251212.mbx

251212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 12, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 248 Headlines 6516 F&B MANAGER: Faces Paz Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ACTIVEHOURS INC: Fails to Protect Private Data, WillSie Suit Claims AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Martinho Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Unseal Portions of Class Cert Docs OK'd AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $700,00 ARAMARK: Jackson Files Civil Rights Suit in California State Court BIMBO BAKERIES: Pardo and Pyrane Sue Over Deceptive Product Labels BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Suit for Misrepresenting Scope of Coverage CAL-MAINE FOODS: Phil-N-Cindy's Alleges Price Fixing Conspiracy CONDUENT INC: Faces Sayabath Class Suit Over Compromised Info EXXON MOBIL: Municipality of Bayamon Appeals Judgment to 1st Cir. GLOBALLOGIC INC: Sainvil Sues Over Data Security Failure HORIZON LAND: Court Denies Nationwide FLSA Class Certification HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Terry Files Personal Injury Suit in California JPMORGAN CHASE: Cyr Appeals Dismissal & Remand Order to 1st Circuit KETTLE AND FIRE: Walker Sues Over Products' False Protein Labels NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Appeals Renewed Class Cert. Ruling NEUROMONITORING ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chua Says NYC SPECIAL: Faces Tecun Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. OPENAI INC: Woodard Files Suit Over Data Breach ORACLE CORP: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Valdes Says OUTDOOR VOICES: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PACIFIC MOUNTAIN: Hernandez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Appeals Interlocutory Order in Pinzon Suit PERSANTE HEALTH: Bradford Files Suit Over Data Breach PERSANTE HEALTH: Bushman Files Suit Over Data Breach PREMIUM BRANDS: Merrick Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. PROGRESS SOFTWARE: George Files Suit Over Data Breach PURPOSE POINT: Appeals Denied New Trial Order to 6th Circuit SIG SAUER: Schreiber Sues Over Defective P320 Pistols SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Clarke Sues Over Data Breach STONECO LTD: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $26.75MM SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Lumine Group TRIMBLE INC: Peterson Sues Over Unauthorized Clients' Info Access U.S. ANESTHESIA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit UNITED PARCEL: Fagnani Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers VESTCOR INC: Investors Sue Over Significant Financial Losses WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Potter Sues Over Inadequate Data Security WEST TEXAS: Faces Reyes Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach WHOOP INC: FDA Warning Letter Anchors Class Action Lawsuit ZENLEADS INC: Masry Sues Over Use of Personal Info Without Consent Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces Talc Lawsuits in UK ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Eagle Revives Case Against Asbestos Law Firms ********* 6516 F&B MANAGER: Faces Paz Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 6516 F&B Manager, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as CINDY PAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 6516 F&B MANAGER, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-02564-JDE (Cal. Super., November 13, 2025). The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for employment violations. 6516 F&B Manager, LLC is a company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John V. Ricca, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 ACTIVEHOURS INC: Fails to Protect Private Data, WillSie Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEANNA WILLSIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC. d/b/a EARNIN, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-09874 (N.D. Cal., November 17, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure Plaintiff’s and Class Members' personally identifiable information. The Defendant discovered the data breach on October 14, 2025, that exposed the PII of Defendant's current and former customers. A wide variety of PII was involved in the data breach, including names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action against the Defendant to seek remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the data breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Defendant's data security policies and practices. Activehours, Inc. offers financial products to businesses and individuals, allowing customers to receive wages and payments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com AMAZON.COM INC: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Martinho Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMAZON.COM, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Michelle Martinho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-06849-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code Section 1194 and California's Unfair Competition Law. On Sept. 22, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Oct. 6, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal and a motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration of Summary Judgment and Class Certification Order. On Nov. 10, 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an Order denying the Defendants' motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal and a motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration. The appellate case is captioned Martinho v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-7418, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MICHELLE MARTINHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Max William Gavron, Esq. Kwanporn Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Defendants-Petitioners AMAZON.COM, INC., et al. are represented by: Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 5300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Megan Cooney, Esq. Marcus Curtis, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612 AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Unseal Portions of Class Cert Docs OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order regarding unsealing portions of class certification materials. -- The Parties shall file public, redacted versions of their class certification and Daubert papers by Feb. 2, 2026, or four weeks following the completion of Daubert briefing (whichever is later), with corresponding motion to seal. -- The deadline for Non-Parties to file a showing required by LCR 5(g)(3)(B) in response to any motion to seal filed by a party shall be 21 days after the due date for the Parties' motion to seal. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UE2KgC 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 ASSOCIATION: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $700,00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $700,000 class action settlement ends litigation against the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) over a September 2024 data breach that reportedly impacted nearly 68,000 people. The AACOM class action settlement received preliminary court approval on November 4, 2025 and covers all United States residents whose personally identifying information or personal health information was identified by AACOM as having potentially been exposed in the 2024 data breach, including anyone who received notice of the incident. The court-approved website for the AACOM settlement can be found at AACOMDataSettlement.com. AACOM settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive credit monitoring services and either up to $3,500 in compensation for out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach or a pro rata (equal share) cash payout estimated to be approximately $50. The credit monitoring provided by the class action settlement, available to all claimants, includes two years of three-bureau credit and identity theft monitoring, including $1,000,000 of identity theft insurance with no deductible, access to fraud resolution agents to help resolve instances of identity theft and real-time monitoring of your credit file at all three major credit bureaus, the settlement website says. Per the settlement website, out-of-pocket losses covered by the deal must have been incurred as a direct result of the AACOM data breach and may include the costs of: -- Professional fees; -- Identity or fraud protection; -- Credit repair services; and/or -- Other miscellaneous expenses related to the incident that occurred between the date AACOM sent notice of the breach and March 4, 2026. In order to receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses, AACOM settlement class members must submit reasonable documentation of each loss, the settlement site specifies. Compensation for out-of-pocket losses is mutually exclusive from the pro rata cash payment, and each class member may choose only one option to claim. The credit monitoring services may be claimed alongside either the out-of-pocket loss compensation or the cash payment without restriction, court documents state. To submit an AACOM claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique class member ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. All settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 4, 2026. AACOM has also agreed, as part of the class action settlement, to implement enhancements to its data security. A hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2026 to determine whether the AACOM class action settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The AACOM class action lawsuit alleged that the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine failed to prevent a September 2024 data breach in which unauthorized third parties gained access to the identifiable personal and health information of approximately 67,804 people. [GN] ARAMARK: Jackson Files Civil Rights Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Josh Watts, et al. The case is captioned as JOSEPH C. JACKSON, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOSH WATTS, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02387-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., November 13, 2025). The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for civil rights violations. [BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BIMBO BAKERIES: Pardo and Pyrane Sue Over Deceptive Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA PARDO and STHORM PYRANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06368 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged misrepresentation of its Artesano bread products. The Defendant's product labeling claim that the said products are baked without artificial colors, flavors and preservatives. However, the Plaintiffs allege that these products contain a known artificial preservative: citric acid, as stated on the products' list of ingredients. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this class action against the Defendant and assert claims on behalf of themselves and similarly situated purchasers, both nationwide and in New York, for violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Horsham, PA, Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. operates as bakery product manufacturing company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mari K. Bonthuis, Esq. Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler, Esq. Todd McClelland, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC 228 Park Avenue South, No. 97956 New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 433-2834 (212) 457-9571 E-mail: mari.bonthuis@sterlingtonlaw.com jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com todd.mcclelland@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - Don Bivnes, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com BLUE SHIELD: Faces Class Suit for Misrepresenting Scope of Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four policyholders filed a class action lawsuit against Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company, Magellan Health Inc., Magellan Healthcare Inc. and Human Affairs International of California. Why: Plaintiffs allege the defendants misrepresented the scope of their coverage by maintaining a "ghost network" of mental health providers. Where: The Blue Shield class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Blue Shield of California and Magellan Health maintained a "ghost network" of mental health providers who do not exist or do not accept new patients. Plaintiff Jenniffer Roiz and three others filed the class action lawsuit against Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance, Magellan Health, Magellan Healthcare and Human Affairs International of California on Nov. 19 in California federal court. The plaintiffs allege the defendants misrepresented the scope of their coverage and extent of their provider networks. The Blue Shield class action lawsuit claims the defendants misled patients in need of qualified mental health providers by publishing a "grossly inaccurate" directory of doctors and therapists, also known as a "ghost network." "When people in need are unable to find an in-network mental health provider, urgent mental health treatment is often delayed and, at worst, abandoned completely," the complaint says. Blue Shield, Magellan Health benefited in numerous ways from 'ghost network,' lawsuit says The plaintiffs claim Blue Shield and Magellan Health benefited from the ghost network by attracting more customers and charging higher premiums. The Blue Shield class action lawsuit alleges the defendants also cut down on their own costs by not expending resources to keep and publish a robust provider network list or pay for members' care. The plaintiffs claim they were forced to pay for out-of-network care or go without treatment because they could not find in-network providers. The Blue Shield class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, false advertising, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of anyone who bought or enrolled in a Blue Shield plan in California from 2019 to the date of class certification. They seek certification of the Blue Shield class, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. A separate class action lawsuit, filed earlier this year, alleges Blue Shield of California shared personal information of patients on its website via Google Analytics. The plaintiffs are represented by Ben Travis of Ben Travis Law APC, Steve Cohen of Pollock Cohen LLP and Jacob Gardener of Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP. The Blue Shield class action lawsuit is Roiz, et al. v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-09978, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] CAL-MAINE FOODS: Phil-N-Cindy's Alleges Price Fixing Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- PHIL-N-CINDY'S LUNCH, INC., individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC, ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS CORP., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14082 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2025) accuses the Defendants, the dominant producers of conventional shell eggs, of price fixing conspiracy. Allegedly, the Defendants turned an avian flu outbreak and inflationary conditions into an opportunity to extract egregious and unprecedented profits at the expenses of members of the Class by fixing, raising, and maintaining supra-competitive prices for conventional eggs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action against the Defendants, asserting claims for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Headquartered in Jackson, MS, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces and distributes shell eggs in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Amelia Burroughs, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. Robin Stemen, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law aburroughs@burke.law klv@burke.law rsteman@burke.law - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. Nicholas A. Vona, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 Facsimile: (716) 332-0336 E-mail: cercone@rupppfalzgraf.com vona@rupppfalzgraf.com - and - Amanda M. Williams, Esq. Daniel R. Olson, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE P.A. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 Facsimile: (612) 333-8829 E-mail: awilliams@bassford.com dolson@bassford.com CONDUENT INC: Faces Sayabath Class Suit Over Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY SAYABATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT INCORPORATED, CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13950 (N.D. Ill., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within their network systems following a data breach between October 21, 2024, and January 13, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Conduent Incorporated is a business services provider, headquartered in New Jersey. Conduent Business Services LLC is a business services provider, headquartered in New Jersey. Health Care Service Corporation, operating through its division Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, is a healthcare services provider located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. Grant Y. Lee, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 222 S. Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com glee@carellabyrne.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.com EXXON MOBIL: Municipality of Bayamon Appeals Judgment to 1st Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MUNICIPALITY OF BAYAMON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Municipality of Bayamon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01550-SCC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On Sept. 11, 2025, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. All claims against Occidental, Rio Tinto and BHP are hereby dismissed without prejudice; the RICO claim against API is dismissed with prejudice; the Federal antitrust claim and Puerto Rico law claims against API are dismissed without prejudice; and all claims against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Motive are dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Municipality of Bayamon, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-1961, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on November 13, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MUNICIPALITY OF BAYAMON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Luis Valiente Almeida-Olivieri, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 700 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 - and - Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester St. Annapolis, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 - and - Roy Lenard Mason, Esq. SMOUSE & MASON, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester St. Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Defendants-Appellees EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Yahonnes Cleary, Esq. Caitlin E. Grusauskas, Esq. Daniel J. Toal, Esq. Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 (212) 373-3869 (212) 373-3089 - and - Mariana L. Garcia-Velazquez, Esq. Nestor M. Mendez-Gomez, Esq. Maria Dolores Trelles-Hernandez, Esq. PIETRANTONI MENDEZ & ALVAREZ LLC 208 Ponce de Leon Ave. Popular Center, 19th Fl. San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (797) 274-1212 (787) 773-6000 - and - Mary H. Kim, Esq. DECHERT LLP 45 Freemont St., Fl. 26 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 262-4517 - and - Christina G. Sarchio, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1900 K. St. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 251-3465 - and - Josh A. Cohen, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 650 California St. San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 738-5700 - and - Jose Javier Colon-Garcia, Esq. Carlos A. Valldejuly-Sastre, Esq. O'NEILL & BORGES LLC 250 Munoz Rivera Ave., Ste. 800 San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787) 764-8181 - and - Alexander Costin, Esq. Maura Kathleen Monaghan, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Blvd. New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 - and - Jonathan W. Hughes, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 10th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 471-3156 - and - John D. Lombardo, Esq. Sean O. Morris, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 S. Figueroa St., 44th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 (213) 243-4222 - and - Sharlene Marie Malave-Vallines, Esq. Luis A. Oliver-Fraticelli, Esq. Eric Perez-Ochoa, Esq. ADSUAR MUNIZ GOYCO SEDA & PEREZ-OCHOA PSC 208 Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 1600 San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787) 310-2346 (787) 281-1819 (787) 281-1813 - and - Diana E. Reiter, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 W. 55th St. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 GLOBALLOGIC INC: Sainvil Sues Over Data Security Failure -------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY SAINVIL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBALLOGIC INC. and ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01854 (W.D. Tex., November 17, 2025) arises from the Defendants’ failure to protect highly sensitive data. On July 10, 2025, Oracle was hacked in the data breach--which compromised the data of its enterprise consumers, including GlobalLogic. Moreover, Defendants injured at least 10,471 persons--via the exposure of their personal identifiable information--in the data breach. And yet, Defendants waited over until November 7, 2025, before they began notifying the class--a full 120 days after the data breach began. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. GlobalLogic Inc. is a multinational engineering firm based in Santa Clara, CA. [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 - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com HORIZON LAND: Court Denies Nationwide FLSA Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sabrina Lucero, Donovan McClure, and Kariane Amparan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Horizon Land Management LLC and Ryan Hotchkiss, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00903-JKB (D. Md.), Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and denied Plaintiffs request for equitable tolling, while directing further briefing on potential transfer of venue. Plaintiffs Lucero, McClure, and Amparan worked at Horizon properties in Colorado as a community manager, assistant community manager, and maintenance technician and allege that Horizon and its chief executive officer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado labor law. Plaintiffs state that they were hired as non exempt employees, routinely worked more than 40 hours per week, were given company cell phones, were required to be on call at all times, could not turn down on call work, and when they worked overtime they were not paid overtime but instead were given one hour of compensatory time for each overtime hour worked, subject to a use it within one week or forfeit rule that was often not honored. They also assert that supervisors instructed them to manipulate timesheets so that weekly hours appeared capped at 40, despite actual overtime. The Court noted that Plaintiffs bring Colorado law claims as a putative class action and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act claim as a collective action and that they seek conditional certification, on a nationwide basis, of a collective of all current and former hourly employees employed by Horizon in the United States in the three years before filing. Upon careful examination, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that all hourly employees in Colorado and South Carolina are similarly situated but have not made substantial allegations warranting certification of a nationwide collective. The Court states that while similar job responsibilities can be an indicator that employees are similarly situated, it is not a requirement at conditional certification and emphasizes that when employees share a similar issue of law or fact material to their claims, dissimilarities in other respects should not defeat collective treatment and that the touchstone inquiry is the potential plaintiffs common relationship to the allegedly unlawful policy. The Court finds that affidavits from multiple community managers, an assistant community manager, and a maintenance technician in Colorado and South Carolina describe nearly identical conduct: management routinely required overtime, paid one to one compensatory time instead of 1.5 times the regular wage, required employees to be available at all times, implemented a paper timekeeping policy, and directed supervisors to falsify timesheets, all implemented by regional managers. According to the Court, these common allegations supported by sworn declarations are sufficient to show that Colorado and South Carolina Plaintiffs are similarly situated at the conditional certification stage. However, the Court determines that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to justify a nationwide collective. The Court explains that Horizon operates manufactured home communities in 19 states but Plaintiffs offer detailed allegations about overtime policies in only two states and that Cox s statement that she has spoken to former colleagues in North Carolina and Tennessee and is aware of employees who did not receive overtime lacks specific allegations regarding practices in those locations, such as names of employees or supervisors or indications that the same problems exist elsewhere. Therefore, the Court concludes that conditional certification is inappropriate on a nationwide basis and that Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification of collective action is granted in part and denied in part, with conditional certification limited to hourly employees in Colorado and South Carolina as defined by the Court. The case thus proceeds as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for those states, alongside Plaintiffs Colorado law claims pleaded as a putative class action. Turning to notice, the Court states that district courts must supervise contacts with potential plaintiffs to ensure that employees receive accurate and timely notice and that courts have broad discretion to determine the details of notice. The Court sustains in part and rejects in part Defendant s objections to the notice form and distribution method. The Court orders that the notice include a sentence advising that an opt in plaintiff may be subject to written discovery, deposition, and cross examination at trial and finds this language routinely permitted. The Court rejects Defendant s attempt to limit distribution to United States mail, calling exclusive reliance on mail clearly outdated, and orders that notice be distributed by United States mail, email, and, if necessary, text message, and that notice be posted at Horizon offices in Colorado and South Carolina. On the temporal scope of notice, the Court explained that the Fair Labor Standards Act statute of limitations is two years, extended to three years for willful violations, and that willfulness is a merits determination not ordinarily addressed at conditional certification. Because Plaintiffs allege willful conduct, the Court finds it more efficient to issue a broader notice now and limit claims later and holds that notice should cover the period beginning March 19, 2022, three years before the complaint was filed, through the close of the opt in period. Having resolved all objections, the Court deems an additional meet and confer on notice unnecessary. On equitable tolling, the Court noted that Plaintiffs request tolling of the Fair Labor Standards Act statute of limitations from June 9, 2025, the filing date of the motion for conditional certification, through the date of the memorandum and says that this request will be denied. The Court sets out the standard that equitable tolling applies only when a plaintiff diligently pursues her rights and some extraordinary circumstance prevents timely filing and is reserved for rare instances where it would be unconscionable to enforce the limitation period and gross injustice would result. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not identified any extraordinary circumstance, that they do not contend that Defendant prevented anyone from bringing claims earlier, and that ordinary litigation delay is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, and accordingly declines to equitably toll the Fair Labor Standards Act statute of limitations. Finally, the Court raised the question of transfer. Because a collective will only be certified in Colorado and South Carolina and the remaining claims arise under Colorado law, the Court expressed uncertainty that the District of Maryland is the best forum and observes that most evidence and witnesses will likely be located in Colorado and South Carolina. The Court directed the parties to brief whether the case should be transferred for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), either in its entirety to the District of Colorado or by bifurcating claims so that South Carolina claims go to the District of South Carolina while the rest go to the District of Colorado, including whether the District of Colorado would have personal jurisdiction over all potential plaintiffs. In conclusion, the Court reiterated that Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification is granted in part and denied in part and that a separate order follows. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=re41Pq from PacerMonitor.com HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Terry Files Personal Injury Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai AutoEver America, LLC. The case is captioned as BRAYDEN TERRY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI AUTOEVER AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02564-JDE (C.D. Cal., November 14, 2025). The Plaintiffs bring personal injury claims against the Defendant. Hyundai AutoEver America, LLC is an automotive information technology company, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brandon Pierce Jack, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Cyr Appeals Dismissal & Remand Order to 1st Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOZART SAINT CYR is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Mozart Saint Cyr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11751-BEM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiff Mozart Saint Cyr alleges that the Defendant subjected him to an unlawful lie detector test as part of a job application and failed to provide a written notice of his rights regarding such tests, in violation of Mass. General Laws. On July 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Aug. 25, 2025. On Oct. 22, 2025, Judge Brian E. Murphy entered Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court finds the Plaintiff's allegations insufficient as to the purported lie detector test and finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over his notice claim. This action is hereby remanded to the Suffolk County Superior Court. The appellate case is captioned Saint Cyr v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 25-2129, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on November 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MOZART SAINT CYR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 (646) 837-7410 - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA 50 Main St., Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 - and - David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN LLP 1 Marina Park Dr., Ste. 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 307-6100 (617) 307-6131 Defendant-Appellee JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. is represented by: Keri L. Engelman, Esq. Anna K. Perocchi, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Federal St. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 341-7700 (617) 341-7904 KETTLE AND FIRE: Walker Sues Over Products' False Protein Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KETTLE AND FIRE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06568 (E.D.N.Y., November 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its bone broth products. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently labels its bone broth products with the specific amount of protein per serving on the products' front labels and/or in the Nutrition Fact Panel (NFP). However, the Defendant grossly overstates the bioavailable protein content in each of the products by calculating the percent daily value of protein (%DV) using a less accurate method that fails to account for protein quality. The Defendant's unlawful and misleading protein claims caused the Plaintiff and members of the Class to pay a price premium for the products, suit says. Kettle and Fire Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer food products, with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 926-7948 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan M. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Nick Suciu, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 Email: nsuciu@brysconpllc.com - and - Trenton R Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Appeals Renewed Class Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT NIGHTINGALE is taking an appeal from a court order denying its renewed motions for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Robert Nightingale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is brought against the Defendants for illegal efforts to collect consumer debts in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations. On Dec. 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton denied on Apr. 6, 2023. On Oct. 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify class, which Judge Gorton denied on Feb. 12, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the predominance requirement thus class certification is unwarranted. On Nov. 3, 2025, Judge Gorton entered judgment on the Plaintiff's Individual Chapter 93A Claim. The appellate case is captioned Robert Nightingale v. National Grid USA Services Company Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2121, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on November 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Rd. Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., et al. are represented by: Diana A. Balluku, Esq. Angela C. Bunnell, Esq. David G. Thomas, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1 International Pl., Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 313-3924 NEUROMONITORING ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chua Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rachel Chua, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEUROMONITORING ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02266 (D. Nev., November 17, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay from Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. From approximately March 2023 to May 2024, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Neurotechnologist (NT). Allegedly, the Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the similarly situated NTs to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, NMA is a privately-held corporation that provides intraoperative neuromonitoring services to over 500 surgeons in hospitals across 26 states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leah L. Jones, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LAW FIRM 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: leah@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com - and - Rachanna T. Srey, Esq. Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street 4700 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: srey@nka.com aprakash@nka.com copperman@nka.com NYC SPECIAL: Faces Tecun Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL QUINO TECUN, ARIEL LIZANDRO SEN VELASQUEZ, FRANCISCO PICHOL CALEL, PEDRO SALVADOR MORAN MARTINEZ, RAFAEL QUINDIL COCHA, and TIRSA M. REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NYC SPECIAL CONTRACTORS INC., and DENIS PORTAEV, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06562 (E.D.N.Y., November 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages on a weekly basis, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as carpenters at any time between 2023 and 2025. NYC Special Contractors Inc. is a construction firm located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 OPENAI INC: Woodard Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- JON WOODARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. OPENAI, INC., MIXPANEL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10301 (N.D. Cal., December 1, 2025) is a class action seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendants' failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendants to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained, to use this information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information. By obtaining, collecting, and storing Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from disclosure. However, the Defendants confirmed experiencing a data breach in November 2025 that exposed, at the minimum, the names, email addresses, locations, operating system and browsers utilized, referring websites, and User IDs (the "Data Breach") of users. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it was maintaining for Plaintiff and the Class Members, the complaint asserts. As a direct and direct an proximate result of Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will suffer injury, including but not limited to: (i) the actual misuse of their compromised PII; (ii) invasion of privacy; (iii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (vii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII; (vii) future costs in terms of time, effort and money that will be expended to prevent, detect, contest, and repair the inevitable and continuing consequences of compromised PII for the rest of their lives; (ix) the present value of ongoing credit monitoring and identity defense services necessitated by Defendants' Data Breach; (x) the value of the unauthorized access to their PII permitted by Defendants; and (xi) any nominal damages that may be awarded, says the suit. Plaintiff Jon Woodard is a citizen of California who utilizes the products offered by Defendant OpenAI, Inc. Defendant, OpenAI, Inc. develops and licenses artificial intelligence models and related technologies. Defendant, Mixpanel, Inc. provides analytics platforms that collect and evaluate user-interaction data to help businesses measure product usage, understand customer behavior, and make data-driven decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 916-823-6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com ORACLE CORP: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Valdes Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- IVONNE VALDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01928 (W.D. Tex., November 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. is an energy technology firm headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parkes Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwella@stranchlaw.com OUTDOOR VOICES: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OUTDOOR VOICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09579 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. Plaintiff, a legally blind, attempted to access Defendant's website using screen-reading software but encountered multiple access barriers that prevented meaningful engagement with its services. Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings this civil action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Outdoor Voices operates as a retailer of activewear and lifestyle apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PACIFIC MOUNTAIN: Hernandez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case ARACELI L. HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC MOUNTAIN LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., Case No. CIVSB2504719, was removed from the Superior Court of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 14, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03054-KK-SP to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code. Pacific Mountain Logistics, LLC is a third-party logistics services provider based in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Damian Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (949) 800-8601 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Appeals Interlocutory Order in Pinzon Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part its motion for interlocutory appeal in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Pinzon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pepperdine University, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04928, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Jan. 6, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Dolly M. Gee granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 7, 2023. On Mar. 13, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Mar. 7, 2023 Order, which Judge Gee denied on Mar. 31, 2025. On May 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to certify an appeal, which Judge Gee granted in part and denied in part on Oct. 6, 2025. The Court certifies for interlocutory appeal its Order on Pepperdine's motion for reconsideration. Because the Court grants certification of its Order, the Court also grants Pepperdine's motion to stay the case pending interlocutory appeal. The appellate case is entitled Pinzon, et al. v. Pepperdine University, Case No. 25-7369, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on December 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on January 5, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 6, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSEPH PINZON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Carney Richard Shegerian, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES 320 North Larchmonth Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90004 - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 - and - Daniel Kurowski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 - and - Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Defendant-Petitioner PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY is represented by: Vito Anthony Costanzo, Esq. Kristina Starr Azlin, Esq. Stacey Hsiang Chun Wang, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Qian Shen, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 787 7th Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - David R. Sugden, Esq. CALL & JENSEN, APC 610 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PERSANTE HEALTH: Bradford Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- DANNY BRADFORD, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSANTE HEALTH CARE, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-18107 (D.N.J., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to: (i) adequately protect the personally identifiable information ("PII") 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 PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The complaint relates that former and current Persante customers, patients, and employees are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. According to the complaint, on January 23 and January 28, 2025, there was unauthorized access to Defendant's systems that allowed unauthorized third party access. The accessed data contained patient names alongside Social Security numbers, dates of birth, dates of medical services, medical diagnosis information, physician or medical facility information, medical condition or treatment information, medical record number and Medicare or Medicaid numbers. On November 26, 2025, the Defendant began mailing letters to potentially impacted patients and individuals. Until this Notice, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their sensitive PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, the complaint states. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and which remains at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Danny Bradford and Class Members are current and former patients and customers who used Defendant for health care related services. Defendant Persante Health Care, Inc. is based in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey and provides healthcare services, including those related to sleep health. Does 1 through 20 are the defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Spitz, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105 PMB#161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: 212-532-1091 E-mail: jspitz@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com PERSANTE HEALTH: Bushman Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BUSHMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSANTE HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-18126 (D.N.J., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and the Class' sensitive information, failing to adequately notify them of the breach, and, by obfuscating the nature of the breach, violating state and federal law and harming thousands of its current and former patients.complaint The complaint relates that the Defendant required Plaintiff to provide his Sensitive Information including but not limited to his Social Security Number, date of birth, date of medical service, medical service, medical diagnosis information, individual health insurance policy number, physician or medical facility information, and medical condition or treatment information to obtain treatment and care. Subsequently, the Defendant discovered that "an unknown actor gained unauthorized access to its network between January 23 and 28, 2025 and potentially accessed or acquired certain files. The cybercriminals that obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive Information appear to be the notorious cybercriminal group "INC Ransomware gang." On November 26, 2025, eleven months after the Data Breach first occurred, the Defendant finally began formal notification of the Data Breach to Class Members. The complaint asserts that the Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the earliest opportunity to guard himself against the Data Breach's effects by failing to promptly notify him. The Defendant offered several months of complimentary credit monitoring services to victims, which does not adequately address the lifelong harm that victims will face following the Data Breach. Indeed, the breach involves personally identifying information that cannot be changed, such as Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from his Sensitive Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties and possibly criminals. In addition to injunctive relief, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the Class, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Thomas Bushman is a former patient and is a data breach victim. Defendant Persante Health Care, Inc. provides healthcare services, including those related to sleep health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PREMIUM BRANDS: Merrick Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case JILL MERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO LLC, Case No. 25-00002-29969-4 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on November 14, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02291-JNW to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged fraud claims. Premium Brands Opco LLC is a retail company based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP (SF) 100 Pine St., Ste. 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 600-2250 Email: mbrooks@beneschlaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: George Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- LAQUESHA GEORGE and MEGAN MCCLENDON, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13626 (D. Mass., December 1, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief to redress the injuries and harm, including, but not limited to, requiring Progress and CommonSpirit to take steps to monitor for, protect, and/or prevent misuse of their private information accessed by cybercriminals in a data breach, as well as enact adequate data privacy/security practices. The complaint relates that Plaintiff George is a current patient at CHI - NE ("CHI"), a subsidiary of CommonSpirit. CommonSpirit contracted with Welltok on behalf of CHI to operate an online contract-management platform that enables healthcare clients to provide patients and members with important notices and communications for CHI Health - NE. The complaint alleges that at the time that Progress discovered the Data Breach -- on or May 31, 2023, Welltok, CommonSpirit, CHI and Virginia Mason were in possession of and/or had stored the Plaintiffs' Private Information but failed to protect it and, instead allowed cybercriminal to access it through the Data Breach. Plaintiffs George and McClendon received a Notice Letter by U.S. mail addressed to her directly from Welltok, writing on behalf of CHI and Virginia Mason, dated December 1, 2023, which states that the following types of Plaintiffs' Private Information may have been impacted: name and address, date of birth, some clinical information, patient ID, and health insurance information. The Notice Letter disclosed that Welltok had been "alerted to an earlier alleged compromise of Progress's MOVEit Transfer server in connection with software vulnerabilities made public by the developer of the MOVEit Transfer tool," on July 26, 2023. It took Welltok, CommonSpirit, CHI and Virginia Mason over four months to notify the Plaintiffs of the Data Breach's occurrence, notes the complaint. In addition to its substantial delay in notifying the Plaintiffs of the Data Breach, CommonSpirit also put the burden on the Plaintiffs to prevent any further harm resulting from the Data Breach by not disclosing the specific Private Information of the Plaintiffs that was compromised or the specific actions taken by CommonSpirit in response to the Data Breach. Instead, the Plaintiffs' Notice Letter simply identified categories of the Plaintiffs' Private Information that may or may not have been compromised by the Data Breach. Moreover, Plaintiff George's Private Information compromised in the Data Breach has already been misused by cybercriminals for fraud and identity theft, the complaint alleges. Since the Data Breach, Plaintiff George started receiving repeated telephone calls and voicemail messages from an unknown person(s) calling from an unknown phone number demanding that Plaintiff George confirm her identity by proving her Private Information. These calls and voicemail have recently become more threatening in nature, as the caller has threatened to physically come to Plaintiff George's home if she does not provide her Private Information to him over the phone. These calls continued into at minimum October 2024. In addition, Plaintiff McClendon's Private Information compromised in the Data Breach has already been circulated on the Dark Web, adds the complaint. Indeed, Plaintiff McClendon received several notifications from IDNotify in 2024, most recently on September 23, 2024, reporting that her Private Information was found on the Dark Web. Plaintiffs George and McClendon have also experienced other forms of spam and phishing emails, texts, and phone calls on a daily basis. Plaintiff Laquesha George is a resident and citizen of the state of Nebraska and resides in Omaha, Nebraska. Plaintiff Megan McClendon is a resident and citizen of the state of Washington and resides in Lakewood, Washington. Defendant Progress Software Corporation produces software for creating and deploying business applications. It conducted its principal place of business in Burlington, Massachusetts and has offices in 16 countries. Defendant CommonSpirit Health is a non-profit corporation in Chicago, Illinois formed in 2019 by the merger of Dignity Health and Catholic Health Systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler Street, NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen H. Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brook E. Garberding, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com PURPOSE POINT: Appeals Denied New Trial Order to 6th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ PURPOSE POINT HARVESTING, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for new trial in the lawsuit entitled Luis Gomez-Echeverria, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00314, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants individually and jointly for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, and for compensation under the Michigan Human Trafficking Victims Compensation Act. On June 12, 2025, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. On June 26, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for new trial, which Judge Jane M. Beckering denied on Nov. 10, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Luis Gomez-Echeverria, et al. v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-2080, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on November 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LUIS GOMEZ-ECHEVERRIA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, et al. are represented by: Teresa Hendricks, Esq. MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT 648 Monroe, N.W., Suite 318 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 454-5055 - and - Benjamin Solomon-Schwartz, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER 1401 New York Avenue, N.W., 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Defendants-Appellants PURPOSE POINT HARVESTING, LLC, et al., are represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Sr., Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP 600 28th Street, S.W. Wyoming, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6807 SIG SAUER: Schreiber Sues Over Defective P320 Pistols ----------------------------------------------------- PATRICK SCHREIBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIG SAUER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02303 (W.D. Wash., November 17, 2025) seeks to hold Sig Sauer responsible for selling defective P320 pistols to consumers through unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Washington law. The Plaintiff alleges that Sig Sauer designed the P320 without any external safety features. Moreover, Sig Sauer also failed to warn customers about P320's defect. The company has known about the P320's defect for years but has done nothing to remedy the issue. Rather, it has actively concealed the Defect from its customers and the public, says the suit. Headquartered in Newington, NH, Sig Sauer, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets firearms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: asteiner@terrellmarshall.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com - and - Todd C. Werts, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, MO 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Facsimile: (573) 279-0024 E-mail: werts@learwerts.com SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Clarke Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- MARSHA CLARKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-09994 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name and Social Security number (collectively defined herein as "PII" or "Private Information"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to give their sensitive and confidential Private Information to Defendant and its customers as a condition of receiving services. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. 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. 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. Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state 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 personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Marsha Clarke is a resident and citizen of Douglasville, Georgia. Defendant SitusAMC Holdings Corporation is a New York-based real estate finance services firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com STONECO LTD: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $26.75MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that investors who held StoneCo Ltd. publicly traded common stock between May 27, 2020, and Nov. 16, 2021, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. StoneCo Ltd. agreed to pay $26.75 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it made false and misleading statements about the risks and performance of its credit product and misattributed rising delinquency rates to external factors. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes: -- Investors who personally purchased or otherwise acquired StoneCo publicly traded common stock between May 27, 2020, and Nov. 16, 2021 -- Investors whose purchases or acquisitions allegedly damaged them Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- Authorized representatives may submit claims on behalf of beneficial owners subject to the requirements of the claim form. -- Executors, administrators, guardians, legal representatives or trustees may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of authority. -- Investors who held shares only through a mutual fund are not class members. How much is the StoneCo payout? The total settlement fund is $26,750,000. The amount each class member receives depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims filed -- The number of shares purchased or acquired during the class period -- The timing of each investor purchase sale and holding -- The total recognized losses of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average distribution per allegedly damaged share is approximately $0.12 before deductions for taxes, notice and administration costs, and attorneys fees and expenses. -- The estimated average distribution after deductions is approximately $0.08 per allegedly damaged share. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- The settlement administrator will calculate each class member's payment based on the recognized loss amount assigned to each transaction. -- Recognized loss amounts depend on purchase and sale timing: -- For shares sold before Aug. 25, 2021, the recognized loss is $0. -- For shares sold between Aug. 25, 2021, and Nov. 16, 2021, the recognized loss is the lesser of artificial inflation at purchase minus artificial inflation at sale or out-of pocket-loss. -- For shares sold between Nov. 17, 2021, and Feb. 14 2022, the recognized loss is the lesser of artificial inflation at purchase, purchase price minus the average closing price up to the sale date or out-of-pocket loss. -- For shares held as of the close on Feb. 14, 2022, the recognized loss is the lesser of artificial inflation at purchase or purchase price minus $15.90. -- Artificial inflation per share depends on the price at purchase: -- May 27, 2020, to Aug. 24 2021: $14.50 -- Aug. 25, 2021, to Aug. 30 2021: $12.67 -- Aug. 31, 2021, to Nov. 16 2021: $9.43 -- If total recognized losses exceed the net settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments on a pro rata basis. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim a settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Feb. 17 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: StoneCo Securities Settlement, c/o Verita Global, LLC, P.O. Box 301135, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 The claims administrator will acknowledge receipt of each class member's claim form by mail within 60 days of submission. Those who do not receive acknowledgement should contact the settlement administrator. Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or full taxpayer identification number. They must also provide purchase, acquisition and sale information, including: -- Trade dates -- Number of shares purchased, acquired or sold -- Total purchase, sale or acquisition price Claimants must provide documentation to support their transactions in StoneCo common stock. Acceptable proof includes: -- Broker confirmation slips -- Broker account statements -- Authorized statements from a broker containing the transactional information found in a confirmation slip -- Other documentation the settlement administrator deems adequate Claimants must also provide proof of holdings at the beginning and end of the relevant periods. Self-generated emails or spreadsheets are not sufficient. Payout options -- Physical check $26.75 million settlement fund The $26,750,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Amount not specified -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $8,025,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $420,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Feb. 6, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Feb. 17, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Feb. 27, 2026 When is the StoneCo securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members after it completes claim processing and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged StoneCo made false and misleading statements about the risks and profitability of its credit product and misattributed delinquency trends to outside factors. The plaintiffs claimed these alleged misstatements caused investors to purchase or acquire StoneCo shares at artificially inflated prices. StoneCo denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability but agreed to settle to avoid the risks costs and delays of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $0.08 per share after deductions Deadline: February 17, 2026 [GN] SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Lumine Group ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNCR) related to its sale to Lumine Group Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Synchronoss shareholders are expected to receive $9.00 per share, subject to adjustment for transaction expenses. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/synchronoss-technologies-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] TRIMBLE INC: Peterson Sues Over Unauthorized Clients' Info Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAKE PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIMBLE INC. and ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01927 (W.D. Tex., November 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Trimble Inc. is a provider of transportation solutions, with its principal place of business in Westminster, Colorado. Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parkes Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwella@stranchlaw.com U.S. ANESTHESIA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sophie Eydis, writing for Becker's Healthcare, reports that a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied U.S. Anesthesia Partners' motion to dismiss an antitrust class action. The lawsuit, which will now proceed to discovery, was brought on behalf of a proposed class of patients and alleges USAP engaged in an acquisition and consolidation strategy that artificially inflated prices and harmed patients across Texas. The judge determined the plaintiff plausibly alleged that USAP "exploited its leverage" in the hospital-only anesthesia services market, according to a Dec. 4 news release from Gibbs & Bruns LLP. The ruling comes as a parallel case by the Federal Trade Commission against USAP resumes after a temporary pause during the federal government shutdown, according to the release. Both cases arrive amid growing scrutiny of medical costs and the financial impact of market consolidation on patients. Becker's has reached out to USAP for comment and will update this story as more information becomes available. [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Fagnani Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09780 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York 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, https://www.ups.com/us/en/home, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their 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), 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 its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services 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 VESTCOR INC: Investors Sue Over Significant Financial Losses ------------------------------------------------------------ Benefits Canada reports that Vestcor Inc. is the target of a class action lawsuit alleging a specific transaction ended up costing a group of Canadian investors significant financial losses. "Our legal team is currently evaluating the merits of the lawsuit; the claims have not been tested in court," the investment organization said in a statement. "We have confidence in our practices and have no reason to believe that any Vestcor employees acted inappropriately." The class action, filed in British Columbia, alleges an inflated value of a corporate merger completed in 2024 between Exro Technologies and SEA Electric. Vestcor, which manages $23.1 billion in assets for more than 114,000 pension plan members in New Brunswick, is a majority shareholder in Exro. Net proceeds of the offering were approximately US$27.85 million. The court filing argues that the acquisition plan with an expectation for SEA to produce $200 million in profits in 2024 was "delusional." In its statement, Vestcor said the impact of the investments were "negligible on the overall performance of our clients' portfolios." The investment organization guaranteed there's no impact to the monthly pension income of plan members. [GN] WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Potter Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANICE POTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03698 (D. Colo., November 17, 2025) arises out of Wakefield failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to notice letters, the Defendant launched an investigation into the data breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its system on or before January 17, 2025 and may have copied and exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. However, despite learning of the Data Breach on or about said date, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the data breach until November 7, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Wakefield's unlawful conduct. Headquartered in Fort Tennessee, CO, Wakefield & Associates LLC offers revenue cycle & collections to healthcare providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com WEST TEXAS: Faces Reyes Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKIE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST TEXAS HEALTH, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 29613-B (Tex. Cir., 104th Judicial, Taylor Cty., November 17, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information belonging to its current and former patients. On or around October 27, 2025, the Defendant was the victim of a data breach by ransomware group Rhysida. However, Defendant failed to timely and adequately notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied contract; and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Abilene, TX, West Texas Health, PLLC is a multi-specialty medical group that offers a range of services including primary care, specialized imaging like 3D mammography and ultrasounds, and lab services. [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 - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 612-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com WHOOP INC: FDA Warning Letter Anchors Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that a putative class action against Whoop, the wearable technology company, uses the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) July 2025 warning letter regarding its new blood pressure product feature as a litigation springboard. The case shows how misalignment with regulators' expectations can quickly cascade from agency scrutiny to consumer litigation. The plaintiff consumer invokes the FDA's position to claim that the feature renders the product an unauthorized medical device and that Whoop's promotion of it as part of a premium paid membership service was unlawful. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages on the theory that consumers paid more for features that were not legally marketed and asks the court to halt further promotion of the blood-pressure functionality. When a feature falls within a category that the FDA has long and actively regulated, wellness branding and disclaimers will not sidestep device requirements. Companies are better served assuming device status from the outset, defining a precise intended use, engaging the FDA early, and preparing the appropriate premarket submission. This posture reduces the risk of enforcement and follow‑on consumer litigation while preserving a credible path to market. The case is Rowe v. Whoop, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-09910 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2025). The Lawsuit in Brief Whoop is a wrist-based wearable and analytics platform focused on sleep, cardiovascular metrics, strain, and recovery. The WHOOP MG is the company's latest device -- an upgraded hardware generation that supports new signal-processing capabilities and expanded analytics. The MG is available only with the purchase of a WHOOP Life membership, or Whoop's top-tier membership offering that unlocks additional insights, specialized analytics modules, and certain performance and coaching features on top of the standard subscription. Notably, the MG and Life membership include access to a daily "Blood Pressure Insights" (BPI) feature that displays estimated systolic and diastolic ranges on a color‑coded gauge in the companion WHOOP application. In the Rowe lawsuit, a California consumer alleges that Whoop promoted its MG device and Life membership with "medical‑grade" claims. The complaint ties these representations to the premium price that Whoop charged for the Life membership tier and asserts that consumers were misled about both the BPI's capability and legality. Anchoring its theory in the FDA's July 2025 warning letter, the complaint alleges that the BPI feature renders the product a medical device sold without the required premarket authorization or notification, causing the product to be adulterated and misbranded under federal law and therefore unable to be lawfully sold in California. The pleading advances claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, along with an unjust enrichment claim. It seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. While the case remains at an early stage and the allegations are unproven, the regulatory hook is significant because it links a theory of unlawful deception to the FDA's stated position and, in doing so, raises litigation risk for other wearable companies making similar claims without clearance. FDA's View of Blood Pressure Features and the Wellness Exception The FDA's warning letter concludes that Whoop's BPI feature is a medical device based on intended use as evidenced by its design, outputs, and marketing. The agency focused on Whoop's own descriptions of daily systolic and diastolic estimations and on the user interface that presents results on a gauge with colored target zones. In the FDA's view, any function that measures or estimates blood pressure is inherently associated with diagnosing hypertension and hypotension and is therefore intended for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. On that basis, the FDA deemed the product adulterated for lack of appropriate premarket authorization and misbranded for lack of premarket notification. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides that a software function is not a device if it is intended for maintaining or encouraging a healthy lifestyle and is unrelated to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of a disease or condition. This is often referred to as the "wellness exception." Risk is central to the analysis and to the limits of the wellness exception, which the FDA interprets to apply only to low‑risk functions that are unrelated to disease diagnosis or treatment. In its letter to Whoop, the FDA concludes that the wellness exception does not apply to the BPI feature, explaining that blood‑pressure estimation is not low risk because inaccurate outputs can cause harm by falsely reassuring hypertensive users or delaying care for a condition that often lacks symptoms. The agency also points to real‑world clinical practice, where home and ambulatory blood‑pressure monitoring are standard, and to its long‑standing active regulation of blood‑pressure measurement devices. Under the FDA's intended‑use framework, a product's purpose is determined by the totality of the evidence. The agency infers objective intent from the feature's design and outputs, its labeling and marketing, and how a reasonable user would interpret the interface. Disclaimers and wellness framing do not override such evidence. In the context of blood pressure features, numeric estimates are treated as blood‑pressure measurements, and interface elements that tie results to sleep, recovery, or performance can further signal disease‑related intent. Broader market trends reinforce this view. As a prominent example, Apple obtained 510(k) clearance for a Hypertension Notification Feature available on select models of the Apple Watch that detects patterns suggestive of possible high blood pressure. Following the warning letter, Whoop publicly stated that it disagrees with the FDA's characterization of the BPI feature and maintains that it is not intended for diagnosis or treatment. As of now, Whoop has not recalled any of the MG products, and the BPI functionality remains accessible to users with an MG wearable and Life membership. Practical Implications: Product, Marketing, and Litigation Risk With wearable innovations advancing rapidly amid consumer expectations for deeper physiological insights and understandable pressure to reach the market quickly, moving ahead without alignment with the FDA's requirements can be counterproductive, inviting delays, rework, and enforcement action. The Rowe lawsuit further illustrates that FDA enforcement risk may expose a business to downstream consumer protection claims. Taking all these considerations into account, companies developing blood‑pressure‑related functionality for wearables should: -- Assume device status and plan for an appropriate premarket pathway supported by clinical validation, risk controls, and early engagement with the FDA. -- Align product design, labeling, and marketing with the validated intended use. -- Not rely on disclaimers to reframe disease‑related outputs as "wellness" features. -- Expect that FDA enforcement will catalyze private litigation premised on claims of unlawful marketing and price inflation. -- Calibrate consumer messaging to match the substantiation and regulatory status of the product. Durable commercialization will favor companies that right‑size claims, keep user interfaces within cleared indications, and sequence regulatory milestones with launch plans. [GN] ZENLEADS INC: Masry Sues Over Use of Personal Info Without Consent ------------------------------------------------------------------ OMAR MASRY, VARUN YADAV, EDWARD BRISCOE, JAMES HOLLAND, DON SILAS, and MATTHEW BOLLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZENLEADS, INC. d/b/a Apollo.io, Defendant, Case No. _______ (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., November 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Civil Code, Nevada Right of Publicity Statute, Indiana Publicity Code, and the Alabama Right of Publicity Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of using individuals' names and other personal identifying information (PII) for commercial purposes without first obtaining consent. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief for violations of their right of publicity. Zenleads, Inc., doing business as Apollo.io, is an internet-based business intelligence platform provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: S. Chandler Visher, Esq. 268 Bush Street #4500 San Francisco, CA 94194 Telephone: (415) 901-0500 Facsimile: (415) 901-0504 Email: chandler@visherlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com psolberg@andersonwanca.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces Talc Lawsuits in UK ---------------------------------------------- Chloe Hayward, writing bbc.com, reports that a major legal claim has been filed in the UK against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, accusing the firm of knowingly selling baby powder contaminated with asbestos. The claim involves 3,000 people and focuses on internal memos and scientific reports, which have been seen by the BBC. The lawsuit - brought by KP Law against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiary Kenvue Ltd - alleges that J&J was aware as early as the 1960s that its mineral-based talcum powder contained fibrous forms of talc, as well as tremolite and actinolite. Both minerals - when in their fibrous form - are classified as asbestos and linked to potentially deadly cancers. The court papers allege that, despite knowing the minerals were directly linked to cancers, J&J never issued warnings on the packaging of its baby powder. Instead it launched aggressive marketing campaigns portraying the powder as a symbol of purity and safety, the lawsuit claims. J&J denies the allegation as well as any claims it knowingly sold baby powder contaminated with asbestos. A statement from the company said its baby powder "was compliant with any required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer". The sale of baby powder containing talc stopped in the UK in 2023. The UK action mirrors extensive litigation in the US, where multiple lawsuits have been filed and claimants – predominantly those with mesothelioma and ovarian cancer - have been awarded billions of dollars in damages. The company has successfully appealed in some cases. Lawyers for the claimants estimate damages sought in the UK could extend to hundreds of millions of pounds and that the claim could become the largest product liability case in British history. The claims of links between talcum powder and cancer revolve around asbestos - a known cause of cancer. Talc, which was used in J&J talcum powders, is a naturally occurring mineral that is often mined in close proximity to deposits of asbestos. It is asbestos minerals in their fibrous needle-like form that are associated with cancer. The claim alleges J&J had identified asbestos in its baby powder as early as the 1960s. One internal document from 1973 allegedly says: "Our baby powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fiber. Occasionally sub-trace quantities of tremolite or actinolite are identifiable…" J&J referred the BBC to its co-defendant company Kenvue, which said this letter was discussing how regulation might change and thereby define talc fibres as asbestos. The firm said that would have been wrong. ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Eagle Revives Case Against Asbestos Law Firms ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Thomas, writing for reuters.com, reports that plastic pipe maker JM Eagle has revived its racketeering lawsuit against a prominent plaintiffs' law firm that lodged hundreds of asbestos personal injury cases against it. In an amended complaint, opens new tab against Simmons Hanly Conroy filed in Chicago federal court, JM Eagle added claims against Sokolove Law, another law firm that also handles asbestos claims. The two law firms are operating "a multi-faceted scheme to defraud that misleads asbestos plaintiffs, state regulators, and asbestos defendants alike," JM Eagle said in the lawsuit. The firms and outside lawyers for Simmons Hanly did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Simmons Hanly is based in Alton, Illinois, and specializes in asbestos-related mesothelioma claims. U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman dismissed JM Eagle's initial lawsuit in March, finding that the company failed to show that Simmons Hanly was operating as an enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Gettleman ruled in September that JM Eagle could amend its claims. The pipe company's amended lawsuit reiterates its prior allegations that Simmons Hanly suppressed evidence, used perjured or falsified testimony and statements, and committed fraud in the course of recovering billions of dollars from asbestos defendants in thousands of cases. ********* 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 ***