251215.mbx

251215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 15, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 249 Headlines 1ST CLASS MEDICAL: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ACTIVEHOURS INC: Welch Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ACTIVEHOURS: Weatherill Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ADAMS LIFE BROKERAGE: Anderson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ALBERT KEMPERLE: Seested Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ALVOTECH SA: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims AMERICAN TEXTILE: Agrees to Settle Thread Count Suit for $750,000 AMITY ONE DEBT: Hernandez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ATRIUM CENTERS: Former Employee Seeks Class Action in Data Breach ATX SOLAR: Schulz Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages BALANCER LABS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BANK OF AMERICA: Warshaw Seeks Class Certification BELL COUNTY, KY: Hale Suit Seeks Class Certification BHP GROUP: $48MM Goes to Lawyers in Dam Collapse Class Action Deal BITDEER TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb 2 BITDEER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit BJH HOLDING: Faces Moye Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. BLUE OWL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit BOROFF & ASSOCIATES: Prince Seeks to Certify Class Action BRAND HOUSE: M&A Investigates Proposes Sale to Bed Bath & Beyond CANADA: Judge Sides With First Nations in Housing Rights' Suit CARWORLD LLC: Young Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CENTRAL BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Notice Approval for Class & Subclass CENTRAL ONE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Petralias Claims CENTRAL ONE: Faraji Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. CENTRAL ONE: McShane Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. CHINA GARDEN: Luna Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Myrick Collective Action Gets Conditional Cert COMFRT LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMMUNITY BRIDGES: Bid for Conditional Cert Due March 27, 2026 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Gillerman Suit Removed to C.D. California COUPANG INC: Korean Victims File for Punitive Damages Claim CS DISCO: Seeks Leave to File SurReply in Gambrill Lawsuit DAKOTA EYE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1MM DAVA MARKETING: Court Conditionally Certifies "Cook" FLSA Class DEFI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit DELAWARE: Court Approves "Gibbs" Class Settlement DERICK DERMATOLOGY: Jeffries Files Suit in N.D. Illinois DOC'S INC: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOLLAR TREE: Seeks Denial of Godines Class Cert Bid DOORDASH INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit DRAFTKINGS INC: Motion to Dismiss "Risk-Free" Ads Suit Denied DRIFTER'S KITCHEN: Duran Balks at Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Response Extended in Bailey EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought EQUITY TRUST: Appeals Denied Transfer/Arbitration Bid to 9th Cir. ESSA PHARMA: Siskinds Investigates Potential Securities Claims FCTI INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property FIGMA INC: Faces Khan Suit for Trade Secrets Misappropriation FIRSTRUST SAVINGS: Chrupcala Sues Over Failure to Monitor Plan FULL HOUSE: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Jordan Says GHP PROFESSIONAL: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GOMERA GRULLON: Acevedo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage HAFETZ AND ASSOCIATES: Agrees to $505,000 Class Action Settlement HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII HAULAGE TRANSPORTATION: Flournoy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime HUEL INC: Tal Sues Over False and Misleading Representation IKEA NORTH: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline Briefing Tossed J. RAMBO LLC: Ramirez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JACKSON NATIONAL: $22MM Insurance Suit Settlement Gets Court OK JOHN FORMELLA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid K&B CONTRACTORS: Cumbicus Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime KAISER FOUNDATION: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit Up to $47.5MM KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mott's Apple Juice KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over Diapers' Hypoallergenic Labels KLARNA GROUP: M&A Investigates Potential Securities Claims LAWGICAL INSIGHT: Mohamad Seeks to Certify Class Action LEXISNEXIS RISK: Agrees to Settle FCRA Class Action for $13.5MM LIFEMD INC: Installs Data Trackers in Web Browsers, Kroskey Says LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Judge OKs $11MM Securities Suit Settlement MACY'S INC: Paya Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Jinks Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit MERCURY SYSTEMS: NCFCRDFPP Seeks Initial OK of Settlement METHODIST UNIVERSITY: Taylor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Tenn. METRO-ATLANTA AMBULANCE: Phelps Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MISSOURI: Darrington Sues Over Failure to Provide Timely Evaluation MUNIRA LLC: Welch Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation NAVIENT CORP: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Briefs NEW ENGLAND: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Cert Response Filing Due Dec. 15 NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to File Summary Judgment NOBULL LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NORWAY SAVINGS BANK: Simmering Files Suit in E.D. Texas ORACLE CORPORATION: Woodson Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ORANGE COUNTY: Calkin Files Suit Over Discrimination, Retaliation PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Groundwater Contamination PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Olazabal Suit Removed to C.D. California PEPSICO INC: Velasquez Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalling PERSONIC MANAGEMENT: Tillman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL: Thompson Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. PRIDE TRANSPORTATION: Fernandez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Ratcliff Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Pryce Suit PROTECTIVE ASSET: Court Narrows Claims in Vaccaro Suit QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Soliman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RESOLUTION PROCESSING: Conorozzo Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalling ROCKET CLOSE: Mangle Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action RUFF CONSTRUCTION: Brock Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas RUGSUSA, LLC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SABOR A COLOMBIA: Acosta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SALESINTEL RESEARCH: Schafer Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Va. SEAWORLD SAN DIEGO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Ticket Prices SEMTECH CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit SHIRLEY WEBER: Print Disabled Person Class Gets Certification SIBERIA HOUSTON: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Reimann Says SILHOUETTE LLC: Mitsevich Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification SILVERGATE BANK: Agrees to Settle FTX Securities Suit for $10MM SNOWFLAKE INC: James Files Suit for Copyright Infringement SOUNDHOUND INC: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SPROUTS FARMERS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Jan. 26 SPROUTS FARMERS: Singh Family Sues Over Securities Laws Breach STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Salabaj Sues Over Securities Act Violation SUTTER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $21.5MM SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Fischer Seeks to Certify Truck Driver Class SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Bennett Seeks More Time to file Class Cert. SYNERGY BUSINESS: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California TELLURIDE SKI: Plaintiff Expands Scope of Labor Class Action Suit TEXTRON AVIATION: Barry Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY: Brice Sues Over WARN Act Violation UNDER ARMOUR: Freifeld Sues Over Data Breach UNDER ARMOUR: Underpays Call Center Representatives, Castro Says UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Sued Over False Labeling and Marketing UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Ex-Feds Sue Over Civil Rights Violations UNITED STATES: Ramos Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus UNITED STATES: Ruiz Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Kritzer Sues Over Unprotected Info VALE OPERATING: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages VISIBLE IDEAS: Grissett Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII WARD PAINTING INC: Diaz Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York WARNER BROS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sales to HBO Max and HBO WASHINGTON POST: Former Employee Sues Over Personal Data Breach WEL COMPANIES: Arbogast Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII WEL COMPANIES: Faces Reis Suit Following Data Breach WEL COMPANIES: Green Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII WEL COMPANIES: Shurley Sues Over Data Breach WESTDETAIL LLC: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Estigarribia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WINGS R US LLC: West Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WOOPLA INC: Beckstrom Sues Over Unlawful Gambling Enterprise YALE NEW HAVEN: $18-Mil. Breach Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 3 [] Big Oil Companies Sued as Climate Damage Spike Insurance Rates ********* 1ST CLASS MEDICAL: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1st Class Medical. The case is styled as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 1st Class Medical, Case No. 1:25-cv-03796-PAB-STV (D. Colo., Nov. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 1st Class Medical -- https://1stclassmed.com/ -- offers portable oxygen concentrators, CPAPs, and home medical equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com ACTIVEHOURS INC: Welch Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------ Coriah Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC. d/b/a EARNIN and EARNIN US1, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-10091-SVK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and personal financial information ("PII"). EarnIn failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring EarnIn to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (hereinafter referred to as the "Data Breach") in the future. On November 12, 2025, EarnIn reported to the Attorney General of Texas that an unauthorized third party accessed its computer network and obtained sensitive personal information. The exposed data includes its customers' full names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and dates of birth. As a financial services provider, EarnIn knowingly obtained sensitive PII and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their PII to EarnIn if they had known that EarnIn would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII was exposed in the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been an EarnIn customer both recently and at various times in past years. EarnIn is a financial technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (304) 345-6555 Email: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com ACTIVEHOURS: Weatherill Sues Over Failure to Secure Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Brianna Weatherill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC. D/B/A EARNIN, Case No. 5:25-cv-10189 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought against Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, arising out of Defendant EarnIn's failure 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. Failures in Defendant's data security resulted in the Data Breach, in which cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive and personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, the "Private Information"). As a result of this Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information remain in the hands of those cybercriminals. The Data Breach Notice states that confidential, proprietary, and personal information, including customers names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security Numbers, was obtained from the databases that Defendant uses to store customer information and data. The Defendant learned of the Data Breach on or about October 14, 2025, and simultaneously determined that the Data Breach involved the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, however, Defendant did not begin sending notices to the victims of the Data Breach until November 12, 2025. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment and/or employment purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach. The Defendant represents itself as a "financial technology company that serves individuals and businesses, offering a suite of financial products including Earned Wage Access" to consumers, including Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 916.823.6955 (Tel) Fax: 206.441.9711 () Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com ADAMS LIFE BROKERAGE: Anderson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adams Life Brokerage, LLP. The case is styled as Angela Anderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Adams Life Brokerage, LLP, Case No. 2:25-cv-11281 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Adams Life Brokerage, LLP -- https://www.albinsurance.com/ -- offer lead programs to build book of business, as well as client surveys, letters and other resources to retain current client base and develop more sales opportunities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kolin Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: kctang@millershah.com ALBERT KEMPERLE: Seested Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Chris Seested, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALBERT KEMPERLE, LLC, Case No. 25CV2918 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") seeking payment of past and future wages and benefits, all unpaid overtime for the Plaintiff and the putative class. The Plaintiff claims that the Company violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay him and other similarly situated employees overtime at a rate of one and one-half their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek; violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA, and its implementing regulations; and by terminating the Plaintiff's employment because he exercised his rights to claim worker's compensation benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked out of the Company's Framingham, Massachusetts office as a Technical Service Representative. The Defendant is "the leading professional distributor of auto Paint, Body, and Equipment."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-723-7700 Fax: 617-227-0313 Email: ashafran@rflawyers.com ewalz@rflawyers.com ALVOTECH SA: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Alvotech (NASDAQ: ALVO) resulting from allegations that Alvotech may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Alvotech securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15814 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On November 2, 2025, Alvotech issued a press release entitled "Alvotech Provides Update on the Status of U.S. Biologics License Application for AVT05." It stated that the "U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter (CRL) for Alvotech's Biologics License Application (BLA) for AVT05, in a prefilled syringe and autoinjector presentations[.]" Further, the "CRL noted that certain deficiencies, which were conveyed following the FDA's pre-license inspection of Alvotech's Reykjavik manufacturing facility that concluded in July 2025, must be satisfactorily resolved before this BLA for AVT05 can be approved." On this news, Alvotech's stock price fell 34% on November 3, 2025, and nearly 4% on November 4, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] AMERICAN TEXTILE: Agrees to Settle Thread Count Suit for $750,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that American Textile Co. has agreed to a $750,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it falsely advertised the thread count of its Sealy bedding products, including sheets and pillowcases. The Sealy class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased Sealy bedding products with a 1,250 thread count between Oct. 19, 2016, and Oct. 30, 2025. These products include: -- Sealy Ultimate Indulgence -- Sealy Premium Comfort -- Sealy Cool Comfort -- Sealy Premium Cooling -- Sealy Superior Cooling Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim American Textile falsely advertised the thread count of its Sealy bedding products. The company allegedly violated federal and state laws with this false advertising. American Textile is a bedding and textile company that sells products under its own brand and other brands, such as Sealy, Tempur-Pedic, Beautyrest and more. The company has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $750,000 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Sealy settlement, class members can receive $5 for each Sealy product they purchased during the class period. Class members who have proof of purchase can claim an unlimited number of products. Class members without proof of purchase can claim up to eight products for a maximum payment of $40. Payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed and the net settlement fund after deductions. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 21, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Sealy bedding class action settlement is scheduled for Feb. 11, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 12, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased Sealy 1250 thread count bedding products, including but not limited to bedsheets or pillowcases, anywhere in the United States between Oct. 19, 2016, and Oct. 30, 2025. Potential Award Up to $40 without proof of purchase. Full refund with proof of purchase. Proof of Purchase No proof required for claims of up to 8 products. Claims for more than 8 products must include proof, such as a receipt, work order or credit card statement showing the date of purchase. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/12/2026 Case Name Santiago v. American Textile Co. Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-1811-CCW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Final Hearing 02/11/2026 Settlement Website ThreadCountSettlement.com Claims Administrator Santiago v. American Textile Co. Inc. Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 (855) 858-5886 Class Counsel Michael R. Reese REESE LLP Spencer Sheehan SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. Defense Counsel Michael J. Joyce James A. Morsch SAUL EWING LLP [GN] AMITY ONE DEBT: Hernandez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amity One Debt Relief. The case is styled as Rachel Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amity One Debt Relief, Case No. 8:25-cv-02617 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Amity One Debt -- https://amityonedebt.com/ -- provide personalized debt solutions tailored to customers' needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com ATRIUM CENTERS: Former Employee Seeks Class Action in Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Marselas, writing for McKnigts Long-Term Care News, reports that a pending class-action lawsuit in Ohio demonstrates the increased vulnerability of nursing homes targeted by hackers seeking valuable patient and employee data. A former employee of Atrium Centers is asking a federal judge to certify a multistate lawsuit over the skilled nursing provider's "failures" to secure, encrypt or destroy sensitive and protected information. Plaintiff Shannon Shawanokasic of Wisconsin claims her data was among the information stolen in an October attack, and that she is now spending hours a day monitoring her personal accounts and sorting through spam sent to the phone and email contacts she had on file with Atrium. She is seeking damages and restitution for herself and others caught up in the breach, as well as a court order forcing Atrium to adopt stronger cybersecurity defenses. Atrium is headquartered in Ohio and also has facilities in Kentucky, Michigan and Wisconsin. The lawsuit alleges the provider should have done more given that data breaches are "rampant" in healthcare. "Data breaches such as the one experienced by Defendant Atrium have become so notorious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Secret Service have issued a warning to potential targets so they are aware of, can prepare for, and hopefully can ward off a potential attack," said the lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for Southern Ohio. "The significant increase in attacks in the healthcare industry, and attendant risk of future attacks, is widely known to the public and to anyone in that industry." The suit also asserts that Atrium failed to adopt several best practices or accepted frameworks for cybersecurity controls. Shawanokasic also said that Atrium has yet to notify victims whose information was stolen nor offered free credit monitoring. An operator at Atrium's corporate office directed McKnight's Long-Term Care News to a privacy incident hotline; the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment left with a call center employee. The company posted a notice of privacy incident on its website in November, acknowledging the attack but saying it had "no evidence that any such information has been used to commit identity theft or fraud." "We are currently undertaking a thorough review of the files to determine what sensitive information was affected and to whom it relates," Atrium said. "In the meantime, we are making individuals aware of this event and the potential impact to information." Atrium said its investigation determined there was "unauthorized access" to its network between Oct. 8 and Oct. 12, during which time files and folders within the network were viewed and/or copied without authorization. The ransomware group Medusa later claimed responsibility for the cyberattack and threatened to release sensitive data unless a negotiation process were initiated. The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had warned healthcare providers about potential attacks by Medusa in a March advisory. "The cybercriminals intentionally targeted Atrium for the highly sensitive Private Information it stores on its computer network, attacked the insufficiently secured network, then exfiltrated highly sensitive PII and PHI, including but not limited to Social Security numbers. As a result, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class remain in the hands of those cyber-criminals," the lawsuit said. [GN] ATX SOLAR: Schulz Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Schulz, individually and for others similarly situated v. ATX SOLAR, INC. and BLAKE DILKS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01913 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and other damages from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Instead of paying minimum wages as required by the FLSA, Defendants improperly classified Schulz and the Energy Advisors as independent contractor's ineligible for minimum wages. This practice violates the requirements of the FLSA. Defendants' decision not to pay minimum wage to Schulz and the Energy Advisors was neither reasonable nor in good faith. Rather, Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Schulz and the Energy Advisors minimum wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Energy Advisors worked for Defendants as Energy Advisors. ATX Solar LLC is a solar energy company doing business in Texas, including maintaining operations and a physical office in Hutto, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal BALANCER LABS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of investors in cryptocurrency issued by Balancer (ticker: BAL), resulting from allegations that Balancer may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Balancer cryptocurrency you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=48945 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On November 3, 2025, Bloomberg published an article entitled "Hack Drains Over $100 Million From Crypto Protocol Balancer." The article stated that "Balancer, a decentralized finance protocol, has been hit by a major exploit that drained more than $100 million in digital assets, according to blockchain security firms. Security researchers at PeckShield and Cyvers flagged the incident, warning that funds linked to the attacker's wallet were still being siphoned. Total losses have climbed to about $128 million, Cyvers said in a message." Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20251205950236/en/ CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Warshaw Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNNE WARSHAW, f.k.a. LYNNE KAUFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 0:25-cv-60136-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiff submits that the proposed Classes meet all Rule 23 requirements and requests that this Court certify the Acknowledgement Letter, Call Recording, and Inaccurate Response Date Classes, appoint Plaintiff as Class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiff rings this action against the Defendant for various errors committed and misrepresentations BANA has issued in relation to its obligation to respond to requests for information (RFI) and requests to correct errors (NOE) related to borrowers' residential mortgage loans. Moreover, the Defendant has refused to provide call recordings to which borrowers are entitled, has given the illusion of timely responses to borrowers’ requests despite not timely sending such responses, and has misled borrowers as to how long BANA has to respond to such requests. The Plaintiff proposes the following classes for certification: Acknowledgment Letter Class: "All loan borrowers in the State of Florida, during the applicable statute of limitations period (1) who submitted to Bank of America, N.A., a "qualified written request," as defined by 12 U.S.C. section 2605(e)(1)(B), a Request for Information, as defined by 12 C.F.R. section 1024.36(a), or Notice of Error, as defined by 12 C.F.R. section 1024.35(a), (2) who received a letter from Bank of America, N.A. acknowledging receipt of such correspondence, and (3) that stated Bank of America, N.A. had to respond within thirty business days from the date of such letter rather than from the date of Bank of America, N.A.'s receipt of such correspondence." Call Recording Class: "All loan borrowers in the United States, during the applicable statute of limitations period (1) who submitted to Bank of America, N.A., a "qualified written request," as defined by 12 U.S.C. section 2605(e)(1)(B), a Request for Information, as defined by 12 C.F.R. section 1024.36(a), or Notice of Error, as defined by 12 C.F.R. section 1024.35(a), (2) requesting copies of call recordings between themselves and their mortgage servicer, and (3) that Bank of America, N.A. refused to provide." Inaccurate Response Date Class: "All loan borrowers in the United States, during the applicable statute of limitations period (1) who submitted to Bank of America, N.A., a "qualified written request," as defined by 12 U.S.C. section 2605(e)(1)(B), a Request for Information, as defined by 12 C.F.R. section 1024.36(a), or Notice of Error, as defined by 12 C.F.R. sectiun 1024.35(a), (2) who received a response letter that was dated within the applicable response deadline, and (3) that contained a postmark date that occurred after the applicable response deadline." The Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 24, 2025. On March 12, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff filed her Amended Class Action Complaint on March 26, 2025. The class action challenges the Defendant's pattern and practice of improper servicing practices in violation of RESPA, Regulation X, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). The Defendant is a national banking association with its principal place of business in North Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7lW6EP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq. DANN LAW 15000 Madison Ave. Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 E-mail: msmith@dannlaw.com - and - Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com BELL COUNTY, KY: Hale Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN HALE, on his own behalf And on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. BELL COUNTY FISCAL COURT, AND GARY FERGUSON, Individually, in his Capacity as former BELL COUNTY JAILER, And in his capacity as BELL COUNTY DEPUTY JAILER, AND DEPUTY JOSHUA COLLETT, Individually And in his capacity as BELL COUNTY DEPUTY JAILER, AND DEPUTY CHAD MONEY, Individually And in his capacity as BELL COUNTY DEPUTY JAILER, AND ROBIN VENABLE, Individually and in his Capacity as BELL COUNTY JAILER, AND TOMMY SHACKLEFORD, PLAINTIFFS AND JANE/JOHN DOE EMPLOYEES OF THE BELL COUNTY FISCAL COURT, Case No. 6:24-CV-00086-REW (E.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NBj6aD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. New, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250-6017 E-mail: steve@newlawoffice.com - and - Jeremy A Bartley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. BARTLEY 35 Public Square Somerset, KY 42501 Telephone: (606) 678-7265 Facsimile: (606) 416-5974 E-mail: jbartleylaw@gmail.com BHP GROUP: $48MM Goes to Lawyers in Dam Collapse Class Action Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Marin-Guzman of Financial Review reports that lawyers have pocketed an extraordinary $48 million from a major shareholder class action against BHP, more than triple what they originally promised group members and despite court concerns the costs were excessive. The Federal Court approved Maurice Blackburn and Phi Finney McDonald's proposal to increase their share of the $110 million BHP settlement over the catastrophic collapse of the miner's tailings dam in Brazil from 15 per cent to 50 per cent as "fair and reasonable". Almost all the percentage will go to legal costs, which grew to more than $48 million without even holding a trial. The litigation funder will take just $2.4 million in commissions. Legal experts said they had never seen such a difference between what was originally promised and the total amount taken, and that it raised broader issues about what group members could trust from law firms. Based on the original 15 per cent cap -- delivered as an undertaking to the court in 2019 when the matter was consolidated -- both the law firms and the funder would have received no more than $16.5 million from the settlement. But under the expanded share, the law firms have been given a $38 million windfall. A spokeswoman for Maurice Blackburn said the court had all the information, including an independent costs assessor's report, when it approved the settlement. "This outcome doesn't demonstrate that something is wrong with the class actions system, but rather that complex litigation, whether class actions or otherwise, can be extremely challenging and costly, and in a class action the court ultimately determines what is fair and reasonable for group members," said the spokeswoman. University of NSW law professor Michael Legg said the total legal costs, which exceeded even the highest estimates, were more than double that of other shareholder class actions that settled for about $100 million. "A class action is supposed to achieve access to justice -- but what sort of justice do you get when you lose a chunk of recovery through costs?" said Legg. One senior class action lawyer for plaintiffs, speaking anonymously to speak candidly, said: "They've gotten away with more than I've ever seen. "I've seen law firms charge high amounts in the past, but I've never seen this kind of scale in getting away with more than originally promised. "It doesn't matter what you say to group members -- you can just change the position. The judge has just rubber-stamped it." One of the biggest The BHP shareholder class action was one of the biggest of its kind. Three law firms fought for carriage of the matter in 2018, each promising group members the best returns. A full court of the Federal Court ultimately approved Maurice Blackburn and Phi Finney McDonald after the firms agreed to cap the total cut at 15 per cent of any gross settlement up to $150 million. The case went on for seven years, with interlocutory stoushes that went to the full court and High Court and resulted in wins and losses for both sides. Seeking approval to triple their cut, the law firms initially sought to keep their legal costs confidential but did not press the claim. Judge Mark Moshinsky backed the application after group members filed no objections and the law firms' counsel, who was "very familiar with the issues in the case", argued it was fair to group members. However, he raised concerns that the amount deducted for legal fees and disbursements "may be excessive". The judge noted the court-appointed costs referee had said some of the interlocutory appeals involved difficulty and novelty and that the firms had still taken a haircut on their actual costs. "Notwithstanding these matters, I remain concerned about the quantum. However, ultimately, I do not consider this to adversely affect group members," he said, given the quantum was still within the 50 per cent cap. The law firms' orders involved $31 million going to funder G&E KTMC, which was entitled to up to 27.5 per cent of the settlement. But during the hearing, it emerged that most of that amount was to reimburse the funder for paying some of the firms' legal costs. The funder's actual payout was just $6.8 million, including a $2.4 million commission and $4 million for insurance. The case, which settled three months before a British court ruled BHP was liable for the dam collapse, has raised eyebrows in the class action sector. A similar shareholder action against AMP -- which lasted seven years, was appealed to the High Court multiple times and settled pre-trial for $110 million -- cost almost half the BHP matter, at $26.2 million in 2023. The legal costs were considered high at the time. 'Perverse incentives' Another shareholder class action against Crown Resorts that settled pre-trial for $125 million in 2022 cost just $11.5 million. Colin Biggers & Paisley class action partner Michael Russell, who represents defendants, said $48 million was "very high, particularly without a case going to trial" and considering that appellate costs were "not usually very high". "In terms of the costs as a function of the total settlement, the costs are not only high for this matter but also, broadly speaking, for shareholder class actions that settle before trial," said Russell. Legg said the rising cost of class actions raised concerns around perverse incentives. "A law firm can charge $800 an hour for a partner -- but that's got built into it a profit margin, so the more hours you do, the more money you are going to make," he said. "Therefore, if you've got prolonged litigation, that makes it more profitable for a law firm." Legg also questioned the approach of costs referees, which assessed costs based on what was reasonable on a market rate. "When you ask 'what does the market charge for that', what you're really saying is 'what do plaintiff law firms charge for class action'? "But what if every plaintiff law firm is charging above what is a reasonable amount? You've just endorsed that. They're setting the market and then getting measured by it." [GN] BITDEER TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Bitdeer Technologies Group ("Bitdeer" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: BTDR) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bitdeer securities between June 6, 2024 and November 10, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/BTDR. Case Details The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while concealing material adverse facts regarding the true state of Bitdeer's SEALMINER A4 project; (2) Defendants failed to disclose that the SEAL04 chip, projected to achieve a chip-level energy efficiency of 5 J/TH, would not be ready for use in the A4 rigs as represented; and (3) Mass production of the SEAL04 chip was not expected to begin in the second quarter of 2025 as previously indicated. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/BTDR. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Bitdeer you have until February 2, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC 332-239-2660 info@bgandg.com [GN] BITDEER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Bitdeer Technologies Group ("Bitdeer" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BTDR). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information, including allegations that Defendants failed to disclose that the SEAL04 chip projected to have a chip-level energy efficiency of 5 J/TH would be ready for use in the A4 rigs with an expected mass production to begin in the second quarter 2025. If you purchased shares of Bitdeer between June 6, 2024 and November 10, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm’s website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/bitdeer-technologies/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is February 2, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] BJH HOLDING: Faces Moye Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against BJH Holding Corp., et al. The case is captioned as Kimberly Moye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BJH Holding Corp. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08969-JPO (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2025). The suit is brought over alleged personal injury claims. The case is assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken. BJH Holding Corp. is the parent company of the Southern U.S. fast-food chain Jack's Family Restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com BLUE OWL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Owl Capital Inc. ("Blue Owl" or the "Company") (NYSE:OWL). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Blue Owl and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until February 2, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Blue Owl securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On October 30, 2025, Blue Owl reported financial results for the third quarter of 2025. Blue Owl reported, among other items, fee-related earnings of only $376.2 million, which missed consensus estimates; fee-related earnings margins of 57.1% which missed expectations by roughly 20 basis points; and a 33% year-over-year decline in performance revenue to only $188,000. On this news, Blue Owl's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or 4.23%, to close at $15.86 per share on October 30, 2025. Then, on November 5, 2025, two Blue Owl business development companies-Blue Owl Capital Corporation ("OBDC") and Blue Owl Capital Corporation II ("OBDC II")-announced entry into a definite merger agreement, stating that "OBDC II does not anticipate conducting additional tender offers prior to the merger." On this news, Blue Owl's stock price fell $0.74 per share, or 4.72%, to close at $14.95 per share on November 6, 2025. On November 16, 2025, The Financial Times published an article on the merger, reporting that "at current prices, the investors in [BODCII] could take a potential haircut on their investments" in connection with the merger and that "the trading price of OBDC . . . had been hit by souring sentiment on private credit markets[.]" On this news, Blue Owl's stock price fell $0.85 per share, or 5.8%, to close at $13.77 per share on November 17, 2025. On November 19, 2025, Blue Owl announced the termination of the proposed merger, citing "current market conditions." Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] BOROFF & ASSOCIATES: Prince Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARITZA PRINCE; individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. JASON D. BOROFF & ASSOCIATES, PLLC; PROCESS SERVER PLUS INC.; ENRIQUE DIAZ; EMMANUEL LANZOT, Case No. 1:24-cv-02706-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move this Court before the Honorable Gary Stein, United States Magistrate, at the United States Courthouse for the Southern District of New York, at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, on December 11, 2025 at 2:00p.m., for an Order: (i) certifying a class action for settlement purposes pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a Class defined as: "all individuals sued by the Boroff Firm on behalf of a Lawsuit Landlord on or after April 10, 2021 in Bronx Housing Court in lawsuits in which the affidavit of service for the Eviction Petition has been filed stating that Diaz or Lanzot, on behalf of Process Server Plus, effectuated Conspicuous Service"; (ii) granting final approval to the settlement agreement; and (iii) granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant is a law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4Br3T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Rivera, Esq. Danielle Tarantolo, Esq. Genesis Miranda, Esq. Andrea Ashburn, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-6500 E-mail: dtarantolo@nylag.org BRAND HOUSE: M&A Investigates Proposes Sale to Bed Bath & Beyond ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- The Brand House Collective, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBHC) related to its sale to Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Brand House shareholders are expected to receive 0.1993 shares of Bed Bath & Beyond common stock for each Brand House share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/the-brand-house-collective-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Blue Foundry Bancorp (NASDAQ: BLFY) related to its sale to Fulton Financial Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Blue Foundry shareholders are expected to receive 0.65 shares of Fulton Financial common stock for each Blue Foundry share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/blue-foundry-bancorp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Soulpower Acquisition Corporation (NYSE: SOUL) related to its merger with SWB LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Soulpower shareholders are expected to receive 1 share in the newly combined company for each share of Soulpower. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/soulpower-acquisition-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- 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. 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 THE SAME. 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 company, director or officer 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] CANADA: Judge Sides With First Nations in Housing Rights' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Chang of CBC News reports that a federal judge has sided with two First Nations in Manitoba and one in Ontario that sued the Canadian government over its duty to provide them with safe housing and clean drinking water, in separate rulings delivered Friday, December 5. The federal government has had a duty to ensure Shamattawa First Nation, and other First Nations who opt into the northern Manitoba First Nation's class-action, were provided access to drinking water safe for human use over the claim period, Justice Paul Favel said in a decision. Shamattawa launched the class-action, which was certified in 2023, on behalf of all First Nations members countrywide whose communities were subject to a drinking water advisory in effect on or after June 20, 2020. The judge also found in a separate ruling that residents of St. Theresa Point First Nation in northeastern Manitoba, Sandy Lake First Nation in northern Ontario and other class-action members should have been provided with adequate housing on their reserves from June 12, 1999, until the present -- the class period defined in the lawsuit. Favel said in both decisions the Canadian government made First Nations dependent by forcing them to relocate to reserves, and that the country has historically "exerted direct control over every facet of First Nations life through legislation, regulations, policies, and practices," including control over financing for water infrastructure and housing. He said in both cases, Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees of equality under the law, as well as the life, liberty and security of all Canadians, may have been affected. The $1.1-billion Shamattawa class action lawsuit picks up from an earlier class-action lawsuit over drinking water advisories that led to an $8-billion settlement in 2021. The remote Manitoba community took the government to court after spending years under a boil-water advisory. During the proceedings, representatives from several First Nations -- Líl'wat and Secwepemc in British Columbia, Peepeekisis Cree Nation and Little Pine First Nation in Saskatchewan, Wabaseemoong in northwestern Ontario and Tataskweyak Cree Nation in northern Manitoba -- testified their communities do not receive enough funding to address long-term or chronic water advisories. "The state of crisis experienced by our members living on reserve is one that is unknown to Canada's employees," Shamattawa Chief Jordna Hill said in an affidavit quoted in Favel's decision. Federal workers in Shamattawa are provided with bottles and jugs of water for personal use, Hill said. "The lives of Canada's employees are unaffected by many of the hardships that we are forced to endure," his affidavit said. "It is hard to think of a more apt symbol of Canada's neglect than seeing the pallets of water at our airport, and knowing that Canada has flown them in for its employees, but not for us." Hill was unavailable for comment Friday, December 5. Housing conditions hurt children: judge The $5-billion St. Theresa Point and Sandy Lake class-action said the federal government "deliberately underfunded housing on reserves," while putting restrictions on their ability to provide housing. "Class members' reserves are generally short hundreds of houses to adequately shelter their populations," Favel wrote, saying that many families are forced to live on condemned units because they have no other options. He said some of the tragedies associated with those conditions include the deaths of two teenage girls in St. Theresa Point during the winter of 2023, and those of three children who died in a house fire in Sandy Lake in 2022. "Children are unable to regularly bathe, their sleep is disrupted due to overcrowding, they are frequently ill due to cold, damp conditions, and because of severe mold and pest infestations," Favel wrote in a summary of the evidence presented by witnesses. "These conditions impact their mental, emotional, and physical well-being as well as their education." More work to do: St. Theresa Point chief The decisions deal with the first stage of the class-action lawsuit, which revolved around a general determination of whether the government had an obligation to the First Nations. A second stage will deal with several other questions, including the scope or existence of any breaches -- including Charter rights infringements -- as well as potential remedies. For now, Favel's decisions granted costs based on the "overwhelming success" of the plaintiffs in both matters. St. Theresa Point Chief Raymond Flett said there's still more work to be done. "It is quite overwhelming that we got the decision in our favour and exciting stuff. But at the same time [we have] to be grounded," Flett said in a phone call. "We didn't do it just for our Nation. We had to speak up for all the nations in Canada that are experiencing housing crises in their community." [GN] CARWORLD LLC: Young Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carworld, LLC. The case is styled as Derrick Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carworld, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-03134 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Car World LLC is a used car dealership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com CENTRAL BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Notice Approval for Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL C. RUTHERFORD III, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Case No. 3:24-cv-05299-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Approving long-form notices for both the national class and the Washington subclass; -- Approving a campaign to send either email or direct mail notices to class members whose addresses are available; -- Approving a national media campaign to reach class members whose addresses were not collected or retained by the Defendant; -- Approving a digital publicity campaign utilizing banner ads, social media outreach, and sponsored search listings; -- Approving a plan to establish a dedicated case website and toll-free telephone hotline; and -- Approving a proposed schedule for the issuance of notice and the deadline for class member opt-outs. The classes certified in this action consist of individuals who were arrested and detained at various detention facilities in Washington State (the "Washington Subclass") and across the nation (the "National Class") who (1) had money in their possession confiscated when they were detained, or money in an inmate account, that was (2) returned to them in the form of a "release card" upon release from the facility. As certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the classes are specifically defined as follows: National Class: "All persons in the United States who, at any time between April 17, 2023 and Sept. 29, 2024 were: (1) taken into custody at a jail correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement facility; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them and/or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility, which was loaded or otherwise transferred to a prepaid debit card without their permission; (3) issued that prepaid debit card that does not include the cardholder agreement language of the amendment dated Sept. 30, 2024, by Central Bank of Kansas City to pay the money owed to them; (4) incurred fees or other charges on such card(s); and (5) did not file a claim and receive an individual monetary recovery from the case captioned Brown v. Stored Value Cards, et al., United States District Court for the District or Oregon, Cause No. 3:15-cv- 01370-MO." Washington Subclass: "All persons who, at any time between April 17, 2020 and Sept. 29, 2024 were: (1) taken into custody at a jail correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement facility located in the state of Washington; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them and/or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility, which was loaded or otherwise transferred to a prepaid debit card without their permission; (3) issued that prepaid debit card that does not include the cardholder agreement language of the amendment dated Sept. 30, 2024, by Central Bank of Kansas City to pay the money owed to them; (4) incurred fees or other charges on such card(s); and (5) did not file a claim and receive an individual monetary recovery from the case captioned Brown v. Stored Value Cards, et al., United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Cause No. 3:15-cv-01370- MO." Central Bank offers personal and business banking solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KBdxPW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Youtz, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 Facsimile (206) 223-0246 E-mail: chris@sylaw.com rick@sylaw.com ele@sylaw.com CENTRAL ONE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Petralias Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- GARY PETRALIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13518 (D. Mass., November 21, 2025) is a class action against Central One for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' sensitive information and health insurance information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide Defendant with their private information and/or the private information of their family members. Because of this, Central One has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Central One's duty to safeguard the private information of its current and previous customers, Plaintiff and Class Members' private information was compromised in a data breach when, on August 30, 2025, Defendant identified "potentially suspicious activity" in its computer network. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is now exposed to cybercriminals, says the suit. Central One Federal Credit is a federally chartered credit union that provides consumer banking, lending, and financial services to its member account holders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Leviton, Esq. Brendan Jarboe, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP 240 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com brendan@blockleviton.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com CENTRAL ONE: Faraji Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central One Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Barbara Faraji, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central One Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2585CV01634 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Nov. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Torts." Central One Federal Credit Union -- https://www.centralfcu.com/ -- offers community-focused banking in MA with personal & business accounts, auto loans, home equity, and digital tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Glennon, Esq. BRODY, HARDOON, PERKINS AND KESTEN, LLP 265 Franklin St 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 880-7105 CENTRAL ONE: McShane Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central One Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Mark McShane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Central One Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2585CV01639 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Nov. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Torts." Central One Federal Credit Union -- https://www.centralfcu.com/ -- offers community-focused banking in MA with personal & business accounts, auto loans, home equity, and digital tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston St., Fl. 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 295-7770 CHINA GARDEN: Luna Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Christian Luna, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. CHINA GARDEN 5705 INC. (DBA TASTE OF CHINA) and YONGFU WANG, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-06503 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the required overtime premium, and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from January 2023 until December 2023, and then again, from July 2025 until October 2025. During this period, Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as determined by the work schedule set by Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants. The Defendants owned and operated CHINA GARDEN 5705 INC. (DBA TASTE OF CHINA), a corporate entity principally engaged in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.stillmanlegalpc.com CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Myrick Collective Action Gets Conditional Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEROAM MYRICK, as an INDIVIDUAL and as Representative on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CLEVELAND ATKINSON, Jr, AS SHERIFF OF EDGECOMBE COUNTY; COUNTY OF EDGECOMBE; and DOES 1-20, Inclusive; Case No. 4:20-cv-00139-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Flanagan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action and facilitate notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The action satisfies the requirements for conditional certification of a "Collective Action" under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Conditional certification of an FLSA collective action is appropriate because Plaintiff has set forth substantial allegations with documentary evidence to establish Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs minimum wages and overtime wages due. At this stage, the Court considers whether Plaintiff has claimed a violation of the FLSA that entails a common policy or scheme that would apply to others. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendants have a policy of not compensating employees who work or worked as deputy sheriffs, for all regular and overtime hours. For purposes of conditional certification, the FLSA Collective Class shall consist of the following: "All current and former non-exempt hourly paid employees of the Sheriff of County of Edgecombe and/or Edgecombe County, who were underpaid by virtue of working as sheriff's deputies pursuant to annual work-schedules based on thirteen (13) payroll periods (consisting of twenty-eight (28) days each) but only receiving twelve (12) payments annually, anytime from July 16, 2017, to the date this practice ends or ended." The action is conditionally certified as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Plaintiff Joeroam Myrick shall be appointed collective action representative. The Plaintiff's counsel, Alvin L. Pittman, Law Offices of Alvin L. Pittman, A PC, shall serve as counsel for the collective class. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dKb1L9 at no extra charge.[CC] COMFRT LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sand Cloud Holdings, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-04403-LMP-DLM (D. Minn., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.sandcloud.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers bedding and towels for sale, including but not limited to beach towels, sheets, blankets, beach accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com COMMUNITY BRIDGES: Bid for Conditional Cert Due March 27, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edith Lazaro, v. Community Bridges Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-03132-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Brnovich entered a case management order: The deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings is March 13, 2026. The deadline for fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be 120 days following the Court's Order on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. All parties and their counsel shall meet in person and engage in good faith settlement talks no later than March 6, 2026. Anticipated date to file the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification: March 27, 2026. Anticipated date to file the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 30 days after completion of fact discovery. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MACPVj at no extra charge.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Gillerman Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Harriet Ann Gillerman, an individual, and others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, dba COSTCO WHOLESALE, a Washington corporation; TODD WAYNE KEPPLE, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01515973-CU-PO-NJC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-mc-00026. This lawsuit arises from an October 9, 2023, incident in which "Plaintiff was lawfully at and upon the PREMISES when she was caused to slip and fall as a result of the dangerous conditions of the PREMISES, including but not limited to trip/slip hazards, inadequate signing, inadequate floors, obstructed walkways and/or a failure to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition. Specifically, while Plaintiff was walking near a shopping aisle, she suddenly and unexpectedly came into contact with a slippery substance on the floor or object, causing her to slip and fall. Plaintiff was injured as a direct and proximate result of encountering the unsafe and dangerous conditions that existed at Defendants' PREMISES."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan K. Hawkins, Esq. MACDONALD & CODY, LLP 16880 W Bernardo Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92127 Phone: (858) 385-0871 Facsimile: (858) 613-0871 Email: mhawkins@macdonaldcody.com COUPANG INC: Korean Victims File for Punitive Damages Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- Kan Hyeong-woo and Im Eun-byel of The Korean Herald report that Coupang faces mounting legal and governance pressure in the US after a massive data leak affecting over 33 million users, as a New York-based law office representing Korean victims prepares a class-action lawsuit seeking punitive damages. SJKP, a US office of law firm Daeryun, announced Monday, December 8, that it would gather as many victims as it can to file for a punitive damages claim against Coupang Inc., which went public on the New York Stock Exchange in March 2021, in New York federal court. "We have gathered over 200 plaintiffs and plan to bring the number to about 1,000 by the end of the year to file a lawsuit," said Kim Kuk-il, Daeryun law firm's managing partner, in a press conference held at SJKP's New York office. "Apart from the ongoing lawsuit in Korea, the US lawsuit will proceed independently. While the (Korean lawsuit) focuses on compensating for consumer damage, the (US lawsuit) will essentially be a different lawsuit that deals with the failure of (Coupang's) governance structure and violation of filing obligations." Coupang has been under fire since it reported on Nov. 29 that personal information of some 33.7 million users had been leaked, including names, phone numbers, residences, email addresses and recent order logs. Despite the US Securities and Exchange Commission requiring public companies to file a report within four business days of determining a significant cyber incident, Coupang had not filed any document to the SEC as of Tuesday, December 9. The company said that it had first acknowledged the data breach on Nov. 18. "Although (Coupang) has its headquarters in the US, the damage from the personal data leak occurred around the world, including in Korea," said Kim. "As it marks the first case in which the route of data leak remains unclear -- whether it was in Korea or in China -- it is a matter that the US court can surely handle." Noting that it is difficult to prove the damages in Korea if a company seals information, Kim added that if the US headquarters of Coupang has practical access to Korean Coupang's systems and data, the US court can force Coupang to submit relevant information regardless of the location of its servers. "Coupang grew by leveraging the Korean people's data and went public on the New York Stock Exchange," said Kim. "(Coupang) is taking profits to the US while avoiding responsibility due to Korea's loose regulations. The days when a headquarters is exempted from accountability just because an incident occurred outside the borders are gone." Tal Hirshberg, an associate at SJKP, pointed out that the essence of this lawsuit is to uncover the causal link showing that Coupang headquarters actually exercised decision-making authority in key areas such as data security, protection of personal information and investment in IT infrastructure. As for notable precedents of punitive damages compensation cases over data breach incidents in the US, Equifax and Facebook had to pay $425 million and $725 million, respectively, to settle class-action lawsuits. Meanwhile, Seoul police on December 9, raided Coupang's Korean headquarters for a search-and-seizure to look for evidence that could reveal how the data leak occurred. According to the presidential office later in the day, President Lee Jae Myung also instructed the Cabinet to review ways to grant agencies such as the Fair Trade Commission investigative authority that would allow them to impose economic sanctions directly -- citing the Coupang case as an example for levying fines. Lee reiterated his view that strong financial penalties, rather than criminal prosecution alone, are needed to deter illegal business practices and safeguard market order. Ownership structure without liability Coupang Inc., a Delaware-incorporated company that went public on the NYSE in March 2021, sits atop the ownership structure, while holding Korean Coupang, Coupang USA, Coupang Asia Holdings and online luxury fashion marketplace Farfetch as subsidiaries. Coupang Inc. holds a 100 percent stake in Korean Coupang. On top of the outside-of-Korea ownership structure, market observers have raised concerns over Bom Kim, founder and CEO of Coupang Inc., being able to practically make decisions on his own. Kim holds about 157.8 million shares of Class B common stock, about 8.8 percent of the total. In Coupang Inc.'s case, a Class B common stock has a voting power that is 29 times larger than that of a Class A common stock, meaning that Kim's stake controls approximately 74 percent of voting rights. "Coupang's ownership structure has likely insulated it from addressing governance-related shareholder concerns over the years," said SquareWell Partners, an independent shareholder advisory firm. "Although investors have raised the following issues in the past (most recently at the 2025 annual general meeting), they have not led to meaningful improvements; and this lack of accountability may have contributed to the recent incident." For instance, DWS and AllianzGI voted against Kim during the 2025 annual general meeting, citing concerns that the Coupang leader "has not adequately addressed issues pertaining to the company's failure to address (environmental, social and governance) risks and is significantly lagging its peers" and that he does "not support multiple-class share structures and differential voting rights, particularly where these may be disadvantageous to minority shareholders." SquareWell Partners added that some of Coupang's major institutional investors such as T. Rowe Price, BlackRock and Morgan Stanley, have generally emphasized holding boards accountable in cases of significant controversy, including failure of governance or oversight. "Investors may look to hold key directors, including Bom Kim, accountable at the 2026 (annual general meeting)," said SquareWell Partners. "While it may be easier to avoid scrutiny (particularly where the ownership structure limits accountability) we would argue that even companies like Coupang benefit from adopting a more open and receptive stance toward investor feedback, which can provide genuinely useful insights to drive fundamental improvements that benefit all stakeholders, including those that maintain control." [GN] CS DISCO: Seeks Leave to File SurReply in Gambrill Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN GAMBRILL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CS DISCO, INC., KIWI CAMARA, and MICHAEL LAFAIR, Case No. 1:24-cv-00028-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting opposed motion for leave to file surreply. The Defendants request leave to file a short Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of his Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification raises new arguments not made in his Motion and includes a new 61-page expert report. Specifically, the Plaintiff and his expert (Dr. Zachary Nye) have raised new arguments and rendered supplemental opinions about price impact. Dr. Nye's opening report focused almost entirely on market efficiency, and the Plaintiff only perfunctorily addressed price impact in his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's reply, on the other hand, is almost entirely about price impact. CS is a legal technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PgnJLZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Brett H. De Jarnette, Esq. Tijana M. Brien, Esq. Ashley Kemper Corkery, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com tbrien@cooley.com acorkery@cooley.com - and - Peter D. Kennedy, Esq. Hailey L. Suggs, Esq. GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY, P.C. 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2700 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 480-5764 Facsimile: (512) 480-9908 E-mail: pkennedy@gdhm.com hsuggs@gdhm.com DAKOTA EYE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Dakota Eye Institute agreed to a $1 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised patient information. The Dakota Eye Institute settlement benefits individuals whose private information was compromised in the Dakota Eye Institute data breach disclosed on Oct. 31, 2023. The Dakota Eye Institute is an eye care center in North Dakota that offers eye exams, cataract surgery, LASIK, glaucoma treatment and other services. According to a class action lawsuit, Dakota Eye Institute failed to prevent a data breach that occurred in October 2023. The Dakota Eye Institute data breach allegedly compromised sensitive patient information, including Social Security numbers. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim Dakota Eye Institute could have prevented the breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. The company's failure to implement such measures allegedly violated its legal duties to patients. Dakota Eye Institute has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Dakota Eye Institute settlement, class members can receive up to $1,000 for ordinary out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. These expenses may include bank fees, credit costs, credit monitoring expenses and other unreimbursed losses. Class members who experienced extraordinary losses related to identity theft or fraud can receive up to $5,000 in compensation for these damages. Class members can also receive two years of free credit monitoring services. These services include single-bureau monitoring and at least $1 million in fraud insurance. Class members who choose to receive cash payments instead of credit monitoring can receive $45. This payment may be increased or decreased depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 13, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Dakota Eye Institute data breach settlement is scheduled for Jan. 12, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 12, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals whose private information was compromised in the Dakota Eye Institute data breach discovered in October 2023. Potential Award Up to $1,000 for out-of-pocket losses and up to $5,000 for extraordinary losses or a $45 cash payment. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, invoices, bills, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/12/2026 Case Name In re: Dakota Eye Institute Data Security Litigation, Case No. 08-2023-cv-02710, in the District Court, County of Burleigh, South Central Judicial District, State of North Dakota Final Hearing 01/12/2026 Settlement Website DakotaEyeSecurityIncident.com Claims Administrator DED9 Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 (888) 999-6795 Class Counsel Nathan D. Prosser HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC Philip Krzeski CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE Defense Counsel Kevin M. Ringel FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP [GN] DAVA MARKETING: Court Conditionally Certifies "Cook" FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Austin Cook, Harrison Follett, Charlie Allen, Sophie Sanders, Thomas Bartell, Justin Roberts, Carson McMaster, Alonso Barrantes, Brady Perkins, Jeremy Thompson, Paige Ludden, Keaton Hales, Trooper Johnson, Ryan Grimmius, Aidan Walsh, and Ryan Hadley, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dava Marketing, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00632-DBB (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Dava Marketing, LLC. They provided video editing, design, and content creation services to customers. As part of its business model, Dava requires its employees to provide these services on very tight schedules, often resulting in after-hours work and workweeks of longer than forty hours. Even though the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay time-and-a-half compensation for overtime work above forty hours in a week, Dava did not do so. Instead, Dava altered employee time records, banked overtime hours for upcoming weeks, or paid straight time for overtime hours worked. Dava also improperly classified some employees as independent contractors in order to avoid having to fulfill FLSA requirements. The Court first determined whether conditional certification of a FLSA collective action was appropriate in this case. The Complaint alleged that the Plaintiffs and other Dava employees routinely worked longer than forty hours in a week due to Dava's policies on quick-turnaround times for projects. It also stated that these overtime hours were not compensated according to FLSA requirements because of widespread corporate practices and official company policies. The Plaintiffs alleged that these FLSA overtime violations affected other Dava employees, including some employees improperly classified as independent contractors. These facts were sufficient at this stage to substantially allege that the proposed collective members were similarly situated as victims of Dava's overtime payment policies. The Court found that conditional certification of a collective action was appropriate in this case. Although Dava did not oppose the conditional certification of a collective action at this initial stage, it disputed the Plaintiffs' definition of the collective. The Plaintiffs proposed the following definition: All current and former employees who were paid by Dava to sell, design and edit videos and manage online and social media content for Dava Marketing LLC in the United States during the applicable limitations period. Dava proposed certain changes, arguing that the Plaintiffs' proposed definition was overbroad because it would provide notice to all past and current Dava employees without regard to whether they could potentially have a claim under the Plaintiffs' theory of liability. The Court addressed each of Dava's proposed additions. First, the Court found that the non-exempt addition was improper because it would exclude employees that were classified as exempt independent contractors but who should have been considered employees for FLSA purposes. Because the parties disagreed on the employment status of some potential collective members, adding the non-exempt language could create disputes about what information needs to be produced. Second, the Court found that the on an hourly basis language was appropriate because it more clearly defined the scope of the collective action claim, which was already limited by its own allegations to hourly overtime violations. Third, the Court rejected the prequalification condition but determined that the definition should include language limiting the collective to employees who worked more than forty hours in any workweek while employed with Dava. Finally, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs' definition already included an applicable limitations period of three years plus the time the case was stayed. The Court granted conditional certification of the following collective definition: All current and former employees who were paid by Dava on an hourly basis to sell, design, and edit videos and manage online and social media content for Dava Marketing LLC in the United States during the applicable limitations period and who worked more than forty hours in any workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification was granted in part. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated December 8, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Vym5t from PacerMonitor.com DEFI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with substantial losses that they have until January 30, 2026 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against DeFi Technologies Inc. ("DeFi" or the "Company") (NasdaqCM: DEFT), if they purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 12, 2025 and November 14, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased securities of DeFi and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-deft/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by January 30, 2026. About the Lawsuit DeFi and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On November 13, 2025, post-market, the Company announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2025, disclosing a nearly 20% decline in revenue, well below market expectations, and also significantly lowered its 2025 revenue forecast, from $218.6 million to approximately $116.6 million, due to "a delay in executing DeFi Alpha arbitrage opportunities previously forecasted due to the proliferation of [DAT] companies and the consolidation in digital asset price movement in the latter half of 2025." On this news, the price of DeFi's shares fell $0.40 per share, or 27.59%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $1.05 per share on November 17, 2025. The case is Linkedto Partners LLC v. DeFi Technologies Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-06637. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and private institutional investors, and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, and a representative office in Luxembourg. TOP 10 Plaintiff Law Firms -- According to ISS Securities Class Action Services To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (877) 515-1850 lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com[GN] DELAWARE: Court Approves "Gibbs" Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Dion D. Gibbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Carney, et al., Defendants, No. 1:20-cv-01301-SB (D. Del.), Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation, of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted final approval of the settlement agreement between a class of prisoners and the Delaware prison warden. Plaintiff Dion Gibbs, a prisoner and class representative, alleged that prison officials mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and put prisoners at risk, including by ignoring or rejecting their requests for masks, cleaning supplies, and better disinfecting procedures. He also claimed that prisoners had to wait up to six weeks for treatment when they got sick. Gibbs asserted that these conditions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and sued the state Department of Corrections and state officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and other similarly situated prisoners. The Court certified a class of all current prisoners at Sussex. The Court applied the four factors in amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and determined that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. First, the appointed class counsel did excellent work representing the class on a pro bono basis. Counsel is knowledgeable and has extensive experience with complex litigation and successfully shepherded the case through motions practice, discovery, and settlement negotiations. Second, the settlement proposal came for final approval five years into the case, which reflects the time the parties invested in assessing the relative merits of their claims and defenses. The negotiations took place after the Court ruled on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and reflected formal and informal discovery. There is no indication that the bargaining was anything but arm's length. Third, the settlement addresses the class's core concerns by enforcing mask mandates in certain circumstances, requiring the prison to issue masks to COVID-positive prisoners, and mandating systematic cleaning. Fourth, the settlement proposal does not feature preferential treatment for any prisoners or class of prisoners. The Court also found that the outcome is the same under the Girsh and Prudential factors. The complexity and duration of the litigation favor approving the settlement. After getting adequate notice, no class member objected to the proposed settlement. The stage of the proceedings and amount of discovery completed favor approval. The risks of establishing liability favor approval. The other Girsh factors favor approval because the settlement addresses the concerns raised by the allegations in a comprehensive and thorough manner. Class counsel does not seek fees. The Court granted final approval of the settlement, bringing the case to a close. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zcfu3A from PacerMonitor.com DERICK DERMATOLOGY: Jeffries Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Derick Dermatology, PLLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Jeffries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Derick Dermatology, PLLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-14282 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Derick Dermatology -- https://derickdermatology.com/ -- is a leading authority in medical, surgical, and cosmetic dermatological services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com DOC'S INC: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doc's, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kenneth Edward Smith, and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Doc's, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV028173 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Doc's, Inc. -- https://docsindustries.com/ -- is a construction equipment supplier in Simi Valley, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM A Law Corporation 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-293-5623 Email: nidah@olfla.com DOLLAR TREE: Seeks Denial of Godines Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA GODINES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01743-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Jan. 22, 2026, will move the Court for an order denying class certification of the proposed class because the putative class improperly includes individuals who are subject to binding arbitration agreements and therefore may not pursue their claims in this action, and issuing an order that Plaintiff may not represent any arbitration-bound putative class members. Accordingly, Dollar Tree has maintained a valid and enforceable arbitration program. Courts across California have routinely and repeatedly enforced the arbitration agreements that Dollar Tree and its California associates have entered into as a condition of employment. The Plaintiff Cecilia Godines is not subject to that program because she elected to opt out during an approximately two-month window from April 2015 to May 2015 in which that option was available to her. The Plaintiff now seeks to represent "All current and former salaried employees whom the Defendants classified as exempt and who worked for the Defendants in the State of California at one or more of the Defendant's retail locations at any time during the period from four years prior to the date of the filing of this complaint until final judgment." Dollar Tree hired Godines in October 2012. When Dollar Tree rolled out its arbitration program, Godines opted out of arbitration, on April 15, 2015. Godines filed this putative class complaint in Sacramento County Superior court on May 9, 2025. On June 20, 2025, Dollar Tree removed the lawsuit to this Court. Dollar is a variety retailer that sells goods nationwide through its retail store locations across the United States, including throughout California. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=opT7yF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan D. Derry, Esq. Emily Stover, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: ryanderry@paulhastings.com emilystover@paulhastings.com DOORDASH INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Michelle Andrizzi filed a class action lawsuit against DoorDash Inc. Why: Andrizzi alleges DoorDash failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of herself and other class members in a recent data breach. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges DoorDash failed to safeguard the personally identifiable information of thousands of users in a recent data breach. Plaintiff Michelle Andrizzi's class action lawsuit claims DoorDash failed to safeguard the PII of herself and other class members during the data breach, which she argues led to unauthorized access to its information systems and the disclosure of that information. "Plaintiff and class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change and which cannot be made private again," the DoorDash class action lawsuit says. The data breach exposed the names, email addresses, phone numbers and physical addresses of some of its users, including customers, dashers and merchants, according to the DoorDash class action lawsuit. Andrizzi wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers whose PII was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party in the DoorDash data breach. DoorDash failed to use 'reasonable' security procedures, class action says Andrizzi claims DoorDash failed to have adequate security measures in place and thus bears responsibility for the data breach occurring. "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 DoorDash class action lawsuit says. Andrizzi claims DoorDash is guilty of negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, statutory, nominal and consequential damages for herself and all class members. A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against DoorDash and Apple Pay earlier this year over claims they charged users for DashPass subscriptions without their consent. The plaintiff is represented by Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm P.C. The DoorDash data breach class action lawsuit is Andrizzi v. DoorDash Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-09926, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Motion to Dismiss "Risk-Free" Ads Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a New Jersey judge ruled a DraftKings class action lawsuit can continue. Why: The judge ruled the plaintiffs adequately pled unlawful conduct in their risk-free betting claims. Where: The DraftKings class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A DraftKings class action lawsuit alleging the company misled consumers with its "risk-free" ads can continue, a New Jersey federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler ruled the plaintiffs adequately pled unlawful conduct in their DraftKings class action lawsuit, Law360 reports. The judge rejected DraftKings' argument that the full terms of its risk-free and no-risk betting promotions were available somewhere, meaning the ads were not deceptive. "Concealing the terms of a promotion under a bold heading and having fine print terms, which are unascertainable or too small to realistically read, may constitute illegal and deceptive conduct, even if the terms were at some point fully provided and clearly spelled out," Judge Chesler said. DraftKings class action lawsuit alleges deceptive advertising Plaintiffs Matthew Youngs and Charles Thompson filed the DraftKings class action lawsuit in January, alleging the company violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act by advertising risk-free and no-risk betting promotions without adequately disclosing the terms of the promotions. DraftKings unsuccessfully argued the claims are preempted by the state's casino industry regulations. The judge also denied DraftKings' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on the grounds that Youngs and Thompson are New Jersey residents and suffered harm only in the state, making a national class designation inappropriate. DraftKings was granted dismissal of the bettors' request for injunctive relief related to the allegedly deceptive promotions as well as their claims targeting the company's "no-sweat" promotion and its "new customer" bonus offer. Youngs and Thompson acknowledged they never participated in either promotion. The judge also dismissed a state consumer fraud claim tied to the casino deposit promotion but allowed the equitable fraud claim to proceed, ruling that the casino deposit offer constituted "circumstantial evidence of intent." DraftKings is currently facing multiple lawsuits, including accusations that it "preys" on gambling addicts with misleading marketing. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Kanovitz and Isaac Green of Loevy & Loevy and Elvin Esteves of the Law Office of Elvin Esteves LLC. The DraftKings class action lawsuit is Youngs v. DraftKings, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00179, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] DRIFTER'S KITCHEN: Duran Balks at Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY DURAN, Plaintiff v. DRIFTER'S KITCHEN AND BAR, INC. and DAVID DONOFRIO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06058-SIL (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. This complaint seeks to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation for Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage rates in effect from August 2022 through December 31, 2024, which were $15 per hour for 2022-2023 and $16 per hour for 2024, instead paying only $15 per hour throughout the entire period. Additionally, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a dishwasher from approximately August 2022 until October 12, 2025. Drifter's Kitchen and Bar, Inc. engaged in restaurant business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Response Extended in Bailey ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bailey v. EdFinancial Services, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00144 (N.D. Ga., Filed June 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II entered an order granting motion for extension of time to respond to motion to certify class. The Defendant's Response deadline be extended by 60 days from Dec. 15, 2025, to, and including, Feb. 13, 2026. The Plaintiff's time to file his Reply is extended to 30 days following Feb. 13, 2026, to, and including, March 16, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. EdFinancial is a financial company which provides student loans.[CC] EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BAILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EDFINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00144-WMR-JHR (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time in which the Defendant has to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by an additional 60 days and extending the time in which the Plaintiff has to file his reply brief in support of the motion for class certification to 30 days. Furthermore, the Parties agreed there is good cause to extend the time the Plaintiff has to Reply to 30 days. Thus, the Parties request that the Plaintiff's time to file his reply is extended to 30 days following Feb. 13, 2026 to, and including, March 16, 2026. The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on Nov. 13, 2025. EdFinancial is a financial company which provides student loans. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fJljfe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 6065 Roswell Road, Suite 700-121 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@wsjustice.com aw@wsjustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Dana M. Richens, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 1105 West Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-3659 Facsimile: (404) 685-6959 E-mail: drichens@sgrlaw.com - and - David R. Esquivel, Esq. Elaina Al-Nimri, Esq. Alfonso Cuen, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Ave. South, Ste. 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 E-mail: desquivel@bassberry.com ealnimri@bassberry.com alfonso.cuen@bassberry.com EQUITY TRUST: Appeals Denied Transfer/Arbitration Bid to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EQUITY TRUST COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to transfer, or, in the alternative, compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Heather R. Short, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equity Trust Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06788-HDV-MAA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and violation of the Securities & Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the California Unfair Competition Law. On April 14, 2025, Defendant Equity Trust Company filed a motion to transfer case to the Northern District of Ohio, which Judge Hernan D. Vera denied on Nov. 13, 2025. The Court finds that Equity Trust Company has failed to proffer any evidence showing that the Custodial Account Agreement and Disclosure Statement ("CAA") containing the relevant clauses was ever provided to the Plaintiffs. Similarly, the application signed by the Plaintiffs failed to include any hyperlink to guide the Plaintiffs to where this other document could be found. On this record, the Court therefore concludes that there could be no "meeting of the minds" on a phantom document that was never made readily available to the Plaintiffs. Nor is arbitration required merely because of the inclusion of a one-sentence reference in the application that incorporates the undisclosed CAA. The appellate case is entitled Investing Plaintiffs v. Equity Trust Company, et al., Case No. 25-7463, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 26, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 1, 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 12, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 16, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees INVESTING PLAINTIFFS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Aguirre, Esq. Maria C. Severson, Esq. AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1050 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP 680 South Santa Fe Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90021 Defendant-Appellant EQUITY TRUST COMPANY is represented by: Kyle T. Cutts, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 - and - Andrew M. Grossman, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 ESSA PHARMA: Siskinds Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that Siskinds LLP is investigating a possible shareholder class action against Essa Pharma Inc. ("Essa") and certain of its directors and officers. On August 14, 2025, Essa issued a news release announcing a distribution of approximately US$1.69 per Essa share. The news release represented that investors who purchased Essa shares during the "due bill period" running from "August 19, 2025 through and including August 25, 2025" were entitled to receive the distribution. At the end of the trading day on August 25, 2025, Essa corrected its August 14 news release, stating that the correct "due bill period" was August 19 through and including August 22, not August 25 as previously stated. Investors who purchased Essa shares on August 25 were not, in fact, entitled to the distribution. Investors who acquired Essa shares on August 25, 2025 are encouraged to contact Siskinds LLP at essapharma@siskinds.com or by telephone at 226.213.7406. Anyone who has information relevant to the investigation is also encouraged to contact Siskinds LLP. Your information will be held in strict confidence. By contacting us, you are not retaining Siskinds LLP, nor do you incur any obligations in connection with the potential class action. About Siskinds LLP Siskinds LLP is a pioneer in class action lawsuits and has been recognized as a top-tier Canadian firm by the Chambers and Partners, a global legal review organization, in their 2026 guide. The class actions team, comprised of 25 lawyers admitted to practice in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec, act exclusively for plaintiffs and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for class members in Canada and abroad. [GN] FCTI INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. FCTI, INC. D/B/A SUNOCO,, Case No. 1:25-cv-25444-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial gas station, food mart and cafeteria, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. FCTI, INC. D/B/A SUNOCO, owned and operated a commercial gas station, food mart and cafeteria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FIGMA INC: Faces Khan Suit for Trade Secrets Misappropriation ------------------------------------------------------------- RAZA KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIGMA, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10054 (N.D. Cal., November 21, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and Class members seeking a permanent injunction to stop Figma's wrongful use of AI products that were trained on their intellectual property. The Plaintiff utilized Figma to develop a user interface, and he input proprietary software code into Figma so that he could use its services to build a mobile application and APIs necessary to create his product. But Plaintiff did not know that Figma would then utilize the code and software that he developed, through significant personal investments, to train its AI models. The complaint alleges that Figma never asked its customers for permission. To the contrary, for years Figma promised customers that it would not use their data for its own purposes, including to train AI models. As a result, those customers' intellectual property has been, and will ceaselessly be, misappropriated for Figma's benefit by unauthorized third parties that use Figma's products. This class action seeks a permanent injunction to prohibit Figma's continued misuse of Plaintiff's and Class Members' intellectual property that Figma wrongfully used to train its AI models, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to rectify Figma's brazen misconduct, and brings claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, violations of California Unfair Competition Law, misappropriation of trade secrets under California and Federal law, violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and violations of the Stored Communications Act. Figma, Inc. is a California-based technology company. It offers an AI-enabled platform for developers, product managers, researchers, marketers, writers, and other non-designers that helps them to share and explore ideas, align on a vision, visualize concepts, and translate them into coded products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Carter E. Greenbaum, Esq. GREENBAUM OLBRANTZ LLP 160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (332) 222-9119 E-mail: carter@greenbaumolbrantz.com - and - Casey Olbrantz, Esq. GREENBAUM OLBRANTZ LLP 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite C221 New York, NY 10001 E-mail: casey@greenbaumolbrantz.com - and - Joseph Delich, Esq. Kyle Roche, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 155 E. 44th St., Suite 915 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 494-2900 E-mail: jdelich@fnf.law kroche@fnf.law FIRSTRUST SAVINGS: Chrupcala Sues Over Failure to Monitor Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Chrupcala, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Firstrust 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan v. Firstrust Savings Bank, Case No. 2:25-cv-06578 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the Defendant about the Defendant's failure to monitor the investment of employer contributions to Pla participant accounts and to invest those assets prudently and for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants. The Defendant does not allow participants to direct the investment of employer contributions to their accounts. Instead, Defendant controls the investment of employer contributions. Defendant directed 100% of funds under its control to proprietary certificates of deposit and savings accounts (together the "Firstrust Cash Fund"), resulting in the Firstrust Cash Fund serving as the Plan's single largest holding. Defendant's decision to allocate employer contributions solely to the Firstrust Cash Fund caused Firstrust employees to earn millions less in income and gains than participants would have earned in a prudently invested portfolio appropriately tailored the objectives of the Plan. The Defendant violated ERISA, by directing millions of dollars of Plan assets into Firstrust's proprietary bank accounts without giving appropriate consideration to the objectives of the Plan or Plan participants' investment time horizons and needs, resulting in losses to the Plan, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Firstrust between 2021 and 2024 and participated in the Plan. The Defendant is a bank organized in Pennsylvania with branches in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Y. Michael Twersky, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-4656 Email: mitwersky@bm.net - and - John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5999 Email: jalbanese@bm.net - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Steven J. Eiden, Esq. Melissa A. Carrington, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 305-8349 Email: cengstrom@engstromlee.com seiden@engstromlee.com FULL HOUSE: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Jordan Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULL HOUSE RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02318 (D. Nev., November 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant customers' and employees' sensitive information, including full names and Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other former and current Defendant customers and employees' are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public personally identifiable information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain services from Defendant. On July 23, 2025, the Defendant learned that one of its IT support vendors had been penetrated by a cyberattack. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature of the data breach. As a result of its investigation, on October 14, 2025, the Defendant concluded that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised in the data breach between July 22 and 23, 2025. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the 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 Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. Full House Resorts, Inc. owns and operates casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com GHP PROFESSIONAL: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GHP PROFESSIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; GHP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC; and GINA SE, Case No. 4:25-cv-05631 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly workers like her overtime as required by federal law. Instead, the Defendants improperly classified the Plaintiff and workers like her as independent contractors paid them at their same hourly rates, even when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other hourly workers for the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for GHP since January 2020. GHP Professional Health Services, LLC is a domestic limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: 713 999 5228 Email: matt@parmet.law GOMERA GRULLON: Acevedo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage --------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Acevedo and Welington Ramirez, behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees v. GOMERA GRULLON INC and EDEN GRULLON, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-09721 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR") to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation for the Plaintiffs, former employees of Defendants. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate the Plaintiffs with overtime pay at one and one-half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants willfully compensated the Plaintiffs only at straight-time rates of $12.12, $12.88, $13.64, and $17.27 per hour for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours per week, and completely failed to pay the Plaintiffs their lawful overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. The Defendants owned and operated GOMERA GRULLON INC, a corporate entity principally engaged in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Email: info@StillmanLegalPC.com HAFETZ AND ASSOCIATES: Agrees to $505,000 Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Hafetz and Associates has agreed to a $505,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged that the email accounts of some employees of the New Jersey insurance agency were accessed by an unauthorized party between July 24, 2023 and October 12, 2023, compromising consumers' personal information. The Hafetz class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 24, 2025 and covers approximately 31,590 United States residents whose private information may have been compromised as a result of the data breach, including anyone who received a notice from Hafetz about the incident. The court-approved website for the Hafetz data breach settlement can be found at https://www.HafetzDataSettlement.com/. Per the website, Hafetz settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $10,000, the site relays. The website further outlines that reimbursable losses must have been incurred as a result of the 2023 Hafetz data incident, and include expenses related to identity theft, fraud, freezing credit and credit monitoring costs. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may file a claim form to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payout of approximately $50, which may increase or decrease depending on the total number of valid claims that are submitted, the class action settlement website says. According to the settlement agreement, class members may elect to receive their payout via check or electronic payment. All settlement checks must be cashed within 60 days of issuance before expiration, the document says. In addition to either or both monetary reimbursement options, all class members are also eligible to enroll in two free years of one-bureau credit monitoring. To submit a Hafetz settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the document. All Hafetz settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 22, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Hafetz settlement at a hearing on February 25, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Hafetz and Associates class action lawsuit alleged that the company failed to implement proper security measures and training procedures, which led to the nearly three-month data breach in 2023 that may have compromised personal information stored on the insurance agency's systems. According to court documents, the consumer data accessed during the data incident included, but was not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information and insurance plans. [GN] HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------------- David Ramirez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-13566-JDH (D. Mass., Nov. 25, 2025), is brought against Harvard for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). On November 18, 2025, Harvard discovered that an nauthorized party accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. On November 18, 2025, Harvard discovered that an unauthorized actor accessed Harvard's Alumni Affairs and Development information systems through a phone-based phishing attack. On November 22, 2025, Harvard began sending emails to individuals whose PII may have been compromised in the Data Breach. Upon information and belief, the types of PII accessed and/or acquired in the Data Breach included highly sensitive information such as: email addresses, telephone numbers, home and business addresses, and details of donations to Harvard University (collectively, "Private Information"). Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the personal lives of potentially thousands of individuals including Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's Private Information is available on the Dark Web as a result of the Data Breach. Harvard breached its duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received an email from Harvard on November 22, 2025, informing him that his Private Information may have been exfiltrated in the Data Breach. Harvard is a private institution of higher learning located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com HAULAGE TRANSPORTATION: Flournoy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Willie Flournoy, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HAULAGE TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00578 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid van drivers. The Plaintiff alleges he and similarly situated hourly-paid van drivers were not paid for all their overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this cause of action. The Defendant either failed to record all of the overtime hours of Plaintiff and others similarly situated into their time keeping system or "edited out" such hours from their time keeping system during all times material to this Complaint, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid van driver during the relevant period herein. Haulage Transportation Corporation is a logistics and delivery company, operating as an independent service provider for FedEx Ground.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com HUEL INC: Tal Sues Over False and Misleading Representation ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Tal, Liam Traynor, Jordan Ancel, David Rosen, Nicholas Tinkle, Amadeo Baltazar, David Raymond, Jeffrey Lin, Jon Latane, Timothy Kaiser, Joseph Hsu, and Victor Torres-Velez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUEL INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-06508 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought the Defendant has: violated New York Agriculture and Markets Law; breached its implied warranties; breached its express warranties; been unjustly enriched as a result of the Defendant's false and misleading representation. The Defendant knew or, at a minimum, should have known that Huel Black contained elevated, dangerous, and unhealthy levels of lead and cadmium, but nevertheless marketed and sold those products in retail stores and online, in violation of its statutory and common-law duties. The Defendant's representations—including on its websites, product labels, social media, and other marketing materials—lead reasonable consumers to believe that they are purchasing premium, healthy products that were "rigorously tested" for heavy metals and "validated for quality and nutrition" to meet Huel's "strict standards," including that the products are free from harmful heavy metals. The Defendant's representations are, at best, misleading, because Huel Black contains dangerous levels of lead and cadmium in such amounts that experts advise against Huel Black's consumption. The presence of lead and cadmium in Huel Black is not fully and fairly disclosed to consumers. Had Defendant accurately and fully disclosed to Plaintiffs and Class Members that Huel Black contained and contains lead and cadmium, Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased Huel Black, or they would have paid significantly less for the product. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inclusion of lead and cadmium in its Huel Black product and misleading disclosures and material omissions, Plaintiffs and absent Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer serious injury, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Huel Black for personal use. Huel manufactures, designs, distributes, supplies, markets, promotes, advertises, and sells Huel Black as a healthy, vegan, high protein alternative to traditional meals that has "all the protein, fiber, fatty acids, carbohydrates and all 27 vitamins and minerals that you need or your body needs to live off."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Rd., 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Fax: (973) 639-9393 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sweiss@seegerweiss.com jsmigelsky@seegerweiss.com - and - Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. Jennifer Sarnelli GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 Email: ktucker@gelaw.com jsarnelli@gelaw.com IKEA NORTH: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline Briefing Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN WEILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-09659-PA-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order denying stipulation to extend deadline for class certification briefing: 1. The Feb. 24, 2026, deadline to move for class certification is vacated until two weeks after the close of discovery. 2. The Court will schedule a Rule 16 conference and open discovery, if at all, after resolution of the Defendant's upcoming motion to dismiss, which is due to be filed on Dec. 17, 2025 Ikea offers sofas, side tables, wardrobes, sink cabinets, bar tables, and bedroom textiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZWAYf at no extra charge.[CC] J. RAMBO LLC: Ramirez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Geovanny Villa Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J. RAMBO LLC and MASPETH SUPPLY CO and HARVEY LYONS, and JONATHAN OLIVEIRA individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-06492 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and unpaid prevailing wages due to the Defendants' breach of contracts executed at least in part, to benefit Plaintiffs and his co-workers. When Plaintiff worked overtime, he was not paid time and one-half. Rather, Plaintiff was paid at straight time for all hours worked. Specifically, in 2024 Plaintiff was paid $18.75 for all hours worked including work performed after 40 hours. Throughout the relevant time period, Defendants paid Plaintiff's wages without the proper accompanying statement listing the overtime rate or rates of pay, the number of regular hours worked and the number of overtime hours worked, gross wages, deductions, allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage, and net wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from February 2024 through August 2025 as a constructer. J. Rambo LLC is a subcontractor that performs work on projects awarded to Maspeth Supply Co LLC, many of which are public work projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 JACKSON NATIONAL: $22MM Insurance Suit Settlement Gets Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Knef, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a St. Clair County judge has approved a $22 million settlement in a class action suit against Jackson National Life Insurance over fixed annuity policies. Lawyers representing the class, including John Hopkins of Edwardsville, will share $6 million in attorneys' fees. T. Evan Shaeffer of Schaeffer & Lamere in Godfrey also represented the class. Policy holder George Farmer sued Jackson in 2002 over its methods used to set interest-setting rates for new premiums and for those premiums previously paid to fixed annuities. He and James Granger, who was later added as a named plaintiff, also claimed that Jackson failed to advise its fixed annuity purchasers that Jackson would be crediting higher interest rates to new premiums than it did to previously-paid premiums. Farmer will receive $10,000 and Granger will receive $2,000 as incentive awards for their participation as class representatives. St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien in 2006 certified a class of policy holders who purchased a Jackson fixed annuity in Illinois and in which Jackson subsequently offered and paid higher interest rates to new purchasers of similar products. According to the settlement agreement, which was signed by LeChien May 6, Jackson denies all wrongdoing alleged in the litigation and disputes that certification of the class was proper. "Jackson disputes Plaintiffs' allegations, and contends that the annuity policies did not require Jackson to credit fixed annuities the same interest rate to previously-paid premiums as it does to new premiums," the agreement states. "Jackson further contends that the policies expressly permit Jackson to increase interest-crediting rates in its discretion subject only to the requirement that those rates at least equal the minimum rates set forth in those policies, and that the interest rates it has credited were always consistent with the policies' terms." The settlement class includes Illinois policy holders between July 1, 1989 and Oct. 31, 2008, except employers and unions that maintained the annuities through employee benefit plans. Class members have 30 days from May 6 to make a claim. The specific amount that a class member may recover is based on the interest the class member received while the owner of a fixed annuity. Any portion of the settlement amount not claimed by class members will revert to Jackson.[GN] JOHN FORMELLA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CLARK, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN M. FORMELLA, in his official capacity only as Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, Case No. 1:25-cv-00379-PB-AJ (D.N.J.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: -- Granting the assented-to motion; -- Extending the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and -- Granting such other and further relief as justice may require. The Defendant requires additional time to prepare a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and requests that his deadline to do so be extended to Dec. 15, 2025. The Plaintiff initiated this action in September of 2025 by filing a class action complaint for declaratory judgment. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint of near or even date herewith. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ozn6Zx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Shawna Bentley, Esq. Sam M. Gonyea, Esq. THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 Granite Place South Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 271-3650 E-mail: shawna.p.bentley@doj.nh.gov sam.m.gonyea@doj.nh.gov K&B CONTRACTORS: Cumbicus Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Segundo Cumbicus, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. K&B CONTRACTORS LLC (DBA NAJERA CONSTRUCTION), GUSTAVO NAJERA and BORCHE KRSTEV, Case No. 2:25-cv-17851 (D.N.J., Nov. 23, 2025), is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), the New Jersey Wage Theft Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to record all of the time that Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals employed by the Corporate Defendant worked, including the work performed in excess of forty hours each week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in the position of remodeler of school floors and ceilings, as well as painter from February 2025 until October 27, 2025. K&B CONTRACTORS LLC (DBA NAJERA CONSTRUCTION) is a duly organized business corporation under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.stillmanlegalpc.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit Up to $47.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan has agreed to pay at least $46 million, and up to $47.5 million, to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare provider unlawfully tracked and shared sensitive patient information with third parties like Google, Microsoft and Twitter without consent. The Kaiser class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 24, 2025 and covers approximately 13.1 million people in California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia who accessed their patient portal account through an authenticated Kaiser Permanente website or app from November 2017 to May 2024. Per an amended proposed preliminary settlement approval order, the settlement administrator will send out Kaiser Foundation Health Plan class action settlement notices, complete with key information about how and where to submit a Kaiser claim form and how to receive a payout, by January 16, 2026. According to the preliminary approval order, Kaiser settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form will be able to receive a one-time cash payment estimated to be between $20.98 and $41.95. The document adds that the settlement payout each class member may receive will be based on the total number of valid claims that are submitted and the amount that remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of settlement administration costs, attorneys' fees and plaintiff service awards. Class members will be able to file a Kaiser settlement claim form by mail or online through the court-approved settlement website once it is established. The amended proposal also outlines that the deadline to submit claim forms is preliminarily set for March 12, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Kaiser settlement at a hearing set for April 30, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to eligible consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Kaiser Foundation Health Plan class action lawsuit alleged that three Kaiser Permanente entities embedded tracking and analytical tools within their websites and mobile apps that, unbeknownst to users, allowed third-party technologies like Google, Microsoft, and Twitter to collect sensitive information on former and current Kaiser patients. Per court documents, patient information allegedly involved in the data-sharing included identifying information, patient status, medical histories and communications with healthcare professionals. "Kaiser Permanente had exclusive and superior knowledge that the Third Party Wiretappers' code incorporated on its Site would disclose Kaiser Plan Members' protected and private information and confidential communications, yet failed to disclose to Kaiser Plan Members and Site users, including Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, that by interacting with the Kaiser Permanente Site and/or Portal that Plaintiffs and Class Members' patient status, personal information, sensitive health information, and confidential communications would be disclosed to third parties," the lawsuit summarizes. In August 2025, over two years after the filing of the initial complaint, the parties stipulated to dismiss two of the Kaiser entities -- Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington -- and instead focus claims on Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. [GN] KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mott's Apple Juice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Mott's Apple Juice distributor Keurig Dr Pepper has systematically mislabeled the purportedly "100% Juice" product, given that it contains the synthetic ingredient ascorbic acid, a food additive typically used for flavoring and preservation. The 23-page Mott's Apple Juice lawsuit accuses Keurig Dr Pepper of marketing the products at issue in a "systematically misleading manner" by misrepresenting that the fruit juices are 100-percent juice. Per the case, Keurig Dr Pepper, by law, must disclose the presence of additional ingredients, such as ascorbic acid, which is typically derived synthetically for commercial purposes. The complaint alleges the defendant is attempting to "distinguish itself from other fruit juices" by claiming that Mott's is made entirely with juice. "As a result, Defendant has enjoyed a virtual monopoly and commanded a substantial premium over other '100% juice' beverages with added ingredients," the filing claims. The lawsuit shares that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines address the requirement to declare on a product label the presence of any non-juice ingredients in a beverage represented as 100-percent juice: "If the beverage contains 100 percent juice and also contains non-juice ingredients…[and] the 100 percent juice declaration appears on a panel of the label that does not also bear the ingredient statement, it must be accompanied by the phrase "with added ---," the blank filled in with a term such as "ingredient(s)," or "sweetener," as appropriate." The class action lawsuit contends that commercial fruit juices are "merely shadows to regular sodas: containing the same high sugar content and a plethora of synthetic ingredients." The case says Keurig Dr Pepper sells products that "fall squarely within this gamut of deceptive conduct." Per the case, ascorbic acid is a source of vitamin C but also has a preservative effect on the juice component of Mott's Apple Juice. The plaintiff, a New York resident, purchased Motts Apple Juice from Amazon on or about July 11, 2025. Upon receipt of the product, the complaint explains, the consumer noticed that ascorbic acid was among the ingredients listed on the label. The complaint asserts that the plaintiff purchased the fruit juice in reasonable reliance on the claim that it contained "100% juice" and chose the product over comparable brands that did not make the same claim. The class action lawsuit emphasizes that global juice consumption is increasing due to perceived health benefits and "an increasing aversion toward the synthetic ingredients found in carbonated sodas." The suit further cites a consumer survey indicating that approximately half of Americans seek natural ingredients and avoid processed or synthetic products. As a result, the lawsuit argues, Keurig Dr Pepper is capitalizing on a booming market without being transparent with customers that its fruit juices contain a synthetic ingredient. The Mott's Apple Juice class action lawsuit seeks to cover any person residing in the United States who, during the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Keurig Dr Pepper's products primarily for personal, family or household use. [GN] KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over Diapers' Hypoallergenic Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Alyssa Burns filed a class action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corp. Why: Burns claims Kimberly-Clark misrepresented its Huggies Little Movers diapers as being hypoallergenic. Where: The Huggies class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Kimberly-Clark of misrepresenting its Huggies Little Movers disposable diapers as being hypoallergenic. Plaintiff Alyssa Burns filed the class action complaint against Kimberly-Clark Corp. on Nov. 25 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Kimberly-Clark marketed and sold its Huggies Little Movers disposable diapers as hypoallergenic, a term that suggests the product contains fewer irritants and chemicals that could cause skin reactions. However, Burns claims the company secretly changed the composition of the diapers, leading to severe skin reactions in infants, including rashes and chemical burns. "Within the past year, unbeknownst to consumers, Defendant materially altered the composition or construction of the Product,'" the class action lawsuit says. "Yet, Defendant continues to market the product as 'hypoallergenic' and maintains packaging that suggested continuity with prior versions of the diapers." Huggies diapers changed without notice, lawsuit alleges Burns claims that within the past year, Kimberly-Clark changed the composition of the Huggies Little Movers diapers without informing consumers. As a result, many parents reported that the diapers no longer performed as hypoallergenic, leading to severe skin reactions in their infants, the Huggies class action lawsuit alleges. "Parents reported unusually strong, sudden and severe skin reactions, including rashes and chemical burns, which are inconsistent with what any reasonable consumer would expect from any diaper, let alone a product marketed as hypoallergenic," the lawsuit says. Burns claims she purchased the Huggies Little Movers diapers on multiple occasions, relying on the hypoallergenic label. However, her child developed a severe rash while using the newly formulated product, she alleges. Burns seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the Huggies Little Movers diapers during the class period. She is suing for violations of New York consumer laws and seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In December 2024, Kimberly-Clark was sued by two consumers who claimed the company falsely advertised its Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free baby wipes as safe for infants, babies and toddlers. What do you think of the allegations made in this Huggies class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Philip J. Furia of Furia Law LLC. The Huggies class action lawsuit is Burns v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-01662, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. [GN] KLARNA GROUP: M&A Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Klarna Group plc (NYSE: KLAR) resulting from allegations that Klarna may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Klarna securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=48971 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On November 18, 2025, Yahoo! Finance posted an article entitled "Klarna Revenue Surges Yet Longer Loans Trigger Provisions" on its website. The article, originally published on Bloomberg, stated that Klarna "reported record revenue that beat estimates for its third quarter, while setting aside more provisions for credit losses, in its first set of earnings since going public." The article stated that Klarna "posted a net loss of $95 million, as the firm set aside more money for potentially souring loans. The company said provisions represented 0.72% of gross merchandise volume, up from 0.44% a year ago. Provisions for loan losses came in at $235 million, above analyst estimates of $215.8 million." On this news, Klarna stock fell 9.3% on November 18, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] LAWGICAL INSIGHT: Mohamad Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANSARI MOHAMAD, v. LAWGICAL INSIGHT, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-02354-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Lead Plaintiffs request that the Court: (a) certify this Action as a class action; (b) certify Lead Plaintiff ANSARI MOHAMAD, as Class Representatives; and (c) appoint Jason Brian Phillips as Class Counsel. The action arises under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), and federal tax privacy laws. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully intercepted, accessed, and disclosed the Plaintiff's—and other similarly situated individuals' -- confidential federal tax return information and private electronic communications by exploiting a state court order issued in the state court action. The Plaintiff request the Court to certify the case to proceed on behalf of the following class: "All individuals whose federal tax return information or electronic communications were accessed, intercepted, or disclosed without consent by the Defendants through the use of administrative credentials, forensic tools, or court orders in connection with In Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2021- CA-011761, Central Florida Tax and Accounting Services v. Akbar A. Ali, et al., and who were not parties to that litigation." The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the Stored Communications Act and statutory damages under the Electronic Communications Privacy ("ECPA") and the SCA. Lawgical is a consulting and legal services firm specializing in digital forensics, eDiscovery, and cyber-crime response. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aGXTBH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Brian Phillips, Esq. J. BRIAN PHILLIPS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 37 North Orange Avenue, Ste. 222 Telephone: (407) 493-7183 E-mail: jason@jbrianphillipsesq.com celina.reis@jbrianphillipsesq.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Agrees to Settle FCRA Class Action for $13.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL agreed to a $13.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it incorrectly reported some consumers as deceased. The LexisNexis settlement benefits two classes: Contact Members and Product Members. Contact Members are individuals who reached out to LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL because they discovered a "deceased" label connected to one of their accounts or products at any time since Aug. 11, 2017. LexisNexis must also have a record showing that the inquiry was specifically about being marked as "deceased," "dead," or something similar. Product Members are individuals who underwent an identity verification or fraud-prevention check since Aug. 11, 2017, where LexisNexis' system incorrectly flagged them as "deceased." This could happen when the national credit reporting agencies sent LexisNexis information that mistakenly showed the person as dead, even though they are alive. According to allegations made in the class action lawsuit resolved by this settlement, LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by reporting some consumers as deceased. The plaintiff in the case says she was wrongfully reported as deceased by LexisNexis, which allegedly caused her to be denied credit and other opportunities. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL is a consumer reporting agency that provides reports for use in credit, employment, insurance, tenant screening, and other decision-making processes. LexisNexis hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $13.5 million to resolve the FCRA violations class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the LexisNexis class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive a payment of at least $150. However, payments could be higher depending on the number of claims filed and other factors. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 4, 2026. The final approval hearing for the FCRA violations class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for March 16, 2026. Contact Members who do not exclude themselves from the settlement will automatically receive a payment. Product Members must submit a valid claim form to receive a settlement payment. Product Members must submit a valid claim form by May 15, 2026. Who's Eligible Contact Members: individuals who contacted LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL to inquire about a deceased notation on a product since Aug. 11, 2017, and for whom LexisNexis has a record of the inquiry that identifies it as related to or comparable to "deceased," "death" or "dead." Product Members: individuals for whom an identity verification and/or fraud prevention transaction was run since Aug. 11, 2017, for which LexisNexis has a record that the transaction returned a deceased notation, whose system reflected a deceased notation associated with their identifying information that was received from the national credit reporting agencies, and who are not deceased. Potential Award $150 to $1,000+ Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/15/2026 Case Name Scroggins v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00545-MHL-SLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Final Hearing 03/16/2026 Settlement Website DeceasedReportSuit.com Claims Administrator Scroggins v. LNRS FL c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 16 West Point, PA 19486 questions@deceasedreportsuit.com (833) 319-2038 Class Counsel Leonard Anthony Bennett CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC Defense Counsel Ronald I. Raether Jr. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP [GN] LIFEMD INC: Installs Data Trackers in Web Browsers, Kroskey Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN KROSKEY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LIFEMD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10103 (N.D. Cal., November 21, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and all California residents who have accessed and used www.lifemd.com, a website that Defendant owns and operates. According to the complaint, the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. By installing and activating the trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order, Defendant violated CIPA, which prohibits the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under these circumstances, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the website including on August 30, 2025, which occurred during the class period prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter. LIFEMD, INC. is a publicly traded telehealth company headquartered in New York, New York, with operations spanning multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Judge OKs $11MM Securities Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Patriquin, writing for The Logic, reports that the payment, on which a Quebec Superior Court judge signed off in November, stems from a class action lawsuit filed in October 2021 alleging the Montreal-based payments company overstated its customer accounts, transaction volume and potential market size in public filings and statements. (The Logic) Talking point: The class action lawsuit came as a result of a report by New York City-based short seller Spruce Point, which alleged the company has "not been transparent about competitive pressures and material margin decline." The company's share price plummeted in the wake of the report and has yet to recover. As part of the settlement, Lightspeed admits no liability, and it denies claims of wrongdoing. [GN] MACY'S INC: Paya Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOLNAZ PAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MACY'S INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10065-JLS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to file a motion for class certification and to modify the court's scheduling order as follows: 1. Extend the time within which the Plaintiff has to file a motion for class certification by 90 days from Jan. 9, 2026 to up to and including April 9, 2026; 2. Extend the deadline for the Defendant to file any opposition to any class certification by 90 days from Feb. 6, 2026 to May 7, 2026; 3. Extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file any reply in support of any motion for class certification to May 28, 2026. The relief sought by this Ex Parte Application is necessary for the fair and efficient litigation of this case, and to allow the disposition of matters which may not require consideration by the trier of fact. Macy's is an American holding company of department stores. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bHeHcE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Leslie L. Pescia, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com The Defendant is represented by: Meegan Brooks, Esq. Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. Christopher Stretch, Esq. BENESCH LAW 127 Public Square #4900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 363-4500 E-mail: MBrooks@beneschlaw.com SSheridan@beneschlaw.com CStretch@beneschlaw.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Jinks Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE JINKS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01277-ALM (E.D. Tex., November 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which was entrusted to Defendant by financial institutions on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect the private information in its possession from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Marquis Software Solutions is a marketing and compliance software and services provider for banks and credit unions.[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 - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Memorial Hospital and Manor, a small rural hospital in Bainbridge, Georgia, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that was filed in response to a November 2024 ransomware attack and data breach. The ransomware attack was detected on November 2, 2024, when access was prevented to its EMR system, email, and website. The hospital alerted patients to the attack via its Facebook account on November 3, 2024, and issued notification letters to the affected individuals on February 7, 2025. The breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights as involving the protected health information of 120,085 individuals. Names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical treatment information, and medical histories were compromised in the attack. The first of several class action lawsuits was filed on February 10, 2025, by plaintiff Morgan Wade in the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Albany Division, and a further 9 class action lawsuits were filed by affected patients. The lawsuits were consolidated into a single complaint -- Smith et al. v. The Hospital Authority of the City of Bainbridge and Decatur County d/b/a Memorial Hospital and Manor -- in the State Court of Decatur County, Georgia, as the lawsuits had similar claims with overlapping classes. The consolidated lawsuit asserted several claims, including negligence for failing to implement reasonable and appropriate safeguards to ensure the confidentiality of patient data stored on its network. Memorial Hospital and Manor denies any wrongdoing; however, all parties agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the costs and risks of a trial and related appeals. According to the settlement agreement, the class consists of approximately 105,000 current and former patients who were notified about the data breach. Under the terms of the settlement, class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000, and may claim up to $100 as reimbursement for lost time (max 4 hours at $25 per hour). As an alternative to submitting a claim for reimbursement of losses and lost time, class members may choose to receive a cash payment of $40. Class members are also entitled to enroll in the CyEx Medical Shield Pro medical data monitoring service for 12 months. The service includes a $1,000,000 medical identity theft insurance policy. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for January 20, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is January 5, 2026, and individuals wishing to object to or exclude themselves from the settlement must do so by December 22, 2025. [GN] MERCURY SYSTEMS: NCFCRDFPP Seeks Initial OK of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-13065-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement; (ii) preliminarily certifying the Class for settlement purposes; (iii) approving the proposed form and manner of providing notice of the proposed Settlement to the Class; and (iv) setting a hearing date for the Court to consider final approval of the Settlement, approval of the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and the Plaintiffs' applications for awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u 4(a)(4), as well as a schedule for deadlines relevant thereto.1 Attached is a [Proposed] Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. Mercury is a technology company serving the aerospace and defense industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mpcj5N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Michael G. Capeci, Esq. Magdalene Economou, Esq. Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Esq. Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Laura M. Andracchio, Esq. Ashley M. Price, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com meconomou@rgrdlaw.com johlmann@rgrdlaw.com spenceb@rgrdlaw.com landracchio@rgrdlaw.com aprice@rgrdlaw.com - and - Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Cecilia E. Stein, Esq. Timothy Clark B. Dauz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: cmoyna@gelaw.com kfisch@gelaw.com cstein@gelaw.com tdauz@gelaw.com - and - Theodore M. Hess-mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Telephone: (781) 431-2231 Facsimile: (781) 431-8726 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - Ezekiel D. Carder, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD, P.C. 1375 55th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-mail: ecarder@unioncounsel.net - and - Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq. Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com jfruchter@aftlaw.com METHODIST UNIVERSITY: Taylor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Renae Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Methodist University Emergency Physicians, et al., Case No. CT-36-00025, was removed from the Tennessee Circuit Court of Shelby County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on October 30, 2025. The suit is brought by the Plaintiff over personal injury claims. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman. Methodist University Emergency Physicians provides emergency medicine and neurocritical care to patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1 100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (954) 647-1866 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher A. Wiech, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 459-0050 E-mail: cwiech@bakerlaw.com - and - Mary Wu Tullis, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ 165 Madison Ave., Ste 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 577-8180 Facsimile: (901) 577-0746 E-mail: mtullis@bakerdonelson.com METRO-ATLANTA AMBULANCE: Phelps Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Seth Phelps, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. METRO-ATLANTA AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06691-TWT (N.D. Ga., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay based on all remuneration—for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials it excludes from these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as paramedic from January 2023 to February 2024. Metro is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Marietta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Phone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MISSOURI: Darrington Sues Over Failure to Provide Timely Evaluation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Darrington as next friend for M.R.; Eric Massey, as next friend for K.M.; ANITA TABB as next friend for M.T.; Veda Johnson as next friend for O.J.; Carrie Miner as next friend for C.T.; and Delicia Walker as next friend for D.W. on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ("DMH"); VALERIE HUHN, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Mental Health; DR. MINA CHAREPOO, in their official capacity as member of the Missouri Mental Health Commission; DR. KISHORE KHOT, in their official capacity as member of the Missouri Mental Health Commission; BRIAN D. NEUNER, in their official capacity as member of the Missouri Mental Health Commission; LYNNE UNNERSTALL, in their official capacity as member of the Missouri Mental Health Commission; JHAN R. HURN, in their official capacity as member of the Missouri Mental Health Commission; DENNIS H. TESREAU, in their official capacity as member of the Missouri Mental Health Commission; TERESA E. COYAN, in their official capacity as member of the Missouri Mental Health Commission, Case No. 2:25-cv-04268-BP (W.D. Mo., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act due to the Defendants' systemic failure to provide timely evaluations and restoration services to pretrial detainees who are suspected of, or adjudicated to be, incompetent to stand trial. The State of Missouri is knowingly abrogating its legal duties to people detained pre-trial and living with serious mental illness. Missourians with mental health disabilities and other cognitive disabilities so severe that they are deemed incompetent to stand trial are languishing in jails for months, and, in some cases, even years suffering detrimental and at times irreversible negative effects--waiting for the Missouri Department of Mental Health ("DMH") to provide court-ordered treatment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are detainees and their next friends. DMH is the state agency responsible for delivering services to people assessed to be not competent to stand trial due to mental health or cognitive disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy E. Malinowski, Esq. MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 906 Olive Street, Suite 420 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 254-8540 Fax: (314) 254-8547 Email: amy.malinowski@macarthurjustice.org - and - Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq. Jason Orr, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 406 West 34th Street, Suite 420 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 470-9938 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 Email: gwilcox@alcu-mo.org jorr@aclu-mo.org - and - Kristin M. Mulvey, Esq. Jonathan D. Schmid, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 906 Olive Street, Suite 1130 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 652-3114 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 Email: kmulvey@aclu-mo.org jschmid@aclu-mo.org - and - Maureen Hanlon, Esq. Ebony McKeever, Esq. ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Phone: 855-724-2489 ext. 1008 Fax: 314-925-1307 Email: mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org emckeever@archcitydefenders.org - and - Brent Dulle, Esq. Kevin Cowling, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 480-1500 Fax: (314) 480-1505 Email: Brent.Duelle@huschblackwell.com Kevin.Cowling@huschblackwell.com MUNIRA LLC: Welch Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- Yolanda Welch, Individually, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. MUNIRA, LLC, D/B/A EXXON/MOBIL and AKBER ADMIRAL MERCHANT, Individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-00357 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought against Defendants as an FLSA Multi-Plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods for Defendants but were not paid the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay for such time during all times material. The Defendants either failed to record all of the compensable overtime hours of Plaintiff and those similarly situated into its time keeping system or deducted ("edited-out") some of their compensable overtime hours from its time keeping system. The Defendants had a common policy and practice of working Plaintiff and those similarly situated "off the clock" within weekly pay periods without compensating them for such work at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay during all times material to this lawsuit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid employee within this district during the applicable statutory limitations' period of this action. The Defendants have owned and operated an EXXON/Mobil gas station and convenience store in Charleston, Tennessee at all times relevant to this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com NAVIENT CORP: Seeks More Time to File Opposition Briefs ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a 60-day extension of the deadline to file opposition briefs to the Plaintiffs' class certification and Daubert motions, or until March 10, 2026. During the Dec. 2, 2025, conference call with the Court, counsel for Plaintiffs, Anthony Fiorentino, stated that he will not concur to Defendants’ request for an extension. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, a supporting brief is not required for this motion for an extension of time because the reasons for this request are fully stated herein. The Plaintiffs have never disclosed Ms. Aton as an expert much less by the October 1, 2025, deadline to designate experts as required by the August 7, 2025, Order. Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=48NftY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Fiorentino, Esq. FIORENTINO LAW OFFICES 6119 North Kenmore Ave., Ste. 410 Chicago, IL 60660 Telephone: (312) 305-2850 E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com - and - Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 E-mail: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel T. Brier, Esq. Donna A. Walsh, Esq. Richard L. Armezzani, Esq. MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP 425 Biden Street, Suite 200 Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 342-6100 E-mail: dbrier@mbklaw.com dwalsh@mbklaw.com rarmezzani@mbklaw.com - and - Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq. Jonathan M. Marmo, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-7576 E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com jonathan.marmo@hklaw.com NEW ENGLAND: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Faldonie, and all others similarly situated v. NEW ENGLAND AUTHENTIC EATS, LLC, d/b/a D'ANGELO GRILLED SANDWICHES, Case No. 1:25-cv-13508-NMG (D. Mass., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, www.dangelos.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). This case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant through the Website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the restaurant, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website Because Defendant's website is not and has never been fully accessible, and because upon information and belief Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its website to become and remain accessible, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs her vision and limits her ability to see. The Defendant's website offers the ability to explore a detailed menu of sandwiches and wraps, hot and cold subs, salads, and soups, as well as access to restaurant services such as online ordering, delivery, catering, and rewards programs..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Cert Response Filing Due Dec. 15 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark v. NH Attorney General, Case No. 1:25-cv-00379 (D.N.H., Filed Sept. 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro entered an order granting motion to extend time to object/respond motion to certify class to Dec. 15, 2025. The nature of suit states Constitutionality of State Statutes.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to File Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q. et al. v. New York City Department of Education, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order the following schedule, which includes the Defendants' separate motion for summary judgment, and reduces some of the current intervals between some of the other matters: . Event Deadline The Defendants' motion for summary judgment Jan. 8, 2026 extended deadline (Defendants' proposal): Expert depositions to be completed: Apr. 13, 2026 The Plaintiffs' class certification motion: May 8, 2026 The Defendants' opposition to class June 18, 2026 Certification: The Plaintiffs' reply ISO class certification: July 9, 2026 The Defendants submit that that they will be severely prejudiced if they are not provided sufficient time to prepare their expert report. The issues in this case are important to both Plaintiffs and Defendants, potentially costing DOE many millions of dollars and requiring the creation of entirely new system for determining Plaintiffs’ entitlement to compensatory education services. Given the significance of these issues, it would be inequitable and contrary to the interests of justice for the Court to decide such matters without the benefit of a countervailing expert report. In contrast, the Plaintiffs will not suffer a comparable prejudice: many DOE students returned to school as soon as September 2020 and all have been attending classes in-person since September 2021 and have been receiving special education services since then (though some, included some of the named Student-Plaintiffs, have graduated or left New York City. New York City Department of Education manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xJguWE at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Dantowitz, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-0876 E-mail: jdantowi@law.nyc.gov NOBULL LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NOBULL, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-04433 (D. Minn., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.nobullproject.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers shoes, apparel, and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, athletic shoes, shirts, pants, joggers, shorts, hoodies, hats, socks, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com NORWAY SAVINGS BANK: Simmering Files Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norway Savings Bank, et al. The case is styled as Sally Simmering, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Norway Savings Bank, Marquis Software Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-01281-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Nov. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade Commission Act. Norway Savings Bank -- https://www.norwaysavings.bank/ -- is a leading mutual banking and financial services company headquartered in Norway, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Wright Armstrong, II, Esq. THE ARMSTRONG FIRM, PLLC 109 Yoalana St., Suite 210 Boerne, TX 78006 Phone: (210) 277-0542 Fax: (210) 277-0548 Email: rwaii@tafpllc.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Woodson Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Amber R. Woodson, Anthony Bryant, Austin Pool, Marc Culpepper, and Marcus Issac, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORACLE CORPORATION, COX ENTERPRISES, INC., EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., and WP COMPANY d/b/a THE WASHINGTON POST, Case No. 1:25-cv-01902 (W.DD. Tex., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought arising from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. Oracle stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about the current and former employees and/or customers of Defendants Cox, Emerson, and Washington Post. But such PII was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of their systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to their current and former employees' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims. Oracle is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-744-3000 Fax: 214-744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com ORANGE COUNTY: Calkin Files Suit Over Discrimination, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDIANN CALKIN, Plaintiff v. ORANGE COUNTY CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION, INC., WILLIAM SCHWARTZ AND MELANIE MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09699 (S.D.N.Y., November 21, 2025) is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendants for unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff, a 58-year-old woman with a medical condition requiring a permanent ostomy and use of a colostomy bag, was subjected to discrimination, humiliation, and retaliation based on her disability, age, and gender. Despite her strong performance and years of service, her employer denied her reasonable accommodations, allowed supervisors to ridicule her medical needs, and retaliated after she took protected leave and complained. The Plaintiff made multiple complaints to Human Resources and the Compliance Office regarding harassment by Schwartz and Moore. The Defendant ignored her reports, refused to accommodate her, and instead created a hostile and degrading environment that forced her to take disability leave, says the suit. Plaintiff Calkin began her employment with Defendant in September 2016 as a Direct Support Professional and was later promoted to Coordinator for Respite Programs. Orange County Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc., doing business as Inspire, is a New York not-for-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Clark, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2251 Facsimile: (718) 679-9660 E-mail: Sclark@saccofillas.com PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Groundwater Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------- FOX 12 reports that a group of people living in Morrow County filed a class-action lawsuit on Friday, December 5, against PGE and the Tillamook County Creamery Association, accusing the companies of contaminating their groundwater. The lawsuit claims the two groups are responsible for generating hundreds of millions of gallons of high-nitrate wastewater every year in Morrow and Umatilla counties. According to the complaint, nitrates can prevent red blood cells from carrying appropriate levels of oxygen throughout the body, and can be particularly dangerous for infants. The complaint claims the wastewater from PGE and Columbia River Processing, which is owned by the creamery association, far exceeds local and federal safety thresholds for nitrates. According to the lawsuit, from 2019 to 2022, PGE's wastewater had an average concentration of almost 40 milligrams per liter, and Tillamook's was 24. Oregon's safety threshold is seven. Kaleb Lay from Oregon Rural Action says he's worried about what this potential contamination means for community members. "You know, there are thousands of people in this basin where this boom is happening that cannot drink the water in their houses right now," Lay said. "They're they have to live out of a 5-gallon bottle because their water is not safe. And part of that is from this industrialization that has been prioritized here." PGE declined to comment on the pending legal case, and FOX 12 is still waiting for a response from the Tillamook County Creamery Association. [GN] PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Olazabal Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose R. Olazabal, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD – LOS ANGELES LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV30152 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11241. The Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Defendant for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code; Failure to Pay Reporting Time; Failure to Pay for On-call Time Under Labor Code; Failure to Provide One Day's Rest from Seven Under Labor Code; Meal Period Liability Labor Code; Rest Period Liability Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Maintain Records Required under Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses Under Labor Code; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy Choe, Esq. Diana Estrada, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 555 S. Flower Street, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-5100 Facsimile: (213) 443-5101 Email: amy.choe@wilsonelser.com diana.estrada@wilsonelser.com PEPSICO INC: Velasquez Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalling -------------------------------------------------------- Kim Velasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEPSICO INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03795-CYC (D. Colo., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited robocalling. In violation of the TCPA, Defendant engages in unsolicited robocalling to promote its products and services. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages to put an end to Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet of Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing Defendant to transmit prerecorded sales or marketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including liquidated actual damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of Aurora, Colorado. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1300 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.732.2792 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com PERSONIC MANAGEMENT: Tillman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Tillman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERSONIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02124 (E.D. Va., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") of current and former patients that, upon information and belief, was compromised in a recent cyberattack (the "Data Breach"). On September 1, 2025, Defendant was alerted to unauthorized activity involving a third-party vendor Defendant uses to process patient information. In response, Defendant launched a review to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On October 13, 2025, Defendant's review determined that Private Information was subject to unauthorized access and acquisition, including, patients: names, addresses, dates of birth, full or partial Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of service, diagnostic treatment information, insurance information, Medical Record Numbers, medical history, medications, patient numbers, provider names, surgical information, and treatment location. On November 18, 2025, Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a physician-owned healthcare service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL: Thompson Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR THOMPSON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Arthur Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Philadelphia Federal Detention Center, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05841, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of prisoner's civil rights. On Nov. 12, 2025, Judge Karen S. Marston entered an Order dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The appellate case is entitled Arthur Thompson v. Philadelphia Federal Detention Center, et al., Case No. 25-3317, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 26, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ARTHUR THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, et al., are represented by: Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 861-8568 PRIDE TRANSPORTATION: Fernandez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pride Transportation Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Veronica Fernandez, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pride Transportation Services, Inc., First Student, Inc., John Doe Entities 1-10, Case No. 76122/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty., Nov. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Other (Violations of NYLL). Pride Transportation -- https://pridetransportation.com/ -- is a locally owned and operated transportation company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Ste. 1810 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (718) 669-0714 Email: mgangat107@gmail.com PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Ratcliff Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Lawrence Ratcliff, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PROFESSIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. CACE-25-017998 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unlawful debt collection. On August 5, 2025, Defendant began attempting to collect an alleged debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer Debt and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff sent Defendant a cease and desist letter, requesting Defendant to cease all communications with Plaintiff. Upon receipt Of the Cease and Desist Letter, Defendant knew that it could not communicate with Plaintiff directly in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Defendant knew Plaintiff had revoked any consent Defendant had to communicate with Plaintiff and that Defendant was not to contact Plaintiff. As of September 23, 2025, Defendant knew it could not communicate With Plaintiff in connection with the Consumer Debt. Despite knowing this, Defendant communicated and/or contacted Plaintiff, by and through the Subject Communications, in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. In doing so, Defendant willfully communicated with Plaintiff in such a way that can be reasonably expected to harass or abuse Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida. The Defendant is a Georgia corporation, with its principal place of business located in Fon Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Pryce Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Cecelia Pryce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1467, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit against the Defendant for breach of contract and violations of New York's Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Reparations Act, New York Insurance Law, and New York General Business Law. On July 31, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On same day, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to strike/exclude the expert testimony of Stephen M. Dripps and Chad L. Staller. On Feb. 11, 2025, Judge Frederic Block entered an Order granting Pryce's motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the breach-of-contract class claim. Pryce's individual claim is consolidated with this class claim. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as academic. The Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony is also denied. The remaining issues of breach-of-contract damages to the Class and claims administration are referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo. The appellate case is entitled Pryce v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 25-2994, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 26, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee CECELIA PRYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeremy Edward Abay, Esq. POND LEHOCKY GIORDANO, INC. 30 Washington Avenue, Suite D-3 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 - and - John K. Weston, Esq. SACKS WESTON LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Kevin Peter Fitzpatrick, Esq. MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, PC 73 Heitz Place Hicksville, NY 11801 Defendant-Appellant PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP The Grace Building, 40th Floor 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 PROTECTIVE ASSET: Court Narrows Claims in Vaccaro Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dave Vaccaro v. Protective Asset Protection, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08918-SVW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wilson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiff's first call and grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiff's second call with leave to amend. The Defendant's motion to strike is denied. The motion hearing set for Dece. 1, 2025 is vacated. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due no later than Feb. 28, 2026. The pretrial conference is set for March 2, 2026, and trial is set for March 10, 2026. The Plaintiff's complaint plausibly alleges a violation of section 632.7 with respect to his first call to the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges he placed a call to Defendant on April 3, 2025, never provided express consent to being recorded, and was never warned the call would be recorded until he asked the representative at the end of the conversation. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff impliedly consented to being recorded during the second call he placed to the Defendant. Despite learning that the Defendant recorded his first call, the Plaintiff just one month later placed another call to the Defendant and waited until the end of that conversation to ask whether the Defendant was recording the call. Protective Asset provides F&I solutions for the automotive industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qUlQUe at no extra charge.[CC] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Soliman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. The case is styled as Tiffany Soliman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 25CV156508 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. -- https://www.questdiagnostics.com/ -- provides professional analytic or diagnostic services for the medical profession.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 RESOLUTION PROCESSING: Conorozzo Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle Conorozzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESOLUTION PROCESSING LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62378-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited robocalling. In violation of the TCPA, Defendant engages in unsolicited robocalling to promote its products and services. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages to put an end to Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Defendant engages in intrusive telemarketing to increase its revenue and gain an edge on its competitors. The Defendant harassed Plaintiff and members of the Class with prerecorded robocalls, the purpose of which was to promote and advertise the commercial availability of Defendant's goods and services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and a called party under the TCPA. The Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.732.2792 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com ROCKET CLOSE: Mangle Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON MANGLE, AMY BRYAN, CRAIG BRYAN, AMANDA HUTCHINSON, and DANIEL HUTCHINSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ROCKET CLOSE, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-06025-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification as follows: (1) Certifying a class consisting of: "All persons who purchased, sold or refinanced residential real estate in the State of Pennsylvania within, at a minimum, six years prior to and including the date of filing of the complaint and who were charged by Rocket Close and paid notary fees to Rocket Clos] in connection with such purchase, sale or refinance that were in excess of the fees fixed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." (2) Appointing Allison Mangle, Amy Bryan, Craig Bryan, Amanda Hutchinson, and Daniel Hutchinson as Class Representatives; and (3) Appointing Jonathan Andres and Aaron Rihn as Class Counsel. Rocket is an American provider of title insurance property valuation and settlement service. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b0rKxB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.co - and - Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. JONATHAN F. ANDRES P.C. 1127 Hoot Owl Rd. St. Louis, MO 63005 Telephone: (636) 633-1208 E-mail: andres@andreslawpc.com RUFF CONSTRUCTION: Brock Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruff Construction, LLC. The case is styled as Adam Brock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruff Construction, LLC doing business as: Ruff Roofing, Case No. 4:25-cv-05606 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ruff Construction -- https://www.ruffconstruct.com/ -- specializes in custom homes, renovations, and additions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com RUGSUSA, LLC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RUGSUSA, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Rocha Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUGSUSA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0017443 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Rugs USA -- https://www.rugsusa.com/ -- is a retailer of indoor and outdoor area rugs, plus furniture, lighting, and other home decors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com SABOR A COLOMBIA: Acosta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ramon Acosta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SABOR A COLOMBIA BAR & RESTAURANT, INC. and OSCAR LENIS, ADRIANA PATRICIA CACERES and ALBERTO ALVARADO CARCAMO, as individuals, Case No. 2:25-cv-06545 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiff worked approximately between 50 and 55 hours per week from January 2023 until October 2025, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of his hire or at any time during his employment in violation of the NYLL. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in violation of the NYLL. Moreover, Defendants were aware that they were not properly compensating Plaintiff and therefore willfully chose to continue to violate the NYLL by not paying Plaintiff proper overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a food preparer and cleaner, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. SABOR A COLOMBIA BAR & RESTAURANT, INC., is a New York domestic business corporation under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 SALESINTEL RESEARCH: Schafer Files Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Salesintel Research, Inc. The case is captioned as Brenna Schafer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salesintel Research, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01906-PTG-WBP (E.D. Va., October 30, 2025). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged fraud practices. The case is assigned to District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles. Salesintel Research provides sales and marketing contact data services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pierce Christopher Murphy, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC 400 E Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-2225 E-mail: pmurphy@silvermanthompson.com SEAWORLD SAN DIEGO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Ticket Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rhea Caoile of Fox 5 San Diego reports that the parent company of SeaWorld San Diego and Sesame Place in Chula Vista has been faced with a class action complaint, accusing the theme parks of misleading customers about ticket prices. Johnny Ngo, an Orange County resident, filed the complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County against United Parks & Resorts, Inc., also known as SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. The complaint alleges that consumers have to navigate through multiple screens when buying tickets online for all of the company's theme parks but do not learn the "true" cost of those tickets until they reach the final checkout screen. The multiple screens include requiring a customer to select the number of tickets at a certain price for a specific date and then being presented with additional experience they may choose to add to their cart. After clicking through multiple screens, they are asked to enter their payment information and then presented with a hidden "Service Fee" above the final "Pay" button, the complaint states. Then, customers are presented with a subtotal of the ticket costs with an undisclosed number of "taxes and fees." In the end, customers may end up paying more than they initially planned for, the complaint alleges. This was the case for Ngo, who said that on Aug. 26, 2023, he tried to purchase two single-day tickets to SeaWorld San Diego online. After navigating various screens and entering his payment information, he was charged with a service fee of $9.99. According to Ngo in the complaint, he was only made aware about the mandatory service fee after he "had invested significant time and effort purchasing tickets." "Each stage of Defendant's multi-step checkout process is designed to increase consumer commitment so that, by the time the hidden fees are revealed, consumers -- having already expended time and effort -- are more likely to complete the transaction," the complaint alleges. In a response to a request for comment by FOX 5/KUSI, SeaWorld San Diego said it does not comment on pending litigation. This is not the first time SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. has been faced with legal action regarding "bait-and-switch" tactics to lure in customers. A lawsuit filed against SeaWorld accused the theme park of lying about ticket costs, as reported by FOX 5/KUSI's sister station WFLA in Orlando, Florida in October. Seven park brands are operated by SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, including SeaWorld San Diego and Sesame Place in Chula Vista. [GN] SEMTECH CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Semtech Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 26, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On February 20, 2025, February 25, 2025 and March 7, 2025, three Company stockholders filed separate, but substantively identical, putative class action complaints against the Company and certain of its current officers, Hong Q. Hou and Mark Lin, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between August 27, 2024 and February 7, 2025. On June 9, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the three actions (the "Securities Action"), appointing Luis Collazos as Lead Plaintiff, and Block & Leviton, LLP as Lead Counsel. On July 14, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated putative class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") against the Company, Hou and Lin, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between October 10, 2024 and February 7, 2025. The Consolidated Complaint asserts Exchange Act violations related to the Company's disclosure surrounding its CopperEdgeTM products. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. The Company, Hou and Lin filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on August 11, 2025, which the Court granted in part, and denied in part on October 8, 2025. At this stage, the Company is unable to form a conclusion as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of any possible loss resulting from the alleged claims. Semtech Corporation is a provider of high-performance semiconductor, Internet of Things systems and cloud connectivity service solutions. SHIRLEY WEBER: Print Disabled Person Class Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al., v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kim entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certifies the class consisting of: "all persons with print disabilities, which prevent them from reading, marking, holding, handling, and/or manipulating a paper ballot, who are registered to vote in California." The Court further appoints Named Plaintiffs California Council of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Christopher Gray, Russell Dawson Rawlings, and Vita Zavoli as class representatives. Lastly, the Court appoints Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Advocates, and Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs' assertion that their challenge to the Defendant's "discriminatory failure to provide accessible electronic return options for voters with print disabilities in the statewide Vote by-Mail Program" is indeed exactly the type of claim "generally applicable to the class as a whole." Furthermore, all members of the proposed class have print disabilities, and would thus benefit from the alleged benefit of Plaintiffs' proposed injunction: meaningful and equal access to the Vote-by-Mail Program. The Court concludes that injunctive relief would be appropriate "respecting the class as a whole," and that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on March 8, 2024. The Court previously denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. On Aug. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California Government Code section 11135(a). Shirley Weber is an American academic and politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CiwOUY at no extra charge.[CC] SIBERIA HOUSTON: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- James Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIBERIA HOUSTON LNA, LLC d/b/a EXPRO AUTO COLLISION & REPAIR CENTER, Case No. 4:25-cv-05630 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") for three willful violations: misclassification as an independent contractor, unpaid overtime wages, and a failure to keep accurate time and records for Plaintiff and the other drivers. The Plaintiff consistently worked 77–80 hours each week that he worked for Defendant and was never paid 1.5 times his regular rate for the hours he worked over 40 each work week. However, Plaintiff's timecards only ever reflected 60–65 hours worked each week. The Defendant knew or should have known that misrepresenting Plaintiff's time records, employment classification to the IRS, and failing to pay overtime violated the law. The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA because the company, and specifically its owner knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices were unlawful. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this action, under the FLSA to recover back wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked exclusively for Defendant for 13 years as a tow truck driver in the Houston metropolitan area. Siberia Houston LNA, LLC doing business as Expro Auto Collision & Repair Center is a domestic limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bridget Davidson, Esq. SPACE CITY LAW FIRM 440 Louisiana St., Ste 1110 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-568-5305 Email: hello@spacecitylaw.com bdavidson@spacecitylaw.com SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Reimann Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS REIMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14246 (N.D. Ill., November 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiff's backpay, statutory punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act. As part of his job duties for Defendant, the Plaintiff has installed, assembled, disassembled, programmed, serviced, and performed maintenance on fire alarm, sprinkler system and other life security systems for Defendant in the State of Illinois. Despite this work falling squarely within classifications covered by the prevailing wage schedules, Plaintiff was never paid the prevailing wage rate or fringe benefits required by the IPWA, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a current employee of the Defendant and has worked for Defendant since February 2001 as a senior field technician. Siemens Industry, Inc. is a German multinational technology conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com SILHOUETTE LLC: Mitsevich Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Mitsevich, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees v. SILHOUETTE, LLC, a California limited liability company; HENRI LEVY, an individual; JOSEPH LEVY, an individual; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV34497 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 25, 2025), is brought pursuant to California Labor Code the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants' unlawful misclassification. As a further result of the misclassification alleged herein, Defendant Silhouette violated California Labor Code 510, because it failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees overtime compensation, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week. Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees' actual work hours entitled them to overtime compensation (daily and/or weekly), However, they were not paid accurately and fully for their overtime hours. Moreover, any incentive and/or bonus payments were not included in calculating Plaintiff and others' regular rate of pay for purposes of determining the correct overtime rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Silhouette as a Salesman beginning in February 2024 and continuing through the time of his separation in April 2025. SILHOUETTE, LLC is a California limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur Sezgin, Esq. Alisa Khousadian, Esq. SEZGIN KHOUSADIAN LLP 500 North Central Avenue, Suite 830 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 696-1330 Fax: (818) 696-1331 Email: arthur@sklaw.legal alisa@sklaw.legal SILVERGATE BANK: Agrees to Settle FTX Securities Suit for $10MM --------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that Individuals or entities who deposited fiat currency into an FTX- or Alameda-related account at Silvergate Bank between April 1, 2019, and Nov. 11, 2022, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Silvergate Bank, Silvergate Capital Corp. and former CEO Alan J. Lane agreed to pay $10 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they aided and abetted the misdirection and commingling of customer funds by FTX, Alameda and Sam Bankman-Fried. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes: -- Individuals or entities who deposited or sent fiat currency into an FTX- or Alameda-related account at Silvergate Bank between April 1, 2019, and Nov. 11, 2022 -- Individuals or entities who still held an FTX.com or FTX.us account on Nov. 11, 2022, and that account contained cryptocurrency, fiat currency or both -- Individuals or entities who did not have an employment or ownership relationship with Silvergate, FTX, Alameda or related entities Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- Authorized representatives may submit claims on behalf of others (subject to claim form requirements). -- Executors, administrators, guardians, legal representatives or trustees may submit claims and must provide proof of authority. How much is the Silvergate Bank payout? The total settlement fund is $10,000,000. The amount each class member receives depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims filed -- Each claimant's FTX bankruptcy claim amount -- The total value of all approved claims The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The administrator will calculate each claimant's payment by dividing their claim amount by the total approved claim amounts and multiplying it by the net settlement fund. -- It will raise payments below $5 to the $5 minimum. -- It will reduce larger payments proportionally. -- It may redistribute or direct unclaimed funds to a residual fund if redistribution is not practical. 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 Jan. 30, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Silvergate Bank FTX Settlement, c/o Claims, P.O. Box 25191, Santa Ana, CA 92799 Claimants may also email a completed claim form and supporting documents to info@FTXBankSettlement.com. Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide documentation proving both eligibility and claim value. This includes: -- Proof that they deposited fiat currency into an FTX- or Alameda-related account at Silvergate Bank between April 1, 2019, and Nov. 11, 2022 -- Proof of their FTX bankruptcy claim amount, such as a screenshot or written communication showing the approved claim value Claimants must provide documentation to support these items. Acceptable proof includes: -- Bank statements or transaction confirmations showing fiat deposits to an FTX- or Alameda-related Silvergate account -- Screenshots or claim records from the FTX bankruptcy portal showing the claimant's approved bankruptcy claim amount -- Authorized statements or records from a financial institution containing the relevant transactional information -- Other documentation the settlement administrator deems adequate Claimants must also provide documentation that clearly shows the full FTX bankruptcy claim amount. Payout options -- Physical check (default) -- PayPal (online claims only) -- Venmo (online claims only) -- ACH (online claims only) -- Zelle (online claims only) $10 million settlement fund The $10,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Amount not specified -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $3,300,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $175,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $10,000 total -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Jan. 30, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Jan. 30, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Feb. 9, 2026 When is the Silvergate Bank FTX 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 Silvergate Bank, Silvergate Capital Corp., and former CEO Alan J. Lane aided and abetted the misdirection and commingling of FTX and Alameda customer deposits. The plaintiffs claimed this conduct allowed FTX and Alameda to misuse customer funds, which allegedly caused financial harm to account holders. Silvergate denies all allegations of wrongdoing and liability but agreed to settle to avoid the risks, costs and delays of further litigation. Award: Varies ($5 minimum) Deadline: January 30, 2026 [GN] SNOWFLAKE INC: James Files Suit for Copyright Infringement ---------------------------------------------------------- DARIUS H. JAMES, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00108-BMM (D. Mont., November 21, 2025) alleges that Defendant has infringed on Plaintiff's copyrighted works and it continues to do so by continuing to store, copy, use, and process the training datasets containing copies of Plaintiff's and the putative Class' infringed works. The Plaintiff and Class members are authors who own registered copyrights in certain books that were included in the training dataset that Snowflake pirated and copied from the Internet to train its Arctic Large language models. The Plaintiff and Class members never authorized Snowflake to download, copy, store, and use their copyrighted works as training materials. Snowflake copied, and thus infringed on, these copyrighted works multiple times to train its Arctic LLMs, says the suit. Snowflake Inc. is an American cloud-based data storage company that was headquartered in Bozeman, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK PLLC 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com SOUNDHOUND INC: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soundhound, Inc., et al. The case is styled as John Lyons, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Soundhound, Inc., Does 1-15, Case No. 25CV028262 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Complaint (Non-Tort/Non-Complex)." Soundhound, Inc. -- https://www.soundhound.com/ -- is a Santa Clara, California-based generative AI voice and music recognition company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2930 Phone: 646-712-4666 Email: evanshapiro@gmail.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Jan. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("Sprouts") (NASDAQ: SFM) on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Sprouts securities between June 4, 2025, and October 29, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lead plaintiff deadline is January 26, 2026. CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP: If you suffered losses from your Sprouts investment, you may copy and paste the link into your browser: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/sprouts-farmers-market-inc?utm_source=Globe&mktm=PR You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com. DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT: The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sprouts' optimistic reports of growth and stability in the face of macroeconomic instability fell short of reality; (2) Sprouts' consumer base was not as resilient to macroeconomic pressures as the company contended and ultimately reduced spending; (3) the perceived tailwinds from such pressures failed to manifest, and Sprouts' ability to lap its prior comparables was well overstated, ultimately resulting in Sprouts being unable to meet its lofty growth projections; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: Sprouts investors may, no later than January 26, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Sprouts investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE, GO TO: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/sprouts-farmers-market-inc?utm_source=Globe&mktm=PR ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 info@ktmc.com [GN] SPROUTS FARMERS: Singh Family Sues Over Securities Laws Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Singh Family Revocable Trust U/A DTD 02/18/2019, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC., JACK L. SINCLAIR, and CURTIS VALENTINE, Case No. 2:25-cv-04416-JJT (D. Ariz., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought as a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sprouts securities between June 4, 2025, and October 29, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including sellers of put options, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Sprouts' growth potential for the fiscal year 2025. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's customer base to remain resilient to macroeconomic pressures and that Sprouts would instead benefit from the perceived tailwinds from a more cautious consumer. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Sprouts' growth potential; notably, that a more cautious consumer could result in significant slowdown in sales growth and the purported tailwinds with be unable to dampen the slowdown or would otherwise fail to manifest entirely. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Sprouts' securities at artificially inflated prices. The truth emerged on October 29, 2025, when Sprouts announced disappointing top-line results for the third quarter of fiscal 2025 with comparable stores growth faltering below the Company's expectations. Sprouts further announced disappointing fourth quarter guidance and further slashed its full year estimates, despite raising them only one quarter prior. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on "challenging year-on-year comparisons as well as signs of a softening consumer." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Sprouts' revelation. The price of Sprouts' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $104.55 per share on October 29, 2025, Sprouts' stock price fell to $77.25 per share on October 30, 2025, a decline of about 26.11% in the span of just a single day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Sprouts common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Sprouts is a specialty grocery store chain that operates throughout the US, with more than 450 stores across 24 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Zwillinger, Esq. ZWILLINGER WULKAN, PLC 2020 North Central Avenue, Suite 675 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 962-5778 Facsimile: (602) 962-5778 Email: scott.zwillinger@zwfirm.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Salabaj Sues Over Securities Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Salabaj, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC., ERIC H. BAKER, CONNIE JAMES, MARK STREAMS, SAMEER BHARGAVA, JEREMY LEVINE, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, TRUIST SECURITIES, INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., WR SECURITIES, LLC, CITIZENS JMP SECURITIES, LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC., and PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09776 (S.D.N.Y, Nov. 24, 2025), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired StubHub common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's September 2025 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). On November 13, 2025, after the market closed, StubHub issued a press release announcing financial results for the third quarter 2025, which ended September 30, 2025. The press release revealed free cash flow of negative $4.6 million in the quarter, a 143% decrease from the Company's free cash flow in the year ago period, which was positive $10.6 million. On the same date, the Company filed its Form 10-Q for the same quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, with the SEC. The quarterly report revealed that this year-over-year decrease "primarily reflects changes in the timing of payments to vendors." On this news, StubHub's stock price fell $3.95 per share, or 20.9%, to close at $14.87 per share on November 14, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading as low as $10.31 per share, a nearly 56% decline from the $23.50 per share IPO price. The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: the Company was experiencing changes in the timing of payments to vendors; those changes had a significant adverse impact on free cash flow, including trailing 12 months ("TTM") free cash flow; as a result, the Company's free cash flow reports were materially misleading; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased StubHub common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO. StubHub operates a global ticketing marketplace for live events where fans can buy tickets from sellers of all types through the Company's StubHub and viagogo websites and mobile applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 914-5007 SUTTER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $21.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Sutter Health has agreed to a $21,500,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit over its alleged disclosure of sensitive patient information to Facebook, Google and other third parties without consent. The Sutter Health class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 15, 2025 and covers all individuals who were California residents at the time they logged into their Sutter Health MyHealthOnline patient portal account for personal healthcare purposes at any time from June 10, 2015 through March 20, 2020. The court-approved website for the Sutter Health settlement can be found at https://www.SutterAnalyticsSettlement.com/en. Sutter Health settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of up to $90 from the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, incentive awards and settlement administration costs. To submit a Sutter Health claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the document. All Sutter Health claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by April 28, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Sutter Health settlement at a hearing on February 27, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals process is resolved. The Sutter Health class action lawsuit claimed that the California healthcare provider implemented certain tracking technologies, such as Google Analytics, the Meta pixel and other advertising tools, to track and record private patient data and disclose it to third parties without authorization. [GN] SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Fischer Seeks to Certify Truck Driver Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FISCHER, BRIAN BLAIR and MARGARET BLAZIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02232-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order certifying the following Class and Subclasses under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Class: "All individuals employed by the Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC as a commercial truck driver, while being based out of a work location in California and/or being a resident of California, at any time from Dec. 13, 2020 until the date class notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) ("Class Period")." "High Theft Area" Subclass: "All members of the Class who have been logged as "Off duty" or "Sleeper berth" in a company-designated "High Theft Area," during a segment of time after logging in the electronic logging device (ELD) that they had picked up a load and before logging in the ELD that they had delivered the load, during the Class Period." "High Value Load" Subclass: "All members of the Class who have been logged as "Off duty" or "Sleeper berth" during a segment of time after logging in the ELD that they had picked up a load designated as "High Value" and before logging in the ELD that they had delivered the "High Value Load."" Detention Subclass: "All members of the Class who have been logged as "Off duty" or "Sleeper berth" while subject to the Defendants' detention pay policy." The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint Plaintiffs Thomas Fischer, Margaret Blazic and Brian Blair as Class representatives under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP to serve as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4). The Plaintiffs further request that the Court permit them to submit a proposed form of notice to the Class and a notice plan to the Court if certification is granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2). The action seeks unpaid minimum wage on behalf of commercial truck drivers for time spent subject to the control of their employer, Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, while carrying loads in areas Swift designates as "High Theft" and/or carrying loads Swift designates as "High Value." Swift is an American truckload motor shipping carrier. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mECOQq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Nathan B. Piller, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Frank J. White, Esq. Robert E. Morelli III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell St, Ste 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608-1863 Telephone: (406) 836-9501 SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Bennett Seeks More Time to file Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYMMETRY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and QUILITY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00067-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the deadline to file his motion for class certification to the previously agreed-upon deadline of June 12, 2026. Symmetry offers life insurance, mortgage protection, critical illness insurance, disability insurance, retirement protection, and much more. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a5Utnm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd. Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com - and - Mitchel Erik Luxenburg THE LAW FIRM OF MITCH LUXENBURG LLC 23875 Commerce Park Rd, Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 452-9301 E-mail: mitch@mluxlaw.com SYNERGY BUSINESS: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergy Business Solutions DE, LLC. The case is styled as Asher Bronstin, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Synergy Business Solutions DE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03267-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Synergy Business Solution -- https://www.synergy-businesssolution.com/ -- provides offshore outsourcing in call centre operations and business back-end support from Bangladesh.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com - and - Carly Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 713 Pitman Street Escondido, CA 92027 Phone: (773) 946-9399 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com TELLURIDE SKI: Plaintiff Expands Scope of Labor Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Telluride Times reports that Ruth Rivas initially filed her class action lawsuit against Telluride Ski and Golf (Telski) in September as a way of standing up for the countless housekeeping staff members she alleges were, like her, victims of wage theft due to reportedly exploitative labor practices by Telski. The lawsuit claims Telski paid workers directly at The Peaks Resort and Spa for work done in the afternoon shift and arranged for a contractor, Csaba Algacs, to use a separate account for the morning shifts to pay the same workers for the same labor done in the same building wearing the same uniforms -- using two separate accounts as a way to avoid paying overtime wages for 15-hour shifts, seven days a week. On Wednesday, Dec. 3, Rivas' attorney Victoria Guzman filed an amended complaint enlarging the class of workers potentially benefiting from the suit. "The scheme didn't apply just to housekeepers," Guzman told The Telluride Times, noting that when word of the lawsuit spread through the community, more alleged victims came forward. The more inclusive amendment adds those "employed as workers in the engineering department, the food and beverage department and as van drivers" and removes the word "immigrant" from a line claiming Telski "attempts to use labor contractors to ensure a steady supply of cheap immigrant labor while avoiding its obligations as an employer." Guzman said the changes are meant "to cover all workers who worked on behalf of The Peaks, but were paid through two different entities." The Times previously reported that some Telski employees claim they were told they were fired because of the lawsuit. "We've received reports from workers who work for other hotels in the Telluride area that (claim they) were terminated because of the lawsuit," Guzman confirmed, adding that the expanded class of alleged victims wasn't willing to give their names. "There's a lot of fear in town, but they said, ‘I saw what's happening. I want to share my story.'" The amended complaint also reduces the period of time covered in the lawsuit from the last six years to the last three years, based on recent Colorado Supreme Court precedent, which lowered the previously unclear statute of limitations for the Colorado Minimum Wage Act from six to three years. Telski has until Dec. 17 to file a response the complaint in the San Miguel County Court. Guzman said if the lawsuit proceeds, it could easily be two years before a jury hears the case. [GN] TEXTRON AVIATION: Barry Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Barry, individually and for others similarly situated v. TEXTRON AVIATION INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01271 (D. Kan., Nov. 25, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. The Defendant pays them by the hour. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA and KWPA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at rates of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a sheet metal mechanic in Wichita, Kansas since January 2001. Textron "is a family of businesses encompassing a diverse range of products, each with its own rich history of innovation and excellence. Our powerful brands include Cessna, Beechcraft, Able Aerospace Services, Aeromotion, McCauley Propellor Systems and TRU Simulation."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2118 W. 120th Street Leawood, Kansas 66209 Phone: (913) 696-0925 Email: brady@mbradylaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY: Brice Sues Over WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Ciara Brice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY; THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS, INC.; JEFFERSON HEALTH CORPORATION; JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS; JEFFERSON MEDICAL GROUP; ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; LANSDALE HOSPITAL; EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER MONTGOMERY; ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER; THE MAGEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR CONVALESCENTS; JEFFERSON HEALTH–NORTHEAST; KENNEDY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC.; LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.; LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL – HAZELTON; LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL – SCHUYLKILL; LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL – POCONO; LEHIGH VALLEY PHYSICIAN GROUP; EINSTEIN PRACTICE PLAN, INC.; EINSTEIN COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATES; FORNANCE PHYSICIAN SERVICES; HEALTH NETWORK LABORATORIES, LLC; PARTNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; HEALTH PARTNERS PLANS, INC.; and PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:25-cv-06660-JLS (E.D. Pa., Nov. 25, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act, and for breach of contract. In November 2025, Defendants carried out a mass layoff that resulted in the termination of at least 500 full-time employees, including Plaintiff. The Defendants violated the WARN Act by providing no advance notice of the terminations to Plaintiff or the other affected employees. Instead, Defendants notified Plaintiff and other affected employees of their termination on the day of the layoff, presenting them with severance agreements purporting to forfeit their WARN Act rights. In addition to violating the WARN Act, Defendants have failed to pay the promised severance to the terminated employees, including Plaintiff. The Defendants' failure to provide advance notice of the mass layoffs violated the WARN Act. Separately, Defendants' failure to pay the promised severance to affected employees constitutes a breach of contract, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a medical assistant for Jefferson Health from January 2023 until November 12, 2025, when she was terminated without notice. The Defendants are related entities that operate as an integrated healthcare system known as "Jefferson Health," which provides medical services throughout the Greater Philadelphia region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. POND LEHOCKY GIORDANO, INC. 2005 Market Street, 18th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (856) 528-8115 Email: jabay@pondlehocky.com UNDER ARMOUR: Freifeld Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------- David Freifeld and Steven Boyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03871-JRR (D. Md., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought on behalf of all other individuals who had their sensitive personal information ("Personal Information") disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising Under Armour in November 2025 (the "Data Breach"). Under Armour has not yet publicly confirmed either the Data Breach or the nature of the data (e.g., names, addresses, and Social Security numbers) disclosed to, or accessed or acquired by, Everest. Defendant was well aware of or should have known of its data security shortcomings. It collects and maintains sensitive Personal Information about its employees, consumers, and potential consumers, including Social Security numbers ("SSNs") and financial information. Nevertheless, Under Armour failed to make necessary changes to implement industry standard data privacy measures, again exposing its customers and, as here, its employees, to the risk of being impacted by a breach. The Defendant's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure jeopardized the security of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Personal Information, and exposed Plaintiffs and Class Members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendant's conduct and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their Personal Information is now in the hands of criminals, and they now face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD 33 Whitehall Street, Ste 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 646.357.1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 1201 17th Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Cyril V. Smith, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street – Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410-332-0444 Fax: 410-659-0436 Email: csmith@zuckerman.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Sarper Unal, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com sunal@ahdootwolfson.com UNDER ARMOUR: Underpays Call Center Representatives, Castro Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUNTA CASTRO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC. and UNDER ARMOUR RETAIL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03829-JRR (D. Md., November 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and Maryland state common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated for all compensable time and overtime hours worked due to its off the clock, rounding, and auto-meal deduction practices. As a result, the Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons for their unpaid, and illegally withheld, minimum wages and overtime compensation, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the suit. Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendants as a call center representative from March 2019 to December 2024. Under Armour is a performance athletic wear company that designs and sells apparel, footwear and accessories to customers worldwide, both online and in brick-and-mortar stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Joseph Goodson, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 400 East Pratt Street, Suite 810 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (202) 919-5952 E-mail: tjosephgoodson@hkm.com UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Sued Over False Labeling and Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------- Renetta Vicks, Kari Proskin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-17887 (D.N.J., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought seeks to hold Defendant accountable for falsely labeling and marketing its Vaseline brand Baby Healing Jelly (the "Product") as "hypoallergenic." This case involves Defendant's widespread, deceptive use of the term "hypoallergenic" on the Product's labels and marketing materials. The Product's front label prominently represents to consumers that the Product is "Hypoallergenic." On Defendant's website and the websites of other retailers that sell the Product, Defendant also claims the Product is "gentle on skin," "a gentle and pure skin care moisturizer that helps treat and prevent chafed skin from diaper rash," "a trusted skin care product that adds a soothing and protective barrier to help relieve baby's discomfort," and "gentle enough to treat dry skin on baby's face and body." However, these representations are false. The truth is the Product is not hypoallergenic because it contains fragrance chemicals in amounts that can reasonably be expected to induce an allergic response in a significant number of the Product's intended users (i.e., individuals with sensitive skin, or with children who have sensitive skin). Indeed, fragrance is one of the most common allergens and skin irritants, and a leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis according to the American Academy of Dermatology ("AAD"). As a result of the Product's ingredients, the Product is also just as likely and, for some products, more likely to cause an allergic reaction in its intended users than similar, competing products which do not claim to be hypoallergenic, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Product. The Defendant manufactures, advertises, distributes, and sells the Product under its brand Vaseline.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-839-7000 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Ex-Feds Sue Over Civil Rights Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Erich Wagner, writing for Government Executive, reports that a group of former federal workers who lost their jobs during President Trump's purge of employees in diversity, equity and inclusion roles and agency civil rights offices this week sued the administration, alleging violations of the First Amendment, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The class-action lawsuit, filed Wednesday, December 3, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accuses the Trump administration of abusing reduction-in-force procedures to target individual workers rather than their positions and to chase minorities, women and LGBTQ+ employees out of government. Shortly after taking office, Trump signed an executive order instructing agencies to excise all DEI-related activities from their work, leading to mass layoffs across government. "President Trump's directives did not merely represent a change in presidential priorities -- a normal occurrence when presidential administrations change," the lawsuit states. "Rather, they were targeted actions intended to punish perceived political enemies, as well as to eliminate from the federal workforce women, people of color, and those, like plaintiffs, who advocated for or were perceived as advocating for protected racial or gender groups." While the executive order and subsequent implementing guidance were "neutral on their face," they were designed with the "intent to discriminate" against protected classes within federal agencies, the plaintiffs argued. The suit cites the results of the DEI RIF at the Homeland Security Department as an example of how the purge disproportionately impacted women and people of color. While 37 men were laid off from its now-defunct civil rights office, 97 women similarly lost their jobs. And 36% of those laid off at DHS were Black, compared to their overall proportion of the DHS workforce of 24%. In particular, the former employees said that agencies illegally "manipulated" the reductions in force of agency DEI offices to specifically target employees, rather than positions. That included obtaining lists of employees in diversity-related positions in November 2024, in order to better target employees who had transferred into other positions in the intervening months. And agencies sought to deny employees targeted in the RIFs from finding work in other jobs or at other agencies, in contravention of RIF regulations. "Even as defendants denied employees assignment rights that could have enable them to retain their federal employment, they also took steps to ensure that employees who received notice of separation in a DEIA RIF would find it challenging to find reemployment in the federal government," the plaintiffs wrote. "For instance, defendants denied DEI employees career transition assistance made available to others following their removals by locking them out of government data systems containing critical information necessary to apply to federal job opportunities." The former workers are seeking to return to their old jobs, complete with back pay, restitution for lost benefits, compensatory damages and the expungement of references to their termination from their federal personnel records. [GN] UNITED STATES: Ramos Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ------------------------------------------------------------- A petition for writ of habeas corpus has been filed against Mary De Anda Ybarra, Field Officer Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The case is styled as Elizabeth Huipe Ramos v. Mary De Anda Ybarra Field Officer Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00503-LS (W.D. Tex., October 29, 2025). The habeas corpus suit involves alien detainee. The case is assigned to District Judge Leon Schydlower. Mary De Anda Ybarra is sued in her official capacity as field officer director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell H. Shen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MITCHELL H. SHEN & ASSOCIATES 617 S. Olive St Ste 810 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 878-0333 Facsimile: (213) 402-2169 E-mail: mshenlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Lacy L. McAndrew, Esq. Fidel Esparza, III, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600 San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: (210) 384-7340 E-mail: fidel.esparza@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Ruiz Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO GOMEZ RUIZ, et al. v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, at al., Case No. 3:25-cv-09757-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 9, 2026, will move the Court for an entry of an Order: 1. Certifying that this action is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); 2. Certifying a Plaintiff Class (the "Class") consisting of: "All persons who are now, or in the future will be, in the legal custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and detained at California City Detention Facility ("California City")"; 3. Certifying Plaintiffs Fernando Gomez Ruiz, Fernando Viera Reyes, Jose Ruiz Canizales, Yuri Alexander Roque Campos, Sokhean Keo, Gustavo Guevara Alarcon, and Alejandro Mendiola Escutia as representatives of the Class; 4. Certifying a Plaintiff Subclass (the "Subclass") consisting of: "All persons who are now, or in the future will be, in the legal custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and detained at California City Detention Facility ("California City") who have disabilities within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act."; 5. Certifying the Plaintiffs Jose Ruiz Canizales and Sokhean Keo as representatives of the Subclass; 6. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel of record as Class Counsel for the Class and Subclass; and 7. Directing the parties, pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(A), to confer and submit a proposed notice to the Class and Subclass, and the proposed method of distribution of that notice, within 30 days of the order certifying the Class and Subclass. In this case, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' systemic failures to enact any meaningful disability policies. They operate California City with no functional intake screening for disabilities, no mechanism for continuing prior accommodations, no reliable system for evaluating or referring disability-related needs, and no meaningful process for requesting accommodations or filing disability-related grievances. As a result of these systemic failures, people with disabilities are uniformly denied access to what meager programs and services California City offers. The Plaintiff includes FERNANDO VIERA REYES; JOSE RUIZ CANIZALES; YURI ALEXANDER ROQUE CAMPOS; SOKHEAN KEO; GUSTAVO GUEVARA ALARCON; and ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA ESCUTIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, The Defendants include TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Acting Director of San Francisco Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Defendant enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=73tzK0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven P. Ragland, Esq. Cody S. Harris, Esq. Carlos C. Martinez, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: sragland@keker.com charris@keker.com cmartinez@keker.com - and - Priya Arvind Patel, Esq. Mariel Villarreal, Esq. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 1999 Harrison Street #1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (650) 762-8990 E-mail: priya@ccijustice.org mariel@ccijustice.org - and - Margot Mendelson, Esq. Tess Borden, Esq. Patrick Booth, Esq. Alison Hardy, Esq. Rana Anabtawi, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 E-mail: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com tess@prisonlaw.com patrick@prisonlaw.com ahardy@prisonlaw.com rana@prisonlaw.com - and - Kyle Virgien, Esq. Felipe Hernandez, Esq. Marisol Dominguez-Ruiz, Esq. Carmen Iguina Gonzalez, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: kvirgien@aclu.org npp_fhernandez@aclu.org mdominguez-ruiz@aclu.org ciguinagonzalez@aclu.org UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Kritzer Sues Over Unprotected Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE KRITZER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS AT CHAPEL HILL, and THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01067 (M.D.N.C., November 21, 2025) arises out of the Defendants' failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendants' data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to take place on or around July 24, 2025, and compromises Defendants' network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Defendants learned of the data breach on or around July 24, 2025, and determined that Class Members' private information had been compromised. Yet, Defendants unreasonably delayed notifying affected persons, failing to begin issuing its Notice of Data Breach letters until September 19, 2025. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for breach of express contract, seeking redress for Defendant’s unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff Kritzer has been a patient of UNC Hospitals since at least 2008. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a public university with 20,885 undergraduate students and 11,553 graduate and professional students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Eric G. Steber, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W Morgan St Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com esteber@leesegui.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com VALE OPERATING: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vuntanique Brown, on behalf of herself and the Class Members v. VALE OPERATING COMPANY, LP; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-10174-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought for violations of California wage and hour laws for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. This action stems from Defendants' policies and practices of: failing to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked; failing to pay Plaintiff and Class Members minimum wage for all hours worked; failing to pay Plaintiff and Class Members overtime wages as for hours worked over eight hours in a day and/or forty hours in a week; failing to provide meal breaks to Plaintiff and Class Members as required under California law; failing to authorize and permit Plaintiffs and Class Members to take rest breaks as required under California law; failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members reimbursements for business expenses as required under California law; failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members timely and accurate, itemized wage statements; failing to timely pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages upon separation from employment; and unfair business practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's position was Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA"). The Defendants engage in providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services to patients who require continuous healthcare, but not hospital services, and operate in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com - and - Philippe M.J. Gaudard, Esq. Christina N. Mirzaie, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 835-1550 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com cmirzaie@schneiderwallace.com VISIBLE IDEAS: Grissett Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Visible Ideas, Inc. The case is styled as Christine Grissett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Visible Ideas, Inc. doing business as: Rent App, Case No. 3:25-cv-13572-MGL (D.S.C., Nov. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Visible Ideas, Inc. doing business as Rent App -- https://rent.app/ -- is revolutionizing rent payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Lopez and Miriam Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, (D. Colo., Nov. 21, 2025), is brought against Wakefield for failing to adequately secure and safeguard the sensitive personal information of Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals. The compromised data includes, among other things, names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state identification numbers, and financial or collection-account information. Plaintiffs further bring this class action against Wakefield for failing to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information") Wakefield is a debt collection and revenue cycle management company that provides billing and collection services primarily to healthcare providers. Despite its duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and former clients, Wakefield failed to do so. On or about January 14, 2025, an unauthorized actor infiltrated Wakefield's network and accessed sensitive data, resulting in the compromise of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information (the "Data Breach"). As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and adhere to basic data-security practices, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information has been exposed to cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are individuals whose Private Information was entrusted to Defendant. Wakefield is a revenue cycle management and debt collection company that offers billing and collection services primarily for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - and - Sabita J. Sonej, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com WARD PAINTING INC: Diaz Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ward Painting, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ricardo Diaz, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Exact Benefits Group, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-09706 (S.D.N.Y, Nov. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ward Painting -- https://wardpainting.com/ -- has built a reputation of excellence by providing the highest level of service to residential and commercial customers in the tri-state area.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. WARNER BROS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sales to HBO Max and HBO --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: WBD ) related to its sale, including its film and television studios, HBO Max and HBO, to Netflix, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Warner Bros. shareholders will receive $23.25 in cash and $4.501 in shares of Netflix common stock for each share of Warner Bros. common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/warner-bros-discovery-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRUE) related to its sale to Fair Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, TrueCar shareholders will receive $2.55 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 22, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/truecar-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) related to its sale to Fifth Third Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Comerica shareholders will receive 1.8663 Fifth Third shares for each Comerica share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 6, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/comerica-incorporated/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Fifth Third Bancorp (NASDAQ: FITB) related to its merger with Comerica Incorporated. Upon the closing of the transaction, Fifth Third shareholders will own approximately 73% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 6, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fifth-third-bancorp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. 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 company, director or officer 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] WASHINGTON POST: Former Employee Sues Over Personal Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Maggie Miller, writing for POLITICO, reports that a former employee of The Washington Post filed a class action lawsuit against the outlet on Friday, December 5, over a recent breach that compromised the personal data of thousands of current and former employees. Jun Hee Kim, who according to the filing worked at the Post from 2018 to 2019, filed the suit on behalf of the almost 10,000 current and former employees, and says the Post did not adequately secure their personal data. The Post disclosed the breach earlier this year. It noted that around 9,700 individuals were impacted by the hack, and their personal data, including names, Social Security numbers and banking information, may have been compromised. The breach occurred between July and August, and the news organization notified those impacted last month. According to the disclosure, the Post was made aware of the incident in September after it was contacted by a hacker claiming to have gained access to its Oracle E-Business Suite. The popular business management platform was targeted in a large-scale extortion campaign by Russian-speaking cybercriminals, which impacted dozens of businesses and organizations, including several Ivy League universities and regional U.S. airline Envoy Air. The Post offered the thousands of employees affected by the breach the opportunity to enroll in free identity protection services, according to the disclosure. In addition, the Post said it patched its Oracle systems and investigated the hack. Kim claimed in the suit that the breach was due to the Post's "failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols," and that as a result of the breach, Kim and others have suffered financial losses. They are seeking monetary compensation for identity theft and monitoring services, along with a commitment from the Post to improve its data security. Spokespeople for the Post and law firm Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, which is representing Kim, did not respond to requests for comment on the suit. The Washington Post Newspaper Guild, a labor union representing many of the outlet's current employees, did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] WEL COMPANIES: Arbogast Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Arbogast, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01871-BBC (E.D. Wis., Nov. 25, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") including names and Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant experienced on March 28, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant claims that an unauthorized actor gained access to its systems and acquired the Private Information on January 31, 2025. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information it collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant in exchange for employment with Defendant. The Defendant is a Wisconsin-based transportation, logistics, and warehousing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com WEL COMPANIES: Faces Reis Suit Following Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- DANIEL REIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-1851 (E.D. Wis., November 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and over a hundred thousand prospective, current, and former employees, contractors, customers, and other business collaborators. On January 31, 2025 WEL experienced a cyberattack, which resulted in the breach of various forms of Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information. WEL failed to implement practices and systems in order to mitigate against the risks posed by WEL's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the suit. As such, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. WEL Companies, Inc. is a transportation, trucking logistics, and warehousing company based in Wisconsin that operates throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & FRUCHTER LLP 3620 E. Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com WEL COMPANIES: Green Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------- Travis Green, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01868 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). As a result of Defendant's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected email accounts on or around January 31, 2025 and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. The information accessed and acquired in the Data Breach includes name, home addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state ID, and non-U.S. national ID numbers ("Private Information"). Despite discovering the Breach in March 2025, Defendant delayed alerting victims of the Data Breach until on or around November 12, 2025, when it began sending out notice of data breach letters ("Notice Letters") to victims of the Data Breach. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. Now, and for the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft have to spend time responding to the Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class are current and former customers and employees of Defendant. The Defendant is a trucking company based in Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com WEL COMPANIES: Shurley Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------- Wyndol Shurley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01864 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 24, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" including names and Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant experienced on March 28, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant claims that an unauthorized actor gained access to its systems and acquired the Private Information on January 31, 2025. On November 12, 2025, Defendant determined that Plaintiff's Private Information was exposed in the Data Breach. Defendant's investigation determined that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included individuals' names and Social Security numbers. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information it collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides. The Defendant has grown into an "industry leading refrigerating trucking business, providing both truckload and less-than-truckload services" that now manages over 500 trucks and 800 trailers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 475-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com WESTDETAIL LLC: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westdetail LLC. The case is styled as Juan Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Westdetail LLC, Case No. 25STCV34319 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Westdetail LLC -- https://west-detail.com/ -- is a premier commercial detailing company specializing in streamlining solutions for auto dealerships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Estigarribia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Memorial Medical Center. The case is styled as Nicole Jeneve Estigarribia, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. White Memorial Medical Center, Case No. 25STCV34470 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." White Memorial Community Health Center (WMCHC) -- https://wmchealthcenter.org/ -- provides comprehensive primary healthcare services for children, adults and seniors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: Jason@tomorrowlaw.com WINGS R US LLC: West Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wings R US, LLC. The case is styled as Caroline Artelia West, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wings R US, LLC, Wingstop Restaurants, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0017478 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Wings R US, LLC -- https://wings-rus.com/ -- is an operator of a restaurant in El Paso, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: kevin@kallaw.com WOOPLA INC: Beckstrom Sues Over Unlawful Gambling Enterprise ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyle Beckstrom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WOOPLA INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00187-RJS (D. Utah, Nov. 21, 2025), is brought to redress Defendant's widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act as a result of the Defendant's unlawful gambling enterprise. While Defendant advertises and promotes the Funzpoints Gambling Platform to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, thereby giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the Funzpoints Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendant sells digital "coins" to consumers on the Funzpoints Gambling Platform – including consumers in Utah – and then immediately accepts those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Funzpoints Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Funzpoints Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more "coins," which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, are redeemable for cash. Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard-earned money placing wagers on the Funzpoints Gambling Platform, and Defendant has in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained, says the complaint. The Plaintiff created an account on the Funzpoints Gambling Platform and, after losing his initial allotment of free "coins" by placing wagers on the Funzpoints Gambling Platform, he purchased additional "coins" from Defendant. The Defendant owns and operates the Funzpoints Gambling Platform, which is available at www.funzpoints.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS | SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Phone: (801) 322-2002 Email: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 BROADWAY, FL 46 NEW YORK, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com YALE NEW HAVEN: $18-Mil. Breach Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. has agreed to an $18 million settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2025 data breach that compromised sensitive patient information. The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notice from Yale New Haven Health Services informing them that their private information may have been compromised in a data breach discovered on March 8, 2025. According to claims made by the plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit, Yale New Haven failed to protect their information from a 2025 data breach. The breach compromised sensitive personal identifiers, such as Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates and medical information. Yale New Haven Health Services is a health system that serves Connecticut and Rhode Island. Yale New Haven has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $18 million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Yale New Haven settlement, class members can receive either documented or undocumented losses. Class members who experienced documented losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement. This reimbursement covers expenses, such as fraud, identity theft, credit expenses and other losses. Class members must provide documentation, such as receipts, emails and correspondence, to receive these payments. Class members who did not experience documented losses can receive a smaller payment of $100. All class members, regardless of whether they experienced documented or undocumented losses, can receive two years of free medical data monitoring. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 20, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Yale New Haven data breach settlement is scheduled for March 3, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 18, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who were sent a notice of the data breach informing them their information may have been compromised. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented losses or $100 in alternate cash payments, plus two years of free medical data monitoring. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as telephone records, correspondence or receipts. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/18/2026 Case Name In re: Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00609-SRU Final Hearing 03/03/2026 Settlement Website YaleNewHavenSettlement.com Claims Administrator Yale New Haven Health Data Incident Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 5113 Portland, OR 97208-5113 info@YaleNewHavenSettlement.com (877) 730-7795 Class Counsel Jeff Ostrow KOELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC William B. Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Defense Counsel Casie D. Collignon Sean B. Solis BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] [] Big Oil Companies Sued as Climate Damage Spike Insurance Rates ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Drugmand, writing for Inside Climate News, reports that two homeowners in Washington state who have seen sharp increases in their home insurance premiums in recent years have brought a new lawsuit against major oil and gas companies -- the first of its kind aiming to hold Big Oil responsible for climate-related spikes in insurance costs. The case, filed in U.S. District Court in the state's Western District, alleges that deception and fraud on the part of oil industry defendants around the impacts of fossil fuels on climate has substantially contributed to the climate crisis, which in turn has resulted in a homeowners' insurance crisis as rates soar and access in especially high-risk areas starts to decline. In Washington state, for example, homeowners' insurance rates have risen by 51 percent over the last six years. For Richard Kennedy, a resident of the Seattle suburb of Normandy Park, premiums have more than doubled since 2017, rising from $1,012 to $2,149. Margaret Hazard, who resides in Carson, Washington, has similarly experienced a doubling in her homeowners' insurance premiums over the last eight years. They are now turning to the courts, filing a class action on behalf of all homeowners who have or will purchase insurance after the year 2017 in both that state and nationwide. [GN] ********* 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 ***