinois court. On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence's Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence's Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative defenses, a motion to certify the Court's order on Cerence's motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay. Thereafter, in exchange for Cerence withdrawing its motions to certify and stay, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both the Circuit Court and Federal Court, which 1) dismissed some plaintiffs and 2) amended the class definition to include Illinois individuals who owned, leased, and/or created user profiles for vehicles with Cerence's "voice recognition technology" (rather than anyone in Illinois whose "voiceprint" was collected or stored by Cerence). Cerence filed its answers in both and the parties concluded fact discovery. The parties are now briefing class certification, which briefing is scheduled to be complete on December 15, 2025. On November 3, 2025, plaintiffs moved to stay the Federal Court case pending the Circuit Court's ruling on class certification. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. CERENCE INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Cerence Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement entered in the City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust shareholder class action has obtained final court approval. On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc., et al. (the "Securities Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court's selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022 alleging classwide claims of material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 18, 2024, the Court granted final approval of a settlement of the claims in the Securities Action for $30.0 million, which was paid for by insurance proceeds. CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CleanSpark Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bishins securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins ("Bishins"), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (together, the "Class" and the "Plaintiffs"), filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers, including the Company's CEO and the Executive Chair. On December 2, 2021, the Court appointed Bishins and Darshan Hasthantra as lead plaintiffs, and on February 1, 2024, the Court entered a voluntary dismissal on behalf of Bishins. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Complaint alleging that, between December 10, 2020, and August 16, 2021, Defendants made material misstatements and omissions related to the Company's acquisition of ATL Data Centers LLC and its anticipated expansion of bitcoin mining operations. Plaintiffs seek certification of the Class, an award of compensatory damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses. On September 24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Expert discovery is ongoing, with depositions scheduled to conclude in late 2025. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, that may arise. CleanSpark is a bitcoin mining company that independently owns and operates five data centers in Georgia. COMFRT LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMFRT LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-04397-NEB-EMB (D. Minn., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.comfrt.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers weighted apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, sweatshirts, jackets, sweatpants, loungewear, children's clothing, blankets, pet clothing, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CONDUENT INCORPORATED: Dekenipp Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent Incorporated. The case is styled as Arthur Dekenipp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Conduent Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-17796-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., Nov. 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Conduent Inc. -- https://www.conduent.com/ -- is an American business services provider company headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO PC 5 Becker Farm Road, 2nd Floor Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Wilhoite Sues Over Denial of Detainees' Rights --------------------------------------------------------------- DEAN WILHOITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY AND COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13955 (N.D. Ill., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. According to the complaint, the Sheriff did not release the Plaintiff from custody on May 19, 2025, even though all charges against him had been resolved in his favor, the Plaintiff was not wanted in a warrant, and there was no detainer for him. As a result of policies and practices of Defendant Sheriff, the Plaintiff remained at the Cook County Jail until 12:54 a.m. on May 24, 2025, more than 131 hours after he had become entitled to release from custody. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq. Joel A. Flaxman, Esq. 200 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 201 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 427-3200 CUSTOMS AND BORDER: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN SANCHEZ MORA et al., v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03136-BAH (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time until Dec. 23, 2025, to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and to extend the Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply until Jan. 16, 2026. The Plaintiffs, through counsel, consent to the relief sought in this motion. The Plaintiffs are three immigration attorneys and three non-citizens who allege that CBP has a policy and practice of failing to make determinations on Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests within the statutory deadline. Consistent with the Court's August 8 briefing schedule, on Sept. 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to represent a class of: "All persons who filed, or will file, a FOIA request for records related to an individual with CBP which has been pending, or will be pending, with CBP for more than 30 business days without a determination." Pursuant to the Court's September 17, 2025 minute order granting a prior extension, Defendant’s opposition was due by October 17, 2025, and Plaintiff’s reply was due by October 31, 2025. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a subdivision of the US Department of Homeland Security responsible for safeguarding the nation's borders. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MOCGZ0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John J. Bardo, Esq. Jeanine Ferris Pirro, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS' OFFICE 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2539 DISTRESSED ASSET: Schmidt Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC; et al. The case is styled as Patricia L. Schmidt, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC; Creditshop Receivables, LLC; Credit Shop LLC formerly known as: Credit Shop, Incorporated; John Does 1 To 10; Case No. 2:25-cv-17802-CCC-CF (D.N.J., Nov. 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC is a financial services company based in Blue Ash, Ohio specializing in managing distressed assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM, LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 273-7117 Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com DOORDASH INC: Alexander Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- CHARLES ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10281 (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members provided the personal identifying information ("PII"), like name, phone number, physical address and email address, (collectively "Private Information"), to DoorDash with the understanding that DoorDash would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. However, on November 13, 2025, DoorDash announced a data breach to the public and was able to confirm that an unauthorized threat actor had accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. DoorDash disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the information, the complaint asserts. DoorDash's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries, including but not limited to: (a) present, certainly impending, and continuing threats of identity theft crimes, fraud, scams, and other misuses of their Private Information; (b) diminution of value of their Private Information; (c) loss of benefit of the bargain (price premium damages); (d) loss of value of privacy and confidentiality of the stolen Private Information; (e) illegal sales of the compromised Private Information; (f) mitigation expenses and time spent responding to and remedying the effects of the Data Breach; (g) identity theft insurance costs; (h) "out of pocket" costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (i) credit freezes/unfreezes; (j) anxiety, annoyance, and nuisance; (k) continued risk to their Private Information, which remains in DoorDash's possession and is subject to further breaches so long as DoorDash fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; and (l) disgorgement damages associated with DoorDash's maintenance and use of Plaintiff's data for its benefit and profit, says the suit. Plaintiff Charles Alexander is a resident and citizen of Stockton, California. DoorDash, Inc. is a corporation that operates as a delivery platform that connects customers with local restaurants, grocery stores, and retailers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Colin Losey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 1390 Market Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (628) 267-1537 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com colin.losey@forthepeople.com - and - JOHN A. YANCHUNIS, Esq. RONALD PODOLNY, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com EACO CORP: $7.5MM Settlement in Workers' Suit Has Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------- Eaco Corporation 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 the $7,500,000 settlement entered into in the workers' class action lawsuit has obtained court approval. In January 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Bisco Industries, Inc., alleging wage and hour violations and related claims. The class action covers a class of former and current employees of Bisco who were employed between January 13, 2019 and the present time. In March 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Both parties requested to stay the litigation pending mediation, which mediation commenced in April 2024. As a result of the mediation, the parties agreed in principle to settle this matter for approximately $7,500,000 which settlement amount, inclusive of payroll taxes, was increased to $7,795,000 in May 2025. In July 2025, the court approved the settlement. In anticipation of this settlement, the Company accrued $7,390,000 and $285,000 in fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2023, respectively, and an additional $120,000 was accrued in fiscal 2025 to cover the remaining settlement expense. The Company made the full settlement payment in September 2025. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Taylor Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Angel Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, Discover Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00966 (E.D. Va., Nov. 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com EVERLAST SIGN: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Rafter Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXA TIEFENWORTH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees in the lawsuit entitled Frank Rafter, Jr., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Everlast Sign & Service Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-4588, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is filed against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked. On Aug. 1, 2025, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are awarded $110,929.32, of which $55,464.66 is in compensatory damages and $55,464.66 in liquidated damages. Named Plaintiff Rafter shall also recover $19,416.78 in pre-judgment interest. Named Plaintiff Kelly shall also recover $8,398.12 in pre-judgment interest. Named Plaintiff Simms shall also recover $2,844.66 in pre-judgment interest. The Plaintiffs shall also recover post-judgment interest on the entire money award of $141,588.88, inclusive of pre-judgment interest and liquidated damages, calculated from the date the Clerk of Court enters judgment in this action until the date of payment, at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961. On Aug. 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, which Judge Nina R. Morrison granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' counsel is awarded $197,100 in fees and $6,914.05 in costs. The appellate case is entitled Rafter v. Everlast Sign & Service Inc., Case No. 25-2946, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees FRANK RAFTER, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian L. Greben, Esq. 316 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Defendants-Appellants ALEXA TIEFENWORTH, et al. appear pro se. EXACT BENEFITS GROUP: Clark Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exact Benefits Group, LLC. The case is styled as Ashley Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exact Benefits Group, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01346-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Exact Benefits Group, LLC -- https://www.exactmedicare.com/ -- provide personalized support with Medicare Advantage plans and Supplement Insurance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin St. Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com FARADAY FUTURE: "Hof" Remains Pending in New York ------------------------------------------------- Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class action lawsuit filed by Joseph Hof remains pending in a New York court. On October 11, 2023, Joseph Hof and Scott McPherson filed a class action lawsuit in Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Benchmark 237 LLC, Benchmark Real Estate Trust, SLLC, Canvas Investment Partners, LLC, Canvas Property Group, LLC, Juliet Technologies, LLC, and the Company, alleging that the defendants engaged in various scheming practices that discriminatorily impacted the plaintiffs and other class members The court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2024, and dismissed the case on January 18, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on February 12, 2024 as to the dismissal orders, which appeal subsequently was dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to timely file their appellate briefs. Although Plaintiffs have a year to file a motion to vacate the dismissal based upon a showing good cause, Plaintiff Hof recently filed a motion to seal the record and expressed the Plaintiffs' desire to cease litigating the matter further. FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Hallman FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit entitled Brittney Hallman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00222-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Joseph F. Bataillon granted on Nov. 7, 2025. This action is certified as an FLSA collective class action consisting of: "All people employed as servers/bartenders by Flagship Restaurant Group since June 14, 2021." The appellate case is captioned Brittney Hallman v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, Case No. 25-3331, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BRITTNEY HALLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin A. Todd, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer, III, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS, LLP 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 754 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 875-3332 Defendant-Appellant FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC is represented by: John Patrick Barrett, Esq. Margaret C. Hershiser, Esq. Patrice D. Ott, Esq. KOLEY & JESSEN 800 One Pacific Place 1125 S. 103rd Street Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (320) 654-4100 FLUENCE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fluence Energy, Inc disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 11, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint captioned Abramov v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444) was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the Company and certain of the Company's executive officers. On April 15, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint captioned Kramer v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00634) was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former executive officers, AES Grid Stability, and AES. Both actions purported to be brought on behalf of a purported class of stockholders, and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints sought unspecified damages and other relief. On May 30, 2025, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia ordered the consolidation of the Abramov and Kramer cases, captioned the consolidated matter In re Fluence Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444-PTG-IDD) and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated complaint that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company, AES Grid Stability, AES, and certain of the Company's former and current executive officers. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 11, 2025. The Company does not believe the consolidated complaint states any meritorious claim and intends to defend this case vigorously. Fluence is a global provider of energy storage products and services and digital applications for renewable energy and storage. Fluence is a holding company and conducts all of its business through Fluence Energy, LLC. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] FOODS ALIVE INC: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foods Alive Inc. The case is styled as Arianna Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foods Alive Inc., Case No. 25STCV34201 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Common Law Fraud." Foods Alive -- https://foodsalive.com/ -- is a family-company, crafting healthy foods since 1999.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com FORWARD SOLUTIONS: Martin Suit Seeks Conditional Status ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER MARTIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FORWARD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02858-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification of a collective action and issuance of court-approved notice. 1. Conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid wages as a collective action representing a class composed of: "salaried inside sales agents who worked for the Defendant Forward Solutions, LLC ("Forward Solutions") or its predecessor, Integrated Access Corporation ("IAC") at any time from Nov. 26, 2022 to the present pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)"; 2. Authorizing the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Forward Solutions at any time from Nov. 26, 2022 to the present via United States mail; electronic mail or message; and that all forms of distribution include a linked electronic Consent Form that may be completed and signed electronically; and 3. Permitting putative class members 60 days from the date notice is sent to submit (or postmark) a consent form to participate in this action. Forward provides professional services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UX7yJO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James D. Dean, Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN, &WALBERTP.C. 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com jdean@pcwlawfirm.com FROEDTERT HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 4, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NITISH S. BANGALORE, v. FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00893-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered a scheduling order as follows: The parties shall exchange their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by the end of the day on Dec. 12, 2025. Parties wishing to amend pleadings or join parties without leave of the court shall do so no later than the end of the day on Jan. 31, 2026. The plaintiff shall disclose the identities of expert witnesses along with reports and supporting documentation, by no later than the end of the day on Oct. 7, 2026. The defendants shall disclose the identities of expert witnesses, along with reports and supporting documentation, by no later than the end of the day on Dec. 4, 2026. The plaintiff shall disclose the identities of reply expert witnesses, along with reports and supporting documentation, by no later than the end of the day on Jan. 6, 2027. The plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification by no later than the end of the day on Dec. 4, 2026. The defendants shall file their response brief and supporting materials by no later than the end of the day on Jan. 6, 2027. The plaintiff shall file any reply brief by no later than Jan. 27, 2027. The parties shall complete all discovery by no later than the end of the day on Feb. 5, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ou4llE at no extra charge.[CC] GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL: Bid for Summary Judgment Due Oct. 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mera Romero et al., v. Garner Environmental Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06912-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order. Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than Jan. 16, 2026. All fact discovery is to be completed no later than July 30, 2026. Initial requests for production of documents shall be served by Jan. 9, 2026. Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than Oct. 15, 2026. Garner provides waste disposal services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sdphyP at no extra charge.[CC] GECU FEDERAL: Trevino Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BARRAZA TREVINO is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Carlos Barraza Trevino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GECU Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00625-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. On April 28, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Susan M. Brnovich granted on Oct. 27, 2025. The case is dismissed. The appellate case is captioned Trevino v. GECU Federal Credit Union, Case No. 25-7332, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 20, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 25, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 30, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CARLOS BARRAZA TREVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Esq. ORTEGA LAW FIRM, PC 361 East Coronado Road, Suite 101 Phoenix, AZ 85004 - and - Luis Leonardo Lozada, Esq. Thomas Andrew Saenz, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Defendant-Appellee GECU FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is represented by: John L. Condrey, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 2 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Wyman Suit Seeks Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD WYMAN, SPENCER WYMAN, NATHAN WARMAN, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. §216(b), v. GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS, LLC, a Florida For-Profit Corporation, JASON WILLIAMS, individually, and RICHARD WILLIAMS, individually, Case No. 9:25-cv-81205-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification and facilitation of court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216 and supporting memoradum of law. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant conditional certification of this action and to award the following: Require the Defendants to identify all individuals falling within the Proposed Class by providing their last known address, telephone number, and e-mail within ten (10) days of an Order granting certification. Approve the sending of notice of the collective action and a consent to join form (in English and Spanish) by e-mail and U.S. Mail to each Putative Class Member. Require the Defendants to post notice of the collective action and a consent to join form (in English and Spanish) in a conspicuous place at its headquarters. Appoint Perera Law Group, P.A. as counsel for the Putative Class. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida on Aug. 13, 2025, seeking unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Complaint was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees of Defendants. Richard Wyman became employed by the Defendants during December of 2022, as an installer, and remained employed until the end of 2023. Glassfronts operates a commercial glass and door installation and repair business. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ir9ocJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Freddy Perera, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. PERERA LAW GROUP, P.A. 12555 Orange Drive, #4107 Davie, FL 33330 Telephone: (786) 485-5232 E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com brody@pba-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks Final OK of $12.5MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, GARY CARDONE, MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval to the proposed Settlement. The Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to a Class Settlement to resolve the putative Class's claims against those Defendants in exchange for $12.5 million. This agreement came after a lengthy litigation period of more than two years and four separate mediations. Chargebacks911 is a chargeback management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0EsvYo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd Ste 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (657) 845-3100 GOOGLE LLC: Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to the Federal Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ GOOGLE LLC, filed on November 20, 2025, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, under Case No. 26-111, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled In Re Google LLC. Petitioner Google LLC requests a writ of mandamus vacating discretionary-denial decisions issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in Case Nos. IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025-00488. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner GOOGLE LLC is represented by: Nathan R. Speed, Esq. Elisabeth H. Hunt, Esq. WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, PC 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 646-8000 Facsimile: (617) 646-8646 GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Joyce Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guthy-Renker, LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Joyce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Guthy-Renker, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-09998 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Guthy-Renker -- https://www.guthy-renker.com/ -- is one of the largest and most respected direct marketing companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Ste. FL. 46 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Appeals Court Order in Nava Suit to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Margarito Castanon Nava, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03757, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The appellate case is entitled Margarito Castanon Nava, et al. v. DHS, et al., Case No. 25-3050, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MARGARITO CASTANON NAVA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark M. Fleming, Esq. Keren Hart Zwick, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 111 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1628 (312) 660-1364 - and - Michelle T. Garcia, Esq. ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. 150 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are represented by: Lori MacKenzie, Esq. Christopher Ian Pryby, Esq. William H. Weiland, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-4565 (202) 598-5526 (202) 305-0770 HRB DIGITAL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Rios Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ HRB DIGITAL, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Pedro Rios, Jr., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HRB Digital, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03530-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the Defendants for unlawful interception and disclosure of their confidential information. On July 14, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, which Judge Edward M. Chen denied on Oct. 27, 2025. The Court finds that because unconscionability permeates the entire arbitration agreement, severance would be an ineffective half-measure or, potentially, a reward for bad faith corporate actors. Accordingly, the Court refuses to sever the arbitration clause, finding the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable instead. The appellate case is captioned Rios, et al. v. HRB Digital, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-7199, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 14, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 19, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 29, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 5, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PEDRO RIOS, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ryan Ellersick, Esq. Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 14646 N. Kierland Boulevard, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 - and - Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Defendants-Appellants HRB DIGITAL, LLC, et al. are represented by: Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. Daniel Jones, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 HUNGRY POT: Cao Seeks Collective Action Status ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENGTAO CAO a/k/a Phillip Cao, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HUNGRY POT DARTMOUTH INC., HUAXIN CHEN, HONG AN ZHENG, YI PING ZHENG, SHUO CHEN, and LEO "DOE," Case No. 1:24-cv-11797-JEK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and setting the following schedule as to Conditional Certification; (2) directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e- mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or Facebook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of: ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from July 12, 2021, three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint to the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later; (3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; (4) authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translations; (5) authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website; (6) authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups, specifically targeting the Spanish, Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker communities; and (7) directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bC2cbc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 I.C. SYSTEM INC: Esquivel Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The case is styled as Joe Esquivel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03195-TWR-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com I3 VERTICALS: Continues to Defend "Hess" in New York ---------------------------------------------------- i3 Verticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year 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 Suzanne Hess in a New York court. On May 16, 2025, Suzanne Hess, individually and on behalf of a putative class of citizens of the State of New York, filed a class action compliant in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, against i3 Verticals, LLC and CP-DBS, LLC d/b/a "PaySchools", a subsidiary of i3 Verticals, LLC, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief related to services offered by PaySchools that enable parents, guardians and caregivers to fund lunches for students in certain New York school districts and allegedly unlawful practices by PaySchools related to the fees charged for these school lunch services. JEA SENIOR LIVING: Manning Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keyonna Manning and Tina Gray, individually and on Behalf of those similarly situated v. JEA SENIOR LIVING, LLC, d/b/a Sinceri Senior Living, Case No. 2:25-cv-02011-GMB (N.D. Ala., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant violated the FLSA by requiring Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members to perform work "off the clock" and failing to pay them the full extent of their overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation from Sinceri for all hours worked by them in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and are also entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant. Sinceri operates over ninety senior living communities across the United States, including in Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian M. Clark, Esq. Craig Lowell, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building, 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 314-0500 Fax: (205) 254-1500 Email: bclark@wigginschilds.com clowell@wigginschilds.com - and - Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitlzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Writ of Certiorari Extension to Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. requests to extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court until January 16, 2026, Case No. 23-55190, seeking a review of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned Narguess Noohi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 25-565. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by: Hannah Y. S. Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Email: hchanoine@omm.com JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Gabbert Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gabbert et al., v. Josephine County, Case No. 1:23-cv-01434 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Immergut entered an order as follows: Solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), this Court conditionally certifies the following: "All Persons and entities, and their heirs, successors and assignees, who owned, or had an ownership interest in, or a valid lien on real property that Defendant Clackamas County obtained through a foreclosure action to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes or other County or local government taxes and fees and associated fees and penalties, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the County (1) sold for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, and for which the statutory redemption period expired during the Class Period, or (2) which the County still owns as of the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and may sell for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, and for which the statutory redemption period expired during the Class Period." 2. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) All governmental units and entities of any type whatsoever including, but not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the State of Oregon, and Clackamas County, albeit this provision does not apply to estate administrators who pursuing claims on behalf of a deceased Eligible Claimant's estate; (ii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property or Potential Eligible Property as to which any Eligible Claimant or Potential Claimant has submitted a request to be excluded from the Class under the procedures set forth in the Class Notice that is accepted by the Court and that is not timely revoked; (iii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property or Potential Eligible Property by reason of a lien to secure payment of a debt or judgment, which debt or judgment has since been satisfied or released; and (iv) All Potential Claimants who have already resolved their claim for Surplus Proceeds against Clackamas County through a settlement agreement, release or final judicial judgment as to which there is no appeal pending and/or the time to appeal has expired. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Baltazar Ortiz, Christopher Ferretti, and Brent Dorrell as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. 4. The Court appoints Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (Fink Bressack; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP) and Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class (Sugerman Dahab) (collectively "Class Counsel"), finding that Class Counsel are well-qualified and experienced in class action litigation, and will fairly and adequately represent the Settlement Class. 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the undersigned at 9:00 am on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Josephine County is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of Oregon. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5DHldP at no extra charge.[CC] JPAY LLC: Zielinski Appeals Court Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY ZIELINSKI is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jeremy Zielinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPay LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-954, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of prisoner's civil rights. The appellate case is captioned Zielinski v. JPay LLC, Case No. 25-2915, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEREMY ZIELINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees JPAY LLC, et al. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 KEURIG GREEN: Burkley Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH B. BURKLEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled In Re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-MD-02542, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this putative class action, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) allege that Keurig abused its dominant position in the market for single-serve beverage brewers and Keurig Compatible K-Cups and erected barriers to competition to raise rivals' costs. As a direct and proximate result of Keurig's anticompetitive conduct, DPPs were forced to pay artificially inflated prices and were overcharged for K-Cups. On May 24, 2021, DPPs filed a motion for class certification and the appointment of class representatives and class counsel. On June 16, 2021, Keurig filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert report and testimony of DPP Expert Gary L. French. On Jan. 31, 2025, the Court denied Keurig's motion to exclude DPPs' expert. On Oct. 27, 2025, Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered the Opinion denying DPPs' motion for class certification. The appellate case is entitled In Re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 25-2908, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners KENNETH B. BURKLEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William V. Reiss, Esq. Ellen Jalkut, Esq. Jonathan S. Edelman, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Ave. of the Americas, Ste. 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Email: wreiss@robinskaplan.com ejalkut@robinskaplan.com jedelman@robinskaplan.com - and - Michael M. Buchman, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 800 Third Ave., Ste. 2401 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 577-0050 Email: mbuchman@motleyrice.com Defendants-Respondents KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN INC., et al. are represented by: Geoffrey Graham Grivner, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 500 Delaware Ave Suite 720 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 552-4200 Email: geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com - and - Wendelynne J. Newton, Esq. Mackenzie Baird, Esq. Gretchen Lee Jankowski, Esq. Matthew Pilsner, Esq. Peter Stephen Russ, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Union Trust Building 301 Grant Street, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 562-8800 Email: wendelynne.newton@bipc.com mackenzie.baird@bipc.com gretchen.jankowski@bipc.com matthew.pilsner@bipc.com peter.russ@bipc.com - and - Samantha Lee Southall, Esq. Carrie Amezcua, Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Ste. 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-8700 Email: samantha.southall@bipc.com carrie.amezcua@bipc.com - and - George S. Cary, Esq. Leah Brannon, Esq. Alan B. Freedman, Esq. Carl Lawrence Malm, Esq. Elaine H. Ewing, Esq. Everett Coraor, Esq. Isabel Tuz, Esq. Kenneth Stephen Reinker, Esq. Molly Ma, Esq. Shannon Manley, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Ste. 1000 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 974-1500 Email: gcary@cgsh.com lbrannon@cgsh.com afreedman@cgsh.com lmalm@cgsh.com eewing@cgsh.com ecoraor@cgsh.com ituz@cgsh.com kreinker@cgsh.com mma@cgsh.com smanley@cgsh.com - and - Lev Louis Dassin, Esq. Joseph Michael Kay, Esq. Rachel Lerner, Esq. Rahul Mukhi, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 Email: ldassin@cgsh.com - and - Courtney Jack Linn, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 329-4946 Email: clinn@orrick.com - and - Lisa Danzig, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Email: ldanzig@paulweiss.com KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in Hagins Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Hagins, et al., v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01835-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Silver entered a preliminarily approving settlement: -- The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) in this litigation (hereinafter the "Settlement Class"): "All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan, at any time between Oct. 26, 2016 and the date upon which the Preliminary Approval Order is entered." The "Class Period" shall be defined as Oct. 26, 2016, through the date of this Order. A person was a participant in or beneficiary of the Plan during the Class Period if they had an account balance in the Plan during such period. -- The Settlement documented in the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved. -- A hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) is scheduled to be held before the Court on April 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Knight-Swift provides transportation and logistics services. The Court previously certified a Class defined as: "All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan, at any time between Oct. 26, 2016 and the present." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kqUz6E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 The Defendant is represented by: Wesley E. Stockard, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1200, Monarch Tower Atlanta, GA 30326 LAKEVIEW LENDING: Margulis Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARED MARGULIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAKEVIEW LENDING, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61009-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines related to class certification set forth in the Court's order setting trial and pre-trial deadlines for a period of 60days. The Plaintiff requests that this Court extend the deadlines related to class certification set forth in the Scheduling Court's Order by 60 days as follows: (1) Exchange expert summaries or reports related to class certification: Feb. 3, 2026. (2) Exchange rebuttal expert summaries or reports related to class certification: March 10, 2026. (3) Complete class discovery: March 24, 2026. (4) File motion for class certification: April 7, 2026. (5) The Defendant's opposition to class certification motion: April 21, 2026 The action arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and Florida Statute section 501.059, alleging that the Defendant Lakeview Lending, LLC made numerous unsolicited telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and putative class members without consent, to telephone numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, and after express requests to cease calling. Between March and May 2025, Defendant made at least five telemarketing calls to Plaintiff alone after Plaintiff expressly demanded on two separate occasions that Defendant stop calling. Lakeview provides mortgage financing services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qW8pxw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. THE MILIAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 800, Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 808-9736 E-mail: david@lawmilian.com elizabeth@lawmilian.com pleadings@lawmilian.com LINDBERGH PLAZA: Kirchner Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Hirning, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PARKER STATION PLAZA LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03759 (D. Colo., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property five times before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to the Defendant, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, as such, the Plaintiff is deterred from returning to the Property as a customer until after the barriers to access identified in this Complaint are cured, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. PARKER STATION PLAZA LLC is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com MADISONVILLE, KY: Wedding Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- PAULETTE WEDDING is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Paulette Wedding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Madisonville, KY Health and Rehabilitation, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00097, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. On Oct. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 22, 2024. On Dec. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend. On Oct. 15, 2025, the Court entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The Court ruled that Wedding's complaint fails on the merits as to any possible defendant. On Oct. 16, 2025, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is captioned Paulette Wedding v. Madisonville, KY Health and Rehabilitation, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-6050, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on November 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PAULETTE WEDDING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 Defendants-Appellees MADISONVILLE, KY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION, LLC, et al. are represented by: August Tyler Johannsen, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1600 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 317-7982 MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARSHFIELD CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00953 (W.D. Wis., November 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including protected health information and other personally identifiable information. The Defendant received Plaintiff and Class Members' private information in its provision of health services to Plaintiff and Class Members. Upon information and belief, an unauthorized party accessed Defendant's system between August 26 and August 27, 2025. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose private information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure its network containing protected private information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal statutes, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices, the complaint relates. Marshfield Clinic Health System, Inc. is an integrated health system serving Wisconsin and Michigan with more than 1,600 providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Lynch Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN LYNCH, et al., v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01502 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order: -- preliminarily approving settlement with Clackamas County, -- conditionally certifying class for settlement purposes, -- approving form and manner of class notice, and -- setting date for final approval hearing. Solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), this Court conditionally certifies the following class (the "Settlement Class"): "All Persons and entities, and their heirs, successors and assignees, who owned, or had an ownership interest in, or a valid lien on real property that Defendant Clackamas County obtained through a foreclosure action to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes or other County or local government taxes and fees and associated fees and penalties, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the County (1) sold for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, and for which the statutory redemption period expired during the Class Period, or (2) which the County still owns as of the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and may sell for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, and for which the statutory redemption period expired during the Class Period." 2. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) All governmental units and entities of any type whatsoever including, but not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the State of Oregon, and Clackamas County, albeit this provision does not apply to estate administrators who pursuing claims on behalf of a deceased Eligible Claimant's estate; (ii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property or Potential Eligible Property as to which any Eligible Claimant or Potential Claimant has submitted a request to be excluded from the Class under the procedures set forth in the Class Notice that is accepted by the Court and that is not timely revoked; (iii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property or Potential Eligible Property by reason of a lien to secure payment of a debt or judgment, which debt or judgment has since been satisfied or released; and (iv) All Potential Claimants who have already resolved their claim for Surplus Proceeds against Clackamas County through a settlement agreement, release or final judicial judgment as to which there is no appeal pending and/or the time to appeal has expired. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Baltazar Ortiz, Christopher Ferretti, and Brent Dorrell as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. 4. The Court appoints Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (Fink Bressack; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP) and Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class (Sugerman Dahab) (collectively "Class Counsel"), finding that Class Counsel are well-qualified and experienced in class action litigation, and will fairly and adequately represent the Settlement Class. 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the undersigned at 9:00 am on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Multnomah is part of the Portland metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LZ0x0t at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Stroman Seeks Unpaid OT for DHS Officers & Sergeants ------------------------------------------------------------------ EVELTON STROMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09478 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the City of New York in the positions of special officer and/or sergeant in the Department of Homeless Services. City of New York is a public agency with its principal office and place of business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com esprotzer@spivaklipton.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Email: gkm@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com ONCOLOGY INSTITUTE: Wyatt Sues Over Compromised PII/PHI of Patients ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN WYATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ONCOLOGY INSTITUTE OF HOPE AND INNOVATION PATIENT SAFETY ORGANIZATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10869 (C.D. Cal., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation Patient Safety Organization, LLC is a provider of specialized care to cancer patients based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com OPENLOOP HEALTH: Day Sues Over Unlawful Weight Loss Pill -------------------------------------------------------- Darby Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPENLOOP HEALTH INC., TRIAD RX BUYER LLC and TRIAD RX, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01418-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought concering Defendants' so-called "oral tirzepatide" weight loss pill, a product that has never been approved by the FDA, has no demonstrated mechanism of absorption or efficacy, and functions as modern-day snake oil—a mass-produced, pharmacologically inert compound when delivered via a pill, and misrepresented to consumers as a legitimate GLP-1 weight loss therapy in violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NCUDTPA"). Despite the fact that Defendants and their co-conspirators could never manufacture an oral tirzepatide pill that functions as a legitimate, effective GLP-1 drug for weight loss, they have marketed and continue to market and sell it to thousands of unsuspecting consumers as a safe and effective equivalent and alternative to GLP-1 injectable weight loss medications that are approved by the Federal Drug Administration ("FDA"). The Plaintiff purchased the "oral tirzepatide" from a website called MEDVi, which claimed to offer personalized, doctor-supervised weight loss treatment. In reality, MEDVi was one of dozens of deceptive artifices, i.e. nearly identical "telehealth" websites each promoting the same oral tirzepatide pills through nearly identical deceptive language and imagery. These consumer-facing websites or "brands", like MEDVi, conceal their common origin but are part of the same scheme and operation with Open Loop at the hub. The websites bombard customers with ads online and via social media, and also further the scheme and deception by, among other things, creating the false narrative that there is a proliferation of purported "companies" selling an "oral tirzepatide" pill, thereby giving consumers the false impression that the drug is legitimate and widely accepted and prescribed. Through this scheme, Defendants have profited by intentionally deceiving consumers into each paying hundreds of dollars for unapproved, ineffective oral weight loss pills that were (knowingly) never capable of delivering the weight loss results promised, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased "oral tirzepatide" from Defendants. OpenLoop Health Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Scott M. Tucker, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: 302-656-2500 Fax: 302-656-9053 Email: smt@chimicles.com - and - Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Esq. Dylan Altland, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: 610-642-8500 Fax: 610-649-3633 Email: nec@chimicles.com kds@chimicles.com dda@chimicles.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Barnes Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and COX ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01935 (W.D. Tex., November 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), from being stolen by cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach ("Data Breach"). The complaint relates that in its ordinary course of business operations, the Defendants collected the personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of current and former employees and/or customers which include the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, physical address, employment related information, financial account numbers, identification documents such as passports, driver's licenses, national ID numbers, signatures, and other sensitive information. In July 2025, Defendant Oracle was hacked in the Data Breach which compromised the data of its enterprise consumers. The complaint alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. The notorious cybergang, Clop, has already claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendants conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) uncompensated lost time associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in Defendants possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendants fail to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the Private Information, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Annette Barnes is a resident of Miami, Florida. Defendant Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas.1 Defendant Oracle provides database software and cloud computing software services to companies across the United States ("Defendant Oracle's Clients"), including Defendant Cox. Defendant Cox Enterprises, Inc. is a global communications and automotive services company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-744-3000 Facsimile: 214-744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N. Ste. 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: 713-659-5200 Facsimile: 713-659-2204 E-mail: Mark.Lanier@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Evan Janush, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PLLC 535 Madison Ave., 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-421-2800 Facsimile: 212-253-4094 E-mail: Evan.Janush@LanierLawFirm.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 Facsimile: 954-525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 858-209-6941 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com PALM BEACH TAN: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 5, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX HUDSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PALM BEACH TAN, INC. and ARCHER MALMO, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00486-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Peake Peake entered an order that the deadline for serving experts reports and disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (a)(2)(C) is April 8, 2026 for Plaintiff, and May 8, 2026 for Defendants. The deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification is June 5, 2026. The deadline for completion of discovery is July 17, 2026. Palm is a chain of indoor tanning facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=19QOR5 at no extra charge.[CC] PANDA RESTAURANT: Fenn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Fenn and Jonnymar Salvador, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-11157 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. Panda Express knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Panda Express in California. Panda Express is one of the largest fast casual food chain stores in the United States, operating thousands of store fronts throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua I. White, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (323) 551-9221 Fax: (310) 654-4093 Email: josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com william@laurelemploymentlaw.com - and - Austin W. Anderson, Esq. William C. ("Clif") Alexander, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com PB SOUTH CONSTRUCTION: Ardigo Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Linda McMahon, et al. The case is styled as Robert Ardigo, Robert Fuller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PB South Construction, LLC, Insperity PEO HR, Inc., Case No. 9:25-cv-81449-EA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. PB South -- https://pbsouthconstruction.com/ -- is a seasoned construction firm delivering high-impact commercial and mixed-use developments across Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA PA 1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 640 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 379-2560 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com PENTAGON FEDERAL: Appeals Court Order in Boczek Suit to 4th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, d/b/a PENFED, is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Boczek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, d/b/a PENFED, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00043-TSK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The appellate case is entitled Pentagon Federal Credit Union v. Joseph Boczek, Case No. 25-219, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JOSEPH BOCZEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jason Edward Causey, Esq. KATZ, KANTOR, STONESTREET & BUCKNER PLLC 206 South Walker Street Princeton, WV 24740 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 - and - Denali S. Hedrick, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 94 Long Street Westover, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 940-9809 - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 - and - Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Defendant-Petitioner PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, d/b/a PENFED, is represented by: Kinsey Novak Booth, Esq. Lauren Emily Motes, Esq. Esha Sharma Simon, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 215 Don Knotts Boulevard Morgantown, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 225-1416 (304) 296-1100 (304) 225-1405 - and - Michael A. Graziano, Esq. Sarah Ann James, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 659-6671 (202) 659-6609 - and - Brian James Moore, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP P.O. Box 11887 Charleston, WV 25339 Telephone: (304) 357-9905 PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Reyes Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICO REYES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITMAN LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09647-AT (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. With this action, the Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant in April 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the private information which was being kept there, says the suit. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman is a for-profit enterprise with a principal place of business located in New York, New York. Pillsbury Winthrop is a law firm that operates across the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 490-3600 Facsimile: (212) 986-1952 E-mail: avi@adklawfirm.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 23 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gibson v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04529 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order that for sealing requests related to the motion for class certification, the parties may file by December 23, 2025, combined motions to seal as contemplated by paragraph 31 of the Standing Order for Civil Cases. To the extent responses are necessary, they may be filed by Dec. 30, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-(Citizenship). The Defendant is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health care in the United States and globally.[CC] POST UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wright Due July 24, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANAMELIA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POST UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:25-cv-01555-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Nagala entered a scheduling order: Any motion to amend the complaint or join parties must be filed by Plaintiff no later than Jan. 16, 2026. Any motion to amend the answer or join parties must be filed by Defendant no later than Feb. 17, 2026. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) must be exchanged by Dec. 9, 2025. All discovery will be completed (not propounded) by July 17, 2026. Any motion for class certification must be filed no later than July 24, 2026. A joint status report of the parties shall be filed on or before April 17, 2026. The Defendant offers over 25 undergraduate and graduate programs in day, evening, and online courses. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FfvBIW at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sanchez Balks at Tampon Product's Lead Content ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIJI SANCHEZ, WENDY RODRIGUEZ, OLGA OTKINA, LAREINA GREEN, AMANDA MURRAY, STEPHANIE MAYA, KATHERINE VESCOVO, DENA HABBOUSH, and CARMUSE MITCHEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00852-DRC (S.D. Ohio, November 19, 2025) seeks to remedy Defendant's deceptive and misleading business practices regarding the false, misleading, and deceptive marketing and sale of Defendant's Tampax tampon products throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed their Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on their packaging that the Products are contaminated with or at the risk of being contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, which is a powerful neurotoxin that is known to cause, inter alia, cognitive deficits, mental illness, dementia, and hypertension. The lead contained in the Products is particularly concerning to consumers because the Products are intended to come in direct contact with the vaginal walls and the cervix, which is the lower part of the uterus that sits at the top of the vagina. As a result, the lead in the products can directly enter the bloodstream. The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury by purchasing the Products that they would not have purchased if they knew that the Products contained lead or were at risk of containing lead, alleges the suit. The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, and incorporated in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. Aarthi Manohar, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com amanohar@kohnswift.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Frank A. Bartela, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Patrick J. Brickman, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 1468 W. 9th Street, Suite 135 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (866) 985-3323 E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com pbrickman@dworkenlaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (844) 383-0565 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON. SHEILA NATHAN, ALONZO TUTSON; EVORA SYKES, CHANELL HOBBS, REVISHA SILAS, EVETTE TOWNSEND, v. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL TEXAS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed joint motion for extension of time to file their sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant Providence Homeowners Association, Inc. request that this Court grant is Unopposed Motion for an Extension of its Reply deadline and enter an Order extending its deadline to reply to Dec. 5, 2025. The Defendants current deadline to file its Reply is Friday, November 28, 2025. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I7u9Y0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah R. Smith, Esq. David A. Talbot, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis St., Suite 7350 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 293-7878 Facsimile: (346) 293-7877 E-mail: Sarah.Smith@dinsmore.com David.Talbot@dinsmore.com - and - Roger L. McCleary, Esq. James C. Burnett, Esq. Max Wagner, Esq. PARSONS MCENTIRE MCCLEARY PLLC One Riverway, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 960-7315 Facsimile: (713) 960-7347 E-mail: rmccleary@pmmlaw.com jburnett@pmmlaw.com Mwagner@pmmlaw.com R&S TOWER: Wors Seeks to Conditionally Certify Employee Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES WORS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. R&S TOWER SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00750-CMS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) Conditionally certifying a collective of "All hourly employees who worked for R&S Tower Services, Inc., at any time during the last three years until final resolution of this matter" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) Approving the form of the Plaintiff's proposed Notice; (3) Setting a 60-day notice period; (4) Authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to mail, e-mail, and text-message the Notice at the beginning of the 60-day notice period; (5) authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to send a reminder Notice 30 days prior to the notice deadline; R&S is a wireless infrastructure company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gp3CNd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 532-9933 Facsimile: (314) 448-4320 - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com R.T. FARM: Mondragon Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting Defendant T&C Vineyards' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Claudia Gonzalez Mondragon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R.T. Farm Labor, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed this suit against the Defendants for violations of California wage and hour laws and the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. On June 24, 2025, Defendant T&C Vineyards filed a motion to dismiss. On Aug. 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued findings and recommendations recommending the motion to dismiss be granted and T&C Vineyards be dismissed from this action with prejudice. On Oct. 27, 2025, Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an Order adopting Judge McAuliffe's findings and recommendations and dismissing T&C Vineyards from this action with prejudice. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the Plaintiffs' objections, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The appellate case is entitled Gonzalez Mondragon, et al. v. T & C Vineyards, et al., Case No. 25-7167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 13, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 18, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 4, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq. Hector Martinez, Esq. Stan S. Mallison, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Campbell Says ------------------------------------------------------------- RUDOLPH CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION d/b/a SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11408 (C.D. Cal., November 26, 2025) is a class action seeking legal and equitable remedies for Defendant's illegal actions in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Constitution. The complaint relates that on February 2025, Plaintiff booked an appointment for physical therapy at Defendant's Los Angeles-Park Terrace location using Defendant's Website, www.selectphysicaltherapy.com. The Plaintiff attended his scheduled appointment and received treatment for the services he sought. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the Defendant intercepted and/or assisted Google with intercepting his communications, including those that contained personally identifiable information ("PII"), protected health information ("PHI"), and related confidential information. The Defendant disclosed this confidential and protected medical information without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or express written authorization. As a consequence of these interceptions, the Plaintiff has received advertisements marketing various related medical procedures, specifically targeted at Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not know, and had no way of knowing, the reasons he was receiving such advertisements. Accordingly, the Defendant breached its duty of confidentiality by unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's PII and PHI third parties, including Google, LLC, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Rudolph Campbell is an adult patient domiciled in Los Angeles, California. Defendant Select Medical Corporation is "part of the largest physical therapy network in the U.S. " [w]ith almost 2,000 outpatient physical therapy centers and 7,000-plus licensed therapists." It owns and operates the Website, which patients use to book appointments for various types of physical therapy including, but not limited to, hand therapy, joint health, occupational therapy, sports medicine, pediatric therapy and pelvic therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com SHIPWRIGHT SPAC: Richards Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHEADRICK RICHARDS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Sheadrick Richards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shipwright SPAC I, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0320-NAC, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties stemming from Collective Growth's merger with Innoviz. On November 19, 2025, the Court entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The appellate case is captioned Sheadrick Richards v. Shipwright SPAC I, LLC, et al., Case No. 472,2025, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on November 19, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SHEADRICK RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 123 Justison St., 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 Email: mbarry@gelaw.om cmackintosh@gelaw.com ktucker@gelaw.com Defendants-Appellees SHIPWRIGHT SPAC I, LLC, et al. are represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq. Sandy Xu, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 SHOTS NO CHASER: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOTS NO CHASER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09463 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.drinkbounceback.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Shots No Chaser LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Dunham Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEIDRE DUNHAM, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09898 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and/or injunctive relief for the Plaintiff and the proposed Class. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff provided confidential and sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), including names, addresses, zip codes, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, to the Defendant in connection with the Defendant's provision of services. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On November 12, 2025, the Defendant learned that it had been the subject of a cyberattack. On November 22, 2025, Defendant issued an official statement stating it had determined that certain information from its systems had been compromised, including accounting records and legal agreements. On November 23, 2025, the New York Times reported that the FBI is in contact with the groups linked to the cyberattack. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, the Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Plaintiff Deidre Dunham is a citizen of, and is domiciled in, the state of Texas. Defendant SitusAMC Holdings Corporation is a real estate financial services provider. It is a leading provider of technology, services and advisory solutions for the real estate finance industry. Its clients include major U.S. banks and mortgage lenders such as JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Andrew J. Fuller, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com SKYWEST AIRLINES: Faces Penn Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- LEE PENN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01599-HBK (E.D. Cal., November 19, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint is brought over Defendants' (1) failure to pay Plaintiff and his fellow employees in California for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide Plaintiff and his fellow employees paid rest breaks and pay rest break premiums; (3) failure to provide Plaintiff and his fellow employees meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; (4) failure to pay all wages owed in a timely manner; (5) failure to provide complete wage statements to Plaintiff and his fellow employees within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint; (6) failure to pay all wages due to former employees based on the foregoing; (7) failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and his fellow employees; (8) failure to reimburse Plaintiff and his fellow employees for business expenses; and (9) unfair business practices based on the foregoing. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a ramp agent from April 2019 to December 10, 2024. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. is a regional airline based in St. George, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Jason Kyle Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com jasonm@potterhandy.com SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Lyngaas --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their time-sensitive motion to stay briefing on the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification pending resolution of the Defendant's time-sensitive motion to strike. In the alternative, in the event the Court denies the request to stay briefing on the renewed motion until the Court decides the motion to strike, Solstice requests an extension of time to respond to the renewed motion until 21 days in the event of the Court's denial of this request to stay briefing. Solstice offers dental and vision plans for individuals and families. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QGNoIx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Roy Taub, Esq. Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 491-1120 Facsimile: (954) 343-6958 E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com rene.vasquez@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com - and - Kristen E. Guinn, Esq. SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE, PC 100 Monroe Center NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 458-6245 Facsimile: (616) 774-2461 E-mail: kguinn@shrr.com SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Seeks to Strike Renewed Bid for Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their time-sensitive motion to strike the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. Solstice offers dental and vision plans for individuals and families. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s2NfpL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Roy Taub, Esq. Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 491-1120 Facsimile: (954) 343-6958 E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com rene.vasquez@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com - and - Kristen E. Guinn, Esq. SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE, PC 100 Monroe Center NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 458-6245 Facsimile: (616) 774-2461 E-mail: kguinn@shrr.com SSA HOLDINGS: Ando Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive data -------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ando, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SSA HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a SSA GROUP, Case No. 1:25-cv-03762 (D. Colo., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former employees. But such PII was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. SSA Group is a hospitality and revenue flow consulting company serving zoos, museums, aquariums, and other cultural attractions to provide consulting services for their food service, retail, and admissions operations, based in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com SSA HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gomez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03740-SBP (D. Col., Nov. 19, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") including names and Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that the Defendant experienced on September 15, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information it collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. Despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. SSA Holdings, LLC provides integrated food, retail and ticketing solutions to cultural attractions across the nation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 475-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com STEVEN BOWMAN: Loses Bid to Stay Prelim Injunction in "Monroe" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Janiah Monroe, Marilyn Melendez, Lydia Helena Vision, Sora Kuykendall, and Sasha Reed, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Steven Bowman, Melvin Hinton, and Latoya Hughes, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-00156-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendants' motion to stay the preliminary injunction issued on September 12, 2025, pending their appeal. The Court certified the class on March 4, 2020, defining it as all prisoners in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) who have requested evaluation or treatment for gender dysphoria. The named Plaintiffs are transgender inmates currently incarcerated in IDOC facilities. The named Defendants are, respectively, the IDOC Medical Director, IDOC Chief of Mental Health, and the IDOC Director, all sued in their official capacities. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants' policies and practices subject the class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from inadequate and delayed evaluation and treatment of gender dysphoria, in violation of their rights under the Eighth Amendment. They sought injunctive relief to remedy the flaws in IDOC's treatment of transgender inmates. The alleged problems include the IDOC's: a. use of committees comprised of unqualified officials to make decisions regarding the medical treatment, security, and placement of transgender inmates; b. widespread delays or denials in evaluating prisoners for gender dysphoria and in providing hormone therapy and hormone monitoring; c. failure to consider or provide gender-affirming surgery as part of medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria; d. failure to accommodate and facilitate social transition for individuals with gender dysphoria, including lack of access to gender-affirming clothing and grooming items, failing to make individualized housing placement decisions, and permitting cross-gender strip searches; and e. failing to provide access to medical and mental health providers competent to treat gender dysphoria. The Court first granted preliminary injunctive relief following a two-day evidentiary hearing in August 2019. After a four-day bench trial in August 2021, the Court continued the provisions of the 2019 preliminary injunction and set timelines related to hormone therapy and consideration of class members' requests to transfer to a facility matching their expressed gender. The Court issued its full findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with additional injunctive measures, on February 7, 2022. In May 2023, Defendants moved to vacate the orders for injunctive relief. The Court denied Defendants’ motion in November 2023; they appealed. On December 5, 2024, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the February 2022 injunction, concluding it had expired 90 days after its issuance, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1996. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' renewed motion from May 27-30, 2025, and heard testimony from 13 witnesses. On September 12, 2025, the Court issued its decision granting the Plaintiffs' motion and ordered several remedial measures. The Defendants were directed to transfer every class member residing at Menard Correctional Center (Menard) to another facility by October 15, 2025. The Court cautioned the Defendants not to transfer any class member to Pinckneyville Correctional Facility. The Defendants were to consider each class member's specific gender dysphoria condition, their gender identity, related safety issues, and whether a transfer to a facility matching their gender identity would be appropriate in assessing where each class member would be transferred. The Court barred the Defendants from placing any class member at Menard going forward. If a class member is not moved to Logan Correctional Center or another facility matching their gender identity, they must be permitted to submit a request to transfer to such facilities within 60 days of the initial transfer. The Defendants were to provide the Court and class counsel monthly reports on the status of class members housed at Menard and the timing and result of any transfer decisions. The Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of that decision on October 10, 2025, and moved to stay portions of the order. They asked the Court to stay the portions of the September 2025 injunction requiring the transfer of class members from Menard identified after that date, providing class members relocated from Menard a right to request a transfer if they are not placed at Logan or another facility matching their gender identity, and requiring them to report monthly on the status of transfer decisions. The Court applied the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009), considering: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. The Court concluded that the Defendants failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits. The Court explained that it already had considered and rejected many of the Defendants' primary arguments. The Seventh Circuit has explained that where a party seeks a stay pending appeal and their arguments have already been evaluated on the success scale, the applicant must make a stronger threshold showing of likelihood of success to meet his burden. The Court rejected the Defendants' contention that the Order failed to address specifically the alleged constitutional defects. The Court emphasized that the Defendants have been well informed of the relevant standards for medical and mental health care for individuals with gender dysphoria. The Court also found that the measures it selected are well within the bounds of the PLRA and are tailored to leave substantial discretion with IDOC's leaders. The Court concluded that the Defendants would not be irreparably harmed absent a stay, as the burdens of litigation ordinarily do not constitute irreparable harm. By contrast, the Plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed by a stay of the injunction. The Court found the status quo at Menard incongruent with the Eighth Amendment rights of class members. The Court held that the public interest favors enforcing constitutional rights. The Seventh Circuit has held squarely that enforcing a constitutional right is in the public interest. The Court noted that the preliminary injunction will expire on December 11, 2025, and the appeal may shortly be moot. A bench trial is scheduled for July, and an evidentiary hearing in support of the Plaintiffs' request to reissue the preliminary injunction is scheduled in two weeks. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dag9N9 from PacerMonitor.com STRONGHOLD CONTRACTING: Toole Seeks to Recover Laborers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHELSY TOOLE, Plaintiff v. STRONGHOLD CONTRACTING GROUP LLC; BRANDON MULLINAX; JOHN PUCKETT; and LOGAN HALE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00917 (M.D. Ala., November 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants to obtain relief under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act for Plaintiff's unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief the Court deems appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and policy of violating the FLSA as they willfully misclassified Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective as independent contractors, and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA collective overtime for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff was employed as a foreman or laborer for the Defendant. Stronghold Contracting Group LLC is a full-service home remodeling contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Jeremy Schatz, Esq. Jon-Kaden Mullen, Esq. VIRTUS LAW GROUP 2017 Morris Avenue, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35203 E=mail: js@vlgal.com jm@vlgal.com SUNSHINE VENTURE: Hoven Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunshine Venture Group, LLC. The case is styled as Amira Hoven, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunshine Venture Group, LLC, Case No. CACE25017849 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 20, 2025). Sunshine Venture Group is a Real Estate Investment Company that prides itself on Integrity, Efficiency, & Excellent Service.[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 SUNTRUST BANK: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUNTRUST BANK filed on November 18, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-585, seeking a review of a ruling of the Court of Appeals of Georgia dated February 20, 2025, in the case captioned Charles Daniel Bickerstaff, as Administrator of the Estate of Jeff Bickerstaff, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. SunTrust Bank, Case Nos. 24-1700, 24-1701, and 24-1702. Defendant-Petitioner SUNTRUST BANK is represented by: Lisa S. Blatt, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5050 Email: lblatt@wc.com TEAM DISCOVERY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 17, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Team Discovery LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00399 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order granting Joint Motion To Amend Scheduling Order as follows: -- The deadline to file class certification motion is extended to March 17, 2026 -- The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended to June 15, 2026. -- The deadline to file summary judgment motions is extended to Aug. 4, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Team Discovery is a senior living provider.[CC] TODD SNYDER: Faces Stevens Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN STEVENS, WOODROW MORTON, NATHAN J. LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TODD SNYDER, INC.; AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC.; TAILGATE CLOTHING COMPANY; AE CORPORATE SERVICES CO. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV33907 (Cal. Super., November 19, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint stems from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees. Todd Snyder, Inc. manufactures and retails apparels. The Company offers track jackets, hoodies, jerseys, sweat shirts, and other accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Edwin Kamarzarian, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com ekamarzarian@moonlawgroup.com TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.  TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to file materials under seal in connection with her reply memorandum in support of her motion for class certification. TransUnion is a global information and insights company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MVByI2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Maria del Pilar Castillo, Esq. Erika A. Heath, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com pcastillo@consumerlawfirm.com eheath@consumerlawfirm.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Thomas-Cole Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Aaliyah Thomas-Cole, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV028088 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition, to recover, among other things, unpaid wages. The Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failing to provide meal periods or pay meal period premiums; failing to authorize or permit rest periods or pay rest period premiums; making improper deductions from earned wages; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Sacramento, California as a non-exempt benefit advocate from April 2022 to October 2025. The Defendants were and are subject to the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders as employers whose employees were and are engaged to work throughout this county and the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. Jacquelyn Silva, Esq. Desiree Ruiz Alfaro, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd Burbank, CA 91506 Phone: (213) 493-6300 Facsimile: (213) 336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com jackie.silva@abramsonlabor.com desiree.ruizalfaro@abramsonlabor.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Injunction & Class Cert. Order to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Sergio Alberto Barco Mercado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-6568, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff bring this suit against the Defendants for civil rights violations. On Aug. 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order and a motion to certify class, which Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted on Sept. 17, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Barco Mercado v. Noem, Case No. 25-2922, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 17, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Appellants KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 UNITED STATES: Braxton Appeals Injunction Order to D.C. Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- KENAN BRAXTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Kenan Braxton, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States Parole Commission, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03534-SLS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case involves significant questions about the legitimacy of the United States Parole Commission in light of the ongoing federal government shutdown. Kenan Braxton, Stanley Petty, and Michael Dunbar are D.C. Code offenders who were recently arrested and detained by order of the Parole Commission for violations of the conditions of their supervised release. They brought this putative class action challenging the Commission's authority to order their detention or incarceration. They alleged that the Commission was abolished at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2025, when Congress failed to pass a budget and extend the expiration date for the Commission's enabling statute. On Oct. 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan denied on Nov. 3, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that the relief they seek would result in their release. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that any judicial officer stepping into the shoes of the Parole Commission may order Plaintiffs or putative class members detained pending revocation or even revoke supervised release and sentence them to terms of imprisonment. It is unclear, then, how the Plaintiffs are being concretely harmed, much less, irreparably harmed, by the Parole Commission's detention decisions. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm or that the balance of equities and public interest favor relief, the Court declined to evaluate their likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Court further ordered that the Parties meet and confer and jointly file a proposed expedited summary judgment briefing schedule by November 6, 2025, for the Court's consideration. The appellate case is entitled Kenan Braxton, et al. v. USPC, et al., Case No. 25-5407, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on November 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KENAN BRAXTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan W. Anderson, Esq. Zoe E. Friedland, Esq. Hanna Perry, Esq. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 633 3rd Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 628-1200 Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., are represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANCHEZ MORA, et al., v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03136 (D.D.C., File Nov. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order: -- Granting the Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; -- Directing the Defendants to file, by Dec. 23, 2025, any opposition to plaintiffs'88 Motion to Certify Class; and -- Directing the Plaintiffs to file, by Jan. 16, 2026, any reply to Defendants opposition. The suit alleges violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a subdivision of the US Department of Homeland Security responsible for safeguarding the nation's borders.[CC] UNITED STATES: Withrow Sues Over Discriminative Restroom Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leanne Withrow, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-04073 (D.D.C., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the unlawful actions of Defendants, remediate violations of their civil rights, and allow them to use restroom facilities consistent with their gender identity. There is only one single-user restroom she can use at work. Meanwhile, none of the other buildings at Camp Lincoln have any restrooms she can use, and she is constantly worried that she will be called into an urgent meeting in one of those buildings. Of the twelve National Guard facilities that she must visit to supervise the work of other department employees, eight do not have any single-user restrooms. One such facility is more than six miles from the nearest town. That means a trip to use the restroom — which requires exiting a secure gate, traveling across the installation, into town, into a private business to use the restroom, and then back again—requires at least a 45-minute round trip. The disparate treatment of transgender and intersex employees constitutes discrimination in terms and conditions of employment on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a transgender woman who has served her country in various capacities since 2010. United States of America includes all federal government agencies and departments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana Knizhnik, Esq. Harper Seldin, Esq. Joshua Block, Esq. Barbara Schwabauer, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004 Phone: 917-716-0609 Email: sknizhnik@aclu.org hseldin@aclu.org jblock@aclu.org bschwabauer@aclu.org - and - Michael Perloff, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, D.C. 20045 Phone: 202-601-4267 Email: smichelman@acludc.org mperloff@acludc.org - and - Kaitlyn Golden, Esq. Madeline Gitomer, Esq. Paul Wolfson, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, D.C. 20043 Phone: 202-701-1789 Email: kgolden@democracyforward.org mgitomer@democracyforward.org pwolfson@democracyforward.org - and - Michelle Teresa García, Esq. Priyanka Menon, Esq. ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. 150 N Michigan, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-201-9740 ext. 319 Email: mgarcia@aclu-il.org pmenon@aclu-il.org - and - Jonathan Gleklen, Esq. Rachel Forman, Esq. Darrel Pae, Esq. Sangeeta Shastry, Esq. Whitney Turk, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-942-5000 Email: jonathan.gleklen@arnoldporter.com rachel.forman@arnoldporter.com darrell.pae@arnoldporter.com sangeeta.shastry@arnoldporter.com whitney.turk@arnoldporter.com - and - Allissa Pollard, Esq. Christopher Odell, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 700 Louisiana Street | Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002-2755 Phone: 713-576-2451 Email: allissa.pollard@arnoldporter.com christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com - and - Summer Perez, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-9710 Phone: 212-836-7314 Email: summer.perez@arnoldporter.com VALOR TECHNICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Technicians, Thornton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARRYL THORNTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALOR TECHNICAL CLEANING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00385-WHR-PBS (S.D. Ohio, November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and untimely payment of wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Mr. Thornton worked as a technician for the Defendant from approximately December 2023 through April 2025. Valor Technical Cleaning, LLC is a technical cleaning company, with its principal place of business in Centennial, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com VIRTU FINANCIAL: Opposition to Class Cert Extended to Jan. 22, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Virtu Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03770 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order adopting the parties' proposed deadlines as follows: The deadline for Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification is extended from Dec. 22, 2025, to Jan. 22, 2026. The deadline for Lead Plaintiff's Reply is extended from February 26, 2026, to March 26, 2026. The deadline for the Close of Fact Discovery is extended from April 24, 2026, to May 21, 2026. The deadline for the Identification of Experts is extended from May 15, 2026, to June 15, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Virtu is an American high-frequency trading company.[CC] WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Risper Files Suit in D. Colorado -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Renardo Risper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03761 (D. Colo., Nov. 20, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com WALGREEN EASTERN: Class Certification Bids Due August 24, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE MONKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12004-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered a scheduling order: Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and by this Court's Notice of Scheduling Conference must be completed by Nov. 21, 2025. Except for good cause shown, no motions seeking leave to add new parties or to amend the pleadings to assert new claims or defenses may be filed after Jan. 23, 2026. All depositions, other than expert depositions, must be completed by June 22, 2026. Motions for class certification and summary judgment must be filed by Aug. 24, 2026. Walgreen retails pharmaceuticals products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T3ugEi at no extra charge.[CC] WESTMORELAND ABSALOKA: Salazar Seeks Equipment Operators' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SALAZAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTMORELAND ABSALOKA MINING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03647 (D. Colo., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Salazar was employed by Westmoreland as a lead man and heavy equipment operator from approximately April 2023 until January 2024. Westmoreland Absaloka Mining LLC is a mine owner and operator headquartered in Lone Tree, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com YIPPEE ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- YIPPEE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Brittany Morrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yippee Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00797-JO-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for knowingly and intentionally disclosing its users' personally identifiable information (PII) to unrelated third parties to further its marketing and advertising objectives and increase revenue, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. On July 17, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Jinsook Ohta denied on Nov. 4, 2025. The Court finds that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate because the Plaintiff did not unambiguously manifest assent to the Terms of Service. Finally, the Court concludes that the arbitration agreement contained in the Terms of Service does not encompass the dispute at issue. For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The appellate case is captioned Morrison v. Yippee Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 25-7161, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 13, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 18, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 4, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BRITTANY MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 - and - Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Defendant-Appellant YIPPEE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is represented by: Rajiv Dharnidharka, Esq. Jeanette T. Barzelay, Esq. Guadalupe Raymond Laguna, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 ********* 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 ***