251217.mbx

251217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 251 Headlines A1 DEVELOPMENT: Ruiz Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling AAA NORTHEAST: Jeng Files FLSA Suit in D. Rhode Island ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS: Faerber Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACCU REFERENCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrew Alleges ACCUCOM CORP: Dobija & Demissie Allege Right of Publicity Breach ALABAMA: Parties Must File Joint Status Report AMBER TERRACE: Degolia FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. AMBITRANS MEDICAL: Desruisseaux Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks Summary Judgment v. Clark ANDERSON BROTHERS: Bid to Dismiss Monroe Class Suit Tossed ASP ISOTOPES: Court Narrows Claims in Leone Suit B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Donaldson Securities Suit BABA ENTERTAINMENT: Prince Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling BALIS FAMILY: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says BETTER TAX RELIEF: Fugere Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California BIOHM HEALTH: Botto Class Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. BLACK & VEATCH: Hester and Barney Seek Electricians' Proper Wages BOEING COMPANY: Crockett Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BRIAN MUELLER: Settlement Class in Lookingback Gets Initial Cert BRISTOL CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hayden Alleges BUOY HYDRATION: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BYHEART INC: Infant Formula Contains Bacteria, Archuleta Says BYHEART INC: Infant Formula Contains Bacteria, Breary Alleges BYZFUNDER NY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Maggio Says CAPITAL ONE: Bid to Strike Documents OK'd in Marketing Suit CENCAL DELIVERY: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California CHONG CHOL: Class Suit Balks at Disabled-Inaccessible Property COMERICA INC: Faces Holdco Suit Over Comerica Proposed Merger COMPASS MINERALS: "Waite" Transferred to to Louisiana CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gresh II Says CONDUENT BUSINESS: Kliner et al. Sue Over Unsecured Private Info CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Texas Suit CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Flight Disruptions Suit Remains Pending DANIEL SERVICES: Daniel Seeks Field Operators' Unpaid Overtime DEACONESS ILLINOIS: "Doe" Scheduling & Discovery Order OK'd DEFI TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan 30 DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $18MM DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures DOCTORS ALLIANCE: Cateon Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Tex. DOCTORS ALLIANCE: Colucciello Files Injury Suit in N.D. Tex. DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit DRIFTY CO: Campasino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ELECOM USA: Websites Inaccessible to the Blind, Douglass Suit Says ELECTROLUX HOME: Gebka Sues Over Sale of Defective Gas Ranges ELEVANCE HEALTH: Loses Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Landis" EPETAH LLC: Soliday Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. EVENFLO COMPANY: Kandel Sues Over Defective Car Seat Products FEDERAL EXPRESS: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. California FIRST STUDENT: Hamm Suit Removed to C.D. California FIVE BELOW: Discovery Underway in Pennsylvania Securities Suit FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Court Certifies Appeal in "Hallman" FORD MOTOR: Class Certification Bids in Dolan Suit Due Dec. 17 FULL HOUSE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Foschi Alleges GESA CREDIT: Erban Files Suit Over Data Breach GITLAB INC: "Dolly" Suit Dismissed GREP ATLANTIC: Defeats Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims in "Cordeiro" HAJOCA CORPORATION: Segura Suit Removed to N.D. California HAPPY CORNER: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website HAWX SERVICES: Joens Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages HEALTHEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Eppersin Seeks Third Amended Scheduling Order JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert. in Consumer Suit Gets Partial OK LIVE NATION: Judge Likely to Proceed Antitrust Class Action Suit MAINE STATE CREDIT: Raymond Files Suit Over Data Breach MARKETING LABS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Oriaku Suit Claims MAULIK HOTEL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Bodie Says META PLATFORMS: Enabled Stock Manipulation Scheme, Suit Says METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits MIKE FITZHUGH: Merckson Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee MOSHY GAMING: Fitzer Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Commercial Emails NAVIENT CORP: Daubert Opposition to Class Cert Due March 10, 2026 NEW YORK HEALTH: Vaca Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective NORTHWELL HEALTH: Dinu Suit Removed to S.D. New York NUTEX HEALTH: Continues to Defend Bhagavan Securities Class Suit NVIDIA CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. OAKLAND, CA: Class Settlement in Curran Gets Final Nod OKTA INC: California Securities Suit Dismissed OLYMPIC STEEL: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Ryerson Holding PATRIOT GROWTH: Class Cert Bid in Lawson Suit Due Sept. 30, 2026 PAYSCALE INC: Dunnevant Sues Over Underpaid Overtime PENSKE LOGISTICS: English Seeks Conditional Status of Collective PERFORMANCE FOOD: $4.7MM Settlement in Bokma Gets Final Nod PERRIGO COMPANY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16 PHARMACY CORPORATION: Biondo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Kaiser & Kerwin Suit Over Data Breach PRUDENTIAL FINANC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod PUCKERBUTT PEPPER: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California RESTAURANT PEOPLE: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Virgo Suit Over FDCPA Violation RINC MANAGEMENT: Rumary Files FLSA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ROBLOX CORP: Faces G.G. Class Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ROQ US LLC: Hanes Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ROTISYSTEMS INC: Filing for Class Cert. Due April 20, 2027 RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Amended Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod SALESFORCE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in State Court SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Fake Discounts SAN BENITO: Kendall Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. SANA SKIN STUDIO: Watson Sues Over Disability Discrimination SENTINELONE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit SEQUOYAH ELECTRIC: Anderson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SEVILLE SERVICES: Najera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIMONMED IMAGING: Class Cert Filing in Schwanke Due Nov. 6, 2026 SISKIYOU, CA: Class Cert Filing Modified to March 20, 2026 SISTINA RESTAURANT: Cerra Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stack Alleges SJOLIE INC: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SKECHERS USA: Erakat Sues Over Data Privacy Violations SKINNYCORP LLC: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California SMITH & WESSON: Continues to Defend Data Privacy Suit SNAP INC: Black Suit Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: "Higley" Remains in Mediation SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: "Kogut" Voluntarily Dismissed SPRINKLR INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit SPROUT FOODS: Class Cert Bid in Davidson Due April 29, 2026 SPROUTS FARMERS: Williams Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. SSA HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baron Alleges STATE FARM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Safont Due Feb. 14, 2026 SUGAR TRANSPORT: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUNCOAST CREDIT: Anderson Files Suit Over Data Breach SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Foster Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling TC HEARTLAND: Garcia Loses Bid for Class Certification THATCHER GROUP: Jamerson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRIPLE LIFT: Manier Suit Removed to C.D. California TURNING STONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Jones" ERISA Suit TYRONE OLIVER: Plaintiffs Win Bid to Certify Class UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Bid in Davis Modified to July 24, 2026 UNITED SEATING: Class Settlement in Ducrepin Gets Initial Nod UNITED STATES: Angel Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. UNITED STATES: Dickinson Sues Over Excessive Force v. Protesters UNITED STATES: San Jose, Calif. Court Hears Immigration Class Suit URNER BARRY: Habash et al. Sue Over Egg Price-Fixing Conspiracy VALVE CORP: Welty Class Suit Filed in W.D. Wash. VESTIS CORPORATION: Faces O'Neill Securities Suit over Bylaws VESTIS CORPORATION: Faces Torres Suit over Business Figures VIRMEDICE LLC: Dossett Sues Over Unprotected Patient Information VOLATILITY SHARES: Mertiri Files Suit in S.D. New York VOLT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figueroa Alleges WALMART INC: Continues to Defend Opioid Securities Suit WALMART INC: Opioid Distribution Suits Remain Pending in Canada WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid WAYFAIR LLC: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WEL COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Island Alleges WP COMPANY: Kim Files Data Breach Class Suit in D.D.C. ********* A1 DEVELOPMENT: Ruiz Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A1 DEVELOPMENT LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00997 (D. Utah, Nov. 2, 2025), is brought to redress the Defendants' widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act regarding the Defendant illegal gambling platform. While Defendant advertises and promotes the A1 Gambling Platform to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the A1 Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the A1 Gambling Platform – including consumers in Utah – and then immediately accept those coins back (from the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the A1 Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the A1 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 A1 Gambling Platform, and Defendants have in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained. Utah law clearly prohibits what Defendant has done. Utah's Gambling Act prohibits persons from operating or receiving revenue from "fringe gaming devices," "video gaming devices," or "gambling devices or records." The games offered on the A1 Gambling Platform constitute all three of these things, and Defendants have amassed significant revenue from Plaintiff and numerous others in Utah who have played them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff created an account on the A1 Gambling Platform. A1 Development LLC owns, operates, and receives significant revenue from its online "sweepstakes" casinos.[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 AAA NORTHEAST: Jeng Files FLSA Suit in D. Rhode Island ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AAA Northeast, et al. The case is styled as Ramatoulie Beran Jeng, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situate v. AAA Northeast, jointly and severally; AAA Northeast Services, Inc., jointly and severally; Case No. 1:25-cv-00635-JJM-AEM (D.R.I, Dec. 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. AAA Northeast -- https://northeast.aaa.com/ -- offers world-class 24-hour emergency road service, plus travel, insurance and financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chip Muller, Esq. MULLER LAW, LLC 47 Wood Avenue Barrington, RI 02806 Phone: (401) 256-5171 Fax: (401) 256-5178 Email: chip@mullerlaw.com ACCOR HOTELS & RESORTS: Faerber Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland) LLC. The case is styled as Noah Faerber, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland) LLC, FHR Claremont Hotel Management Company LLC, Merritt Hospitality LLC dba Hei Hotels & Resorts LLC, Case No. 25STCV34183 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Accor -- https://group.accor.com/en -- is a world-leading hospitality group offering stays and experiences across more than 110 countries with over 5700 hotels and resorts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John V. Ricca, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3211 Phone: 310-438-5555 ACCU REFERENCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrew Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINA ANDREW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCU REFERENCE MEDICAL LAB, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03071 (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Andrew was employed by the Defendant as a phlebotomist. Accu Reference Medical Lab, LLC medical testing laboratory service that provides a complete range of tests for diagnosis, screening or evaluation of diseases and health conditions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com ACCUCOM CORP: Dobija & Demissie Allege Right of Publicity Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIK DOBIJA and ABEL DEMISSIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACCUCOM CORPORATION d/b/a INFOTRACER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14118 (N.D. Ill., November 18, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. The Plaintiffs discovered that Defendant uses their names, ages, cities of domicile, and the identity of their relatives in advertisements on the Defendant's website to advertise and/or actually sell Defendant's products and services. However, the Defendant failed to obtain written consent to use Plaintiffs' and class members' identities in Defendant's advertisements, says the suit. Headquartered in Boston, MA, Accucom owns and operates the infotracer.com website, which sells background reports on people to the general public. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com ALABAMA: Parties Must File Joint Status Report ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.C., et al., v. NANCY T. BUCKNER, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, in her official capacity, Case No. 2:21-cv-00367-ECM-CWB (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily Marks entered an order that the parties shall file a joint status report indicating the status of their settlement on or before Dec. 18, 2025. However, if the parties file a motion for preliminary approval of their settlement on or before that date, they need not file a status report. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. On Dec. 4, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report indicating that they are in the process of securing "the necessary state approvals" of their settlement agreement. They also report that they anticipate either moving for settlement approval on or before Dec. 18, 2025, or that, in the alternative, they will provide the Court with another update on or before that date. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WTbeGB at no extra charge.[CC] AMBER TERRACE: Degolia FDCPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Skyler Degolia, Keith Mack, Susan Degolia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Amber Terrace Apartments, LLC, et al., Case No. 2511-CC01231, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, County of Circuit Court to the United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri on November 11, 2025. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01662-SRC to the proceeding. The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark. Amber Terrace Apartments, LLC is a rental property company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent S. Scott, Esq. 131 Beacon Hill Drive Saint Charles, MO 63301 Telephone: (636) 288-1807 E-mail: scottbrentst@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Susan M. Dimond, Esq. Denisha N. Odie, Esq. ROBERTS PERRYMAN PC 1034 South Brentwood Blvd., Suite 2100 St. Louis, MO 63117 Telephone: (314) 446-1241 Facsimile: (314) 421-4346 E-mail: sdimond@robertsperryman.com dodie@robertsperryman.com - and - William S. Thomas, Esq. GAUSNELL O'KEEFE LLC 1717 Park Avenue, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 257-9800 Facsimile: (314) 257-9801 E-mail: wthomas@gotlawstl.com AMBITRANS MEDICAL: Desruisseaux Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Desruisseaux, individually and for others similarly situated v. AMBITRANS MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-03282 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in 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 worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to properly calculate into 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 Desruisseaux 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 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Ambitrans as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) from October 2021 to January 2025. Ambitrans touts that it is "the largest provider of private ambulance transportation in Southwest Florida operateing across Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota and Manatee counties."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 AMERICAN HONDA: Seeks Summary Judgment v. Clark ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA COMPANY LTD., a Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on Feb. 6, 2026, for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WjPqSr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Stephanie S. McGraw, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com mmallow@shb.com smcgraw@shb.com ANDERSON BROTHERS: Bid to Dismiss Monroe Class Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARA MONROE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Anderson Brothers Bank, Case No. 4:25-cv-06007-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson III entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendant failed to provide the clear, accurate, and complete opt-in disclosure required by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, and that Defendant's safe-harbor and contractual defenses are not conclusively established on the face of the Amended Complaint. The Court agrees that whether the Defendant's form accurately and clearly described its overdraft service is a fact-intensive inquiry not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly stated a claim under the EFTA and Regulation E. The case arises under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Anderson Brothers moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Clara Monroe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The Amended Complaint also seeks class certification with the class defined as: "All Defendant consumer checking account holders who, during the applicable statute of limitations, were opted into overdraft protection for one-time debit card transactions and ATM transactions and were assessed overdraft fees on these transactions." Monroe is a South Carolina resident and an account holder of Defendant Anderson Brothers Bank. She brings this action under the EFTA and Regulation E, alleging that Defendant charged overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions without first obtaining affirmative, informed consent through a compliant overdraft opt-in disclosure. Anderson offers personal and business banking. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xIHBT4 at no extra charge.[CC] ASP ISOTOPES: Court Narrows Claims in Leone Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK LEONE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ASP ISOTOPES INC., PAUL E. MANN, and HEATHER KIESSLING, Case No. 1:24-cv-09253-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to Dismiss; and -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The action is certified as a class action, and the Class is defined as: "All persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of ASP Isotopes Inc. ("ASPI") between Sept. 26, 2024 and Nov. 26, 2024, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of ASPI, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest, and any trust of which Defendant Mann is the settler or which is for the benefit of Defendant Mann and/or member(s) of his immediate family. Lead Plaintiff Mark Leone is appointed as Class Representative. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is appointed as Class Counsel. Accordingly, a class action is the superior method for adjudicating the Class’s claims. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning ASPI's ability to enrich uranium using proprietary technology acquired from a foreign research entity, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). ASP is engaged in developing and commercializing uranium enrichment technologies. A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ihs8RG at no extra charge.[CC] B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Donaldson Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- B. Riley Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Donaldson securities class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On May 2, 2024, a putative class action was filed by Ted Donaldson in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's senior notes pursuant to the shelf registration statement filed with the SEC on Form S-3 dated January 28, 2021, and the prospectuses filed and published on August 4, 2021 and December 2, 2021 (the "Offerings"). The action asserts claims under Section 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, some of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the financial institutions that served as underwriters and book runners for the Offerings. An amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2024. The amended complaint alleges that the offering documents failed to advise investors that Brian Kahn and/or one or more of his controlled entities was engaged in illicit business activities, that the Company, despite the foregoing, continued to finance transactions for Kahn, eventually enabling him and others to take FRG private, and that the foregoing was reasonably likely to draw regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm to the Company. The Company believes these claims are meritless and intends to defend this action. B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition services to public and private companies, financial sponsors, investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services firms, and individuals. BABA ENTERTAINMENT: Prince Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling --------------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Prince, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BABA ENTERTAINMENT LTD.; and BABA GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00996 (D. Utah, Nov. 2, 2025), is brought to redress the Defendants' widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act regarding the Defendant illegal gambling platform. While Defendant advertises and promotes the Baba Gambling Platform to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the Baba Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the Baba Gambling Platform – including consumers in Utah – and then immediately accept those coins back (from the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Baba Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Baba 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 Baba Gambling Platform, and Defendants have in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained. Utah law clearly prohibits what Defendant has done. Utah's Gambling Act prohibits persons from operating or receiving revenue from "fringe gaming devices," "video gaming devices," or "gambling devices or records." The games offered on the Baba Gambling Platform constitute all three of these things, and Defendants have amassed significant revenue from Plaintiff and numerous others in Utah who have played them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff created an account on the Baba Gambling Platform. Baba Global, Inc. is a private company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with a place of business in California.[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 BALIS FAMILY: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALIS FAMILY RESTAURANT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-17904 (D.N.J., Nov. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' restaurant/bar/event space, known as Adelphia Restaurant, located at 1750-1756 Clements Bridge Road, Woodbury, NJ 08096, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Balis Family Restaurant Corporation owns and operates commercial buildings and establishments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com BETTER TAX RELIEF: Fugere Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Tax Relief, LLC. The case is styled as Taylor Fugere, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Better Tax Relief, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01698-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Better Tax Relief -- https://bettertaxrelief.com/ -- offers tailored tax relief services to help clients manage IRS debt with personalized plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com BIOHM HEALTH: Botto Class Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Biohm Health LLC. The case is captioned as BRIDGET BOTTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOHM HEALTH LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10779-RAO (C.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2025). Biohm Health LLC operates as a microbiome company. The Company offers products and services that address the total microbiome of both bacteria and fungi, allowing consumers to maintain total digestive health and provides personalized wellness programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr. Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33305 BLACK & VEATCH: Hester and Barney Seek Electricians' Proper Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT HESTER and MARCUS BARNEY, Plaintiffs for themselves, and all others similarly situated v. BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., D/B/A BVCI, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02510-JJH (N.D. Ohio, November 18, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor and Standards Act. Plaintiffs Hester and Barney were employed by Defendant as electricians. They were classified as nonexempt hourly employees. However, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours worked in excess of 40, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Headquartered in Overland Park, KS, Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. provides construction services for critical infrastructure projects. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawn T. Christen, Esq. Gregg A. Peppel, Esq. TURLEY, PEPPEL, & CHRISTEN, LLC 2224 Centennial Road Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 214-0808 Facsimile: (419) 214-0809 E-mail: dchristen@turley-law.com gpeppel@turley-law.com BOEING COMPANY: Crockett Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Crockett, Jeff Cloutier, and Robert W. Kirk, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25-2-12690-6 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06073. The Plaintiffs allege that Boeing did not pay them and the putative Class members for time spent complying with safety and operational rules inside Boeing's secured facilities before clocking in and after clocking out. On that basis, Plaintiffs bring causes of action on behalf of themselves and the putative Class for: failure to pay wages as required by Washington's Minimum Wage Act ("MWA"); failure to pay wages as required by Washington's Wage Payment Act ("WPA"); and willful withholding of wages in violation of the Washington Wage Rebate Act ("WRA").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Pizl, Esq. Matthew Heyert, Esq. Daniel J. Teimouri, Esq. Erica L. Molina, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 Thirty-Ninth Ave SW Ste 13 Puyallup, WA 98373-3690 Phone: (253) 446-7668 Email: jim@ententelaw.com mheyert@ententelaw.com erica@ententelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrea Delgadillo Ostrovsky, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: andrea.ostrovsky@morganlewis.com - and - Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Email: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com - and - Kevin F. Gaffney, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 324-1138 Email: kevin.gaffney@morganlewis.com BRIAN MUELLER: Settlement Class in Lookingback Gets Initial Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY DEAN LOOKINGBACK, v. BRIAN MUELLER, PENNINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF, IN OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; LUCAS OYLER, PENNINGTON COUNTY 24-7 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, IN OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 5:23-cv-05065-CCT (D.S.D.), the Hon. Judge Theeler entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court preliminarily certifies the following settlement class: "Lookingback and other indigent people who—without counsel and without a hearing to determine their ability to pay—have been or will in the future be incarcerated in Pennington County, or threatened with incarceration or sanctions, based in whole or in part on inability to pay the fees required to participate in the 24-7 Program." The Court designates and appoints Plaintiff Ricky Dean Lookingback as the settlement class representative. The Court finds that Attorney James D. Leach is experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the settlement class and thus designates and appoints James D. Leach as settlement class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The final approval hearing shall take place before the Court not more than 30 days after the expiration of the 45-day notice period. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qaCGal at no extra charge.[CC] BRISTOL CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hayden Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN HAYDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRISTOL CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04266-BP (W.D. Miss., Nov. 21, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Hayden was employed by the Defendant as a certified nurse's assistant. Bristol Care, Inc. provides health care services. The Company offers senior living, adult day watch, financial assistance, and residential care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY II, LLC 4717 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (913) 661-2900 E-mail: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com BUOY HYDRATION: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUOY HYDRATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09599 (S.D.N.Y., November 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://justaddbuoy.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. During Plaintiff's visits to the Defendant's website, the last occurring on November 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Rainforest Wild Foods from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Buoy Hydration, Inc. is a health foods and nutritional supplements company that owns and operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BYHEART INC: Infant Formula Contains Bacteria, Archuleta Says ------------------------------------------------------------- XACIL ARCHULETA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYHEART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09714 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula in both 24 oz cans and single-serve "Anywhere Pack" pouches (the "Products") containing Clostridium botulinum, a deadly bacteria. According to the complaint, despite the Defendant's marketing claims, the Products were defectively manufactured and contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, the deadly bacteria that causes infant botulism (the "Defect"). Had Plaintiff known that the Products suffered from the Defect, posed a significant safety risk to infants, or that ByHeart had a history of pathogenic contamination at its facilities and FDA enforcement actions, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid significantly less for them, alleges the suit. ByHeart, Inc. provides infant and baby nutrition products. The Company specializes in developing baby foods and formulas based on nutrition science and production transparency to support immune, cognitive, digestive, and microbiome health. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell M. Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 926-7984 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 Email: nsuciu@brysonpllc.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Nicole Maruzzi, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 Email: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com BYHEART INC: Infant Formula Contains Bacteria, Breary Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RASSELYN BREARY, BREANNA MOTTER, and ALLISON NEBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYHEART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09774 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2025) is an action seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's ByHeart infant formula products which contained Clostridium botulinum, also known as infant botulism According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, also known as infant botulism. The Defendant knows that if they had not omitted that the Products contained Clostridium botulinum, then Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased the Products, or, at the very least, would not have paid nearly as much for the Products, alleges the suit. ByHeart, Inc. provides infant and baby nutrition products. The Company specializes in developing baby foods and formulas based on nutrition science and production transparency to support immune, cognitive, digestive, and microbiome health. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell M. Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 926-7948 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 Email: nsuciu@brysconpllc.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Str Ste. 650 No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com BYZFUNDER NY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Maggio Says -------------------------------------------------------- ROCCO MAGGIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. BYZFUNDER NY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10040 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately safeguard Class Members' Private Information it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and sufficient notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that an unknown third party had accessed their information and what specific data elements were compromised. (collectively, the "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their sensitive and confidential Private Information, including their names, and social security number in order to obtain services from the Defendant which claims to have over 500+ years of lending experience with modern technology. On September 19, 2025, the Defendant became aware of "suspicious activity" within one of their software solutions. After an unspecified amount of time, between the date they became aware and sent the notice letters, the investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed the Byzfunder network and exfiltrated the data. Omitted from the Notice Letter were the identity of the cybercriminals who perpetrated the Data Breach, the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these critical facts have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff and Class Members, who retain a vested interest in ensuring that their Private Information remains protected, the complaint asserts. For this reason, the Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, alleges the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons. Plaintiff Rocco Maggio is a resident and citizen of Michigan. Defendant Byzfunder NY LLC is a New York based financial company founded in 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com CAPITAL ONE: Bid to Strike Documents OK'd in Marketing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Capital One Financial Corporation, Affiliate Marketing Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Trenga entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Strike Class Documents. The Court further entered an order that the Clerk strike from the docket the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the accompanying filings and the Plaintiffs' motion to seal and accompanying filings. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. The Defendant is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2OGcx9 at no extra charge.[CC] CENCAL DELIVERY: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Caya Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. CENCAL DELIVERY LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG04124 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01700-KES-EPG. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks: failure to pay all wages, including minimum wage and overtime; failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure to timely pay wages due at termination; failure to timely pay employees; failure to reimburse; violation of Labor Code; failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime; unfair competition; and Private Attorneys' General Action ("PAGA") penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Samuel S. Hyde, Esq. Bailey Hashim, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.442.1111 Facsimile: 916.448.1709 Email: hydes@gtlaw.com bailey.hashim@gtlaw.com CHONG CHOL: Class Suit Balks at Disabled-Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD HENDERSON-THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHONG CHOL CHOI; REGINA CHOI; and LSG INVESTMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02616 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' business complex known as Lucky 2 Liquor, located at 4009 W Valencia Dr, Fullerton, CA 92833, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. LSG Investment Inc. owns and operates commercial property, and building establishments in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 1400 Coleman Ave Ste F28 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 Email: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com COMERICA INC: Faces Holdco Suit Over Comerica Proposed Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- HOLDCO OPPORTUNITIES FUND V, L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTHUR G. ANGULO; ROGER A. CREGG; CURTIS C. FARMER; M. ALAN GARDNER; DEREK J. KERR; RICHARD G. LINDNER; JENNIFER H. SAMPSON; BARBARA R. SMITH; ROBERT S. TAUBMAN; NINA G. VACA; MICHAEL G. VAN DE VEN; COMERICA INCORPORATED; and FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, Defendants, Case No. 2025-1360 (Del. Ch., Nov. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to challenge a proposed Merger between Comerica Incorporated, and Fifth Third Bancorp, negotiated over an extraordinarily compressed timeline and driven by Comerica Chief Executive Officer Curtis Farmer's fear of an activist contest led by the Plaintiff and his fear that no other bidder would keep him on. To ensure that no topping bid could disrupt Farmer's entrenchment plan, the Director Defendants improperly locked up the Merger through preclusive deal protections. The Defendants are also soliciting stockholder support for the Merger through a materially misleading and incomplete Registration Statement that, among other material omissions, fails to provide any details that would allow stockholders to compare the terms of proposals to the Merger, says the suit. Comerica Incorporated operates as a financial services company. The Company provides retail and commercial banking, international trade finance, treasury management, small business and individual lending, investment advisory, mortgage loan origination, and institutional trust services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. ERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 198011 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 Email: greg.varallo@blbglaw.com daniel.meyer@blbglaw.com - and - Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. Amanda Crawford, Esq. EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall #1307 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 COMPASS MINERALS: "Waite" Transferred to to Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Timothy Waite, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Compass Minerals America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-CV-02372-JAR-BGS, Judge Julie A. Robinson of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted the Defendant's motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), transferring this action to the Western District of Louisiana. The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant and works as a powder-man, a mining industry term for workers whose primary job duties include the use of explosives for underground mining operations. The Plaintiff lives in New Iberia, Iberia Parish, Louisiana and was employed at the Defendant's Cote Blanche Mine in Franklin, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, working to extract rock salt from deposits that sit 1,500 feet below ground. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business is in Overland Park, Kansas. The Defendant owns and operates the Cote Blanche salt mine, which is its only underground salt mining operation in the United States. On July 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed this civil action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act, seeking damages for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Defendant required the Plaintiff and other similar hourly employees to perform work-related tasks outside of their on-the-clock time, which is not considered when calculating their hourly wages. The Plaintiff does not allege that any of the alleged overtime worked by him or similarly situated employees took place anywhere but the Cote Blanche Mine. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's policy and practice does not permit the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers to record the time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment. The Court found that because the Defendant owns and operates the Cote Blanche Mine in Franklin, Louisiana, the Plaintiff's allegations concern his work at the Cote Blanche Mine, and the Plaintiff resides in New Iberia, Iberia Parish, Louisiana, the Western District of Louisiana satisfies both the personal jurisdiction and venue requirements for this FLSA case. The Court noted that the Plaintiff has chosen Kansas as the forum for his FLSA action against the Defendant. A plaintiff's choice of forum is rarely disturbed. However, the plaintiff's choice of forum receives less deference if the plaintiff does not reside in the district. Further, a plaintiff's status as a class representative also diminishes that weight and other factors beyond a plaintiff's choice must necessarily take on increased significance. Courts accord little weight to a plaintiff's choice of forum where the facts giving rise to the lawsuit have no material relation or significant connection to the plaintiff's chosen forum. The District of Kansas is not the Plaintiff's home forum, the Court ruled. The Plaintiff is both a resident of Louisiana and has pled that the totality of the at-issue hours worked took place in Louisiana. Additionally, the Plaintiff is seeking to be a class representative for putative collective action members that are all current and former hourly paid employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that all putative members of the collective were similarly situated employees who were paid pursuant to the same policy, and that this policy was the Defendant's alleged failure to pay hourly mine workers for time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment. The Defendant operates a single underground mine in the United States: the Cote Blanche Mine in Franklin, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. The Defendant identified seven potential witnesses, all of whom work in Louisiana. Because the witnesses identified by the Defendant are its employees, they will be available whether the trial is held in Kansas or Western Louisiana, and compulsory process will not be necessary to assure their presence at trial. The Defendant argued deposition testimony would be insufficient for these witnesses, as it intends to ask at least some of these witnesses to demonstrate donning and doffing to the jury. The Court noted that if the case proceeds in the District of Kansas, the only potential witnesses identified in this case, as well as the parties and counsel, will need to travel; this includes the Plaintiff. If the case is transferred, some of the Defendant's witnesses, employees, and counsel will still be required to travel, but the majority of the Defendant's employees, the Plaintiff's witnesses, and likely members of the collective will not. Transferring this action will also reduce inconvenience to the Plaintiff, who highlighted his comparatively limited resources and need to request time off work in order to travel to Kansas. Because the District of Kansas is not particularly convenient for either party, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. Accordingly, exercising the discretion afforded by Section 1404(a), the Court concluded that the convenience of both parties and their witnesses, and the interest of justice, would be better served by transferring the case to the Western District of Louisiana. Therefore, the Court ordered that the Defendant's motion to transfer venue is granted; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), this case shall be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eUxF75 from PacerMonitor.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gresh II Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK GRESH, II and EMILY GRESH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OKLAHOMA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17370-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., Nov. 11, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain, and protect highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. As a result of Defendants' negligence and deficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Conduent's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Sensitive Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their sensitive information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data breach, says the suit. Conduent Business Services, LLC provides business process services. The Company offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. Matthew B. Sicheri, Esq. SBAITI & COMPANY NJ LLC 100 Mulberry Street 3 Gateway Center, Suite 1102 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 954-2000 Facsimile: (973) 954-9710 Email: chris.ayers@sbaitilaw.com matthew.sicheri@sbaitilaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 225 Northeast Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Kliner et al. Sue Over Unsecured Private Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KLINER, DEANNA DUBE, RICARDO ALAMILLA, JORDAN HAYES, SHARON RUSHING, PAUL SNOW, and LOREN SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17658-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., November 18, 2025) arises from Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard personally identifying information and personal health information of approximately 10,515,849 individuals, including Plaintiffs. Between approximately October 21, 2024 and January 13, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Conduent's network systems and acquired files containing the PII/PHI of customers of Conduent's clients, including Plaintiffs and Class members. However, Conduent waited until approximately October 24, 2025--over nine months after discovering the data breach--to begin notifying Plaintiffs and Class members that the data breach occurred and that their PII/PHI was accessed and acquired by unauthorized persons. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Headquartered Florham Park, NJ, Conduent Business Services, LLC offers printing/mailroom services, document processing services, payment integrity services, government benefit services, and other back-office support services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Texas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling of its motion to dismiss the putative securities class action lawsuit pending in a Texas court. On July 19, 2024, the Company released a content configuration update for its Falcon sensor that resulted in system crashes for certain Windows systems (the "July 19 Incident"). The Company is subject to a number of legal proceedings in connection with the July 19 Incident. On July 30, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in federal court in the Western District of Texas alleging violations of federal securities laws, including that the defendants made false or misleading statements. The complainants seek certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during specified periods of time and are seeking unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On January 21, 2025, an amended complaint was filed. On April 7, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Flight Disruptions Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action lawsuit in relation to passenger airline flight disruptions allegedly caused by the July 19 Incident remains pending. On July 19, 2024, the Company released a content configuration update for its Falcon sensor that resulted in system crashes for certain Windows systems (the "July 19 Incident"). The Company is subject to a number of legal proceedings in connection with the July 19 Incident. On August 5, 2024, a putative class action was filed against CrowdStrike, Inc. in the Western District of Texas in relation to passenger airline flight disruptions allegedly caused by the July 19 Incident. On August 19, 2024, a second putative class action was filed against the Company and CrowdStrike, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, making similar allegations in relation to passenger airline flight disruptions. On November 6, 2024, these two lawsuits were consolidated, and interim class counsel was appointed. On December 6, 2024, a consolidated class action complaint was filed, which, among other things, asserts causes of action for negligence and public nuisance, and seeks certification of a nationwide class, as well as several state sub-classes of citizens of California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Nevada. The putative classes are comprised of individuals who allegedly had a flight delayed or canceled as a result of the July 19 Incident. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, certain injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. On February 4, 2025, the Company and CrowdStrike, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On June 18, 2025, the district court granted the Company and CrowdStrike, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and entered a final judgment. On June 25, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal is currently pending. DANIEL SERVICES: Daniel Seeks Field Operators' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB DANIEL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DANIEL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A ALL PEST SOLUTIONS and WENDELL DANIEL, Case No. 3:25-cv-03147-K (N.D. Tex., November 18, 2025) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay proper overtime compensation to its employees. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and the putative class as field operators. Allegedly, the Defendants have not paid field operators overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and all other relief permitted. Daniel Services, Inc. is a pest control company headquartered in Wylie, TX. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy D. Saenz, Esq. THE WILLIS LAW GROUP, PLLC 17040 El Camino Real, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 953-2222 Facsimile: (281) 953-2272 E-mail: jsaenz@thewillislawgroup.com DEACONESS ILLINOIS: "Doe" Scheduling & Discovery Order OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated class action cases captioned as Jane Doe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deaconess Illinois Union County Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Deaconess Illinois Union County d/b/a Union County Hospital, Defendant, Civil No. 3:24-cv-02284-NJR, and Joel Juenger, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deaconess Health System, Inc.; Deaconess Illinois Red Bud Regional Hospital, Inc.; Red Bud Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Red Bud Regional Hospital, Defendants, Civil No. 3:24-cv-02332-NJR, Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued a Scheduling and Discovery Order on December 2, 2025. The Court adopted the parties' scheduling and discovery plans. Initial disclosures shall be served by each party on or before December 12, 2025. Initial interrogatories and requests to produce shall be served on opposing parties by December 12, 2025. Defendant will respond to the interrogatories and requests for production previously served by Plaintiff on or before December 30, 2025, with rolling production of documents and tangible things to commence on that same date and continue until April 15, 2026. Due to the nature of this case, the parties are exempted from compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) (10 deposition limit) and 33(a) (25 interrogatory limit). The parties agree to the following limitations on Interrogatories and depositions: 30 interrogatories, including discrete subparts, and 10 depositions of 7 hours each, which the parties may revisit for 30(b)(6) deponents. Plaintiff's depositions shall be taken by May 29, 2026. Defendant's depositions shall be taken by May 29, 2026. Third Party actions must be commenced by February 16, 2026. Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be disclosed along with a written report prepared and signed by the witness. Plaintiff's expert(s) shall be disclosed by July 31, 2026. Defendant's expert(s) shall be disclosed by September 25, 2026. Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be taken by November 13, 2026 for Plaintiff's expert(s) and by January 8, 2027 for Defendant's expert(s). The parties certified that they have discussed the proportionality of discovery, the burden and expense associated with discovery, and the discovery of electronically stored information. The parties anticipate a need for an ESI protocol and shall submit to the Court any joint proposed ESI protocol by December 23, 2025. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support shall be filed by February 26, 2027, and shall not exceed 40 pages. Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by April 9, 2027, and shall not exceed 40 pages. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum, if any, must be filed by May 7, 2027, and shall not exceed 20 pages. The Class Certification hearing will take place at 1:30 p.m. on June 10, 2027, at the East St. Louis Courthouse. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j8IJBP from PacerMonitor.com DEFI TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DeFi Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:DEFT) securities between May 12, 2025 and November 14, 2025. DeFi Technologies, formerly known as Valour Inc., purports to be a technology and digital asset treasury ("DAT") company that develops exchange traded products in Canada that synthetically track the value of a single decentralized finance ("DeFi") protocol-that is, a set of standards and rules that govern a system of lending, borrowing, and trading a cryptocurrency-or a basket of DeFi protocols. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that DeFi Technologies Inc. (DEFT) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) DeFi Technologies was facing delays in executing its DeFi arbitrage strategy, which at all relevant times was a key revenue driver for the Company; (ii) DeFi Technologies had understated the extent of competition it faced from other DAT companies and the extent to which that competition would negatively impact its ability to execute its DeFi arbitrage strategy; (iii) as a result of the foregoing issues, the Company was unlikely to meet its previously issued revenue guidance for the fiscal year 2025; and (iv) accordingly, defendants had downplayed the true scope and severity of the negative impact that the foregoing issues were having on DeFi Technologies' business and financial result. The Plaintiff alleges that on November 14, 2025, DeFi Technologies issued a press release reporting disappointing financial results for the third quarter of 2025. Among other items, DeFi Technologies reported a revenue decline of nearly 20%, falling well short of market expectations. The Company also significantly lowered its 2025 revenue forecast, from $218.6 million to approximately $116.6 million, and attributed this reduction 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." Concurrently, DeFi Technologies announced that Defendant Newton would leave his role as CEO and assume an advisory position. Following these disclosures, DeFi Technologies' stock price 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 What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against DeFi Technologies Inc. Shareholders, who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers with the court by January 30, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit link https://robbinsllp.com/defi-technologies-inc/. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $18MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Diagnostic Services Holdings has agreed to pay up to $18,000,000 to settle class action lawsuits that alleged the healthcare provider unlawfully disclosed the sensitive information of Rayus Radiology patients to third parties without consent. The Rayus Radiology class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 16, 2025 and covers all individuals in the United States who, between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2023, had a patient portal account with RAYUS Radiology (including entities such as the Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Insight Imaging, and/or Diagnostic Centers of America) and accessed the RAYUS website during that time period. The court-approved website for the Rayus Radiology settlement can be found at https://RayusSettlement.com/. According to the website, Rayus Radiology settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $25 and one free year of Privacy Shield Pro, which provides services like dark web monitoring, a virtual private network (VPN), password defense, digital vaults and data broker services. The settlement agreement explains that Rayus class members can elect to receive their payout via check or electronic payment, and that all checks must be cashed within 180 days after insurance before expiration. Furthermore, the document says that enrollment instructions for Privacy Shield Pro will be sent to class members via email. To submit a Rayus Radiology settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID and password 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 information. Alternatively, class members may 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 Rayus Radiology settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 29, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Rayus Radiology settlement at a hearing on December 18, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals process is resolved. The Rayus Radiology class action lawsuits alleged the healthcare provider disclosed private information of patient portal accountholders to third-party technologies such as Meta without consent. [GN] DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that on February 16, 2024, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund filed a purported class action complaint against the company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:24-cv-00196-NR-KT), purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of its common shares between May 25, 2022 and August 21, 2023. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on December 16, 2024. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misrepresentations and omissions about its business and financial condition, including the company's inventory, margins, and business prospects. The complaint seeks relief including unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On March 14, 2024, the court entered an order providing that defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was deferred until the court ruled on any motion by a purported class member to serve as lead plaintiff, and that the parties then submit a proposed schedule for filing an amended and/or consolidated complaint or designating the operative complaint and the timing of defendants’ response to the same. On April 22, 2024, three purported members of the putative class moved the court for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. One of these motions was withdrawn on April 23, 2024. On June 11, 2024, the two remaining lead plaintiff movants filed a stipulation requesting that they both be appointed as lead plaintiff and on July 30, 2024, the court entered an order granting the stipulation and appointing the State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, and Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs. On August 12, 2024, the court entered an order granting the parties’ proposed scheduling stipulation, which provides that lead plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint by October 15, 2024, and defendants shall move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint by December 16, 2024. DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries) is an omni-channel sporting goods retailer of sports equipment, apparel, footwear and accessories under the brands "Golf Galaxy," "Public Lands," "Going Going Gone!," "DICK'S House of Sport, and "GameChanger." DOCTORS ALLIANCE: Cateon Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Doctors Alliance LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Michelle Cateon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Doctors Alliance LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03079-E (N.D. Tex., November 11, 2025). The suit is brought over alleged personal injury violation. The case is assigned to Judge Ada Brown. Doctors Alliance LLC is a Texas-based healthcare technology firm providing billing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com DOCTORS ALLIANCE: Colucciello Files Injury Suit in N.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against Doctors Alliance LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Lisa Colucciello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Doctors Alliance LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03078-B (N.D. Tex., November 11, 2025). The suit is brought over alleged personal injury violation. The case is assigned to Senior District Judge Jane J. Boyle. Doctors Alliance LLC is a Texas-based healthcare technology firm providing billing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S Beverly Drive, Suite Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar General Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss the putative shareholder class action pending in a Tennessee court. On November 27, 2023, and November 30, 2023, respectively, the following putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in which the plaintiffs allege that during the putative class periods noted below, the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store labor, inventory, pricing and other practices on the Company's financial results and prospects: Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-01250) (putative class period of May 28, 2020 to August 30, 2023) ("Washtenaw County"); Robert J. Edmonds v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Case No. 3:23-cv-01259) (putative class period of February 23, 2023 to August 31, 2023) ("Edmonds") (collectively, the "Shareholder Securities Litigation"). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable/injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The Edmonds matter was voluntarily dismissed on January 19, 2024. On April 4, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Shareholder Securities Litigation. On June 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding a claim that lead plaintiffs and certain members of the putative class purchased shares of the Company's common stock contemporaneously with common stock sales by certain individual defendants. On October 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, expanding the putative class period to cover May 28, 2020 to August 28, 2024. On November 15, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint, and on June 23, 2025, the court granted defendants' motion without prejudice. On August 25, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint, attaching the proposed third consolidated amended complaint which does not alter the claims, defendants or putative class period but includes additional allegations in support of the previously asserted claims. The Company filed its opposition to the motion to amend on October 24, 2025, and the motion remains pending. DRIFTY CO: Campasino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Adam Campasino and Antonio Love, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRIFTY CO., d/b/a IONIC, and OUTSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-13621 (D. Mass., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and other SDRs and Sr. SDRs could not reasonably perform their jobs and complete their required job duties in a traditional 40-hour work week. The Defendants did not require Plaintiffs and other SDRs and Sr. SDRs to record the number of hours they worked each day on any timekeeping system. The Defendants did not maintain and do not possess timekeeping records that show with precision the number of hours Plaintiffs and other SDRs and Sr. SDRs worked in individual work weeks. The Plaintiffs and other SDRs and Sr. SDRs worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual work weeks during the relevant time period. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other SDRs and Sr. SDRs overtime compensation when they worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual work weeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as salaried Sales Development Representatives ("SDRs") and Senior Sales Development Representatives ("Sr. SDRs"). Ionic is a software development company that sold customers access to tools and a platform for building mobile and desktop applications using web technology.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne Kramer, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: akramer@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com ELECOM USA: Websites Inaccessible to the Blind, Douglass Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECOM USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01788 (W.D. Pa., November 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's ongoing failure to effectively communicate with Plaintiff and other because the websites, https://elecomusa.com and https://nestout.com, are not sufficiently compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids. According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure, together with Defendant's insufficient policies and practices giving rise to this ineffective communication, deny Douglass full and equal access to Defendant's physical facilities and the goods and services Defendant makes available at its physical facilities. Headquartered in California, Elecom USA, Inc. owns and operates the websites. The company manufactures and sells computer accessories and outdoor batteries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 Facsimile. (412) 626-7101 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Gebka Sues Over Sale of Defective Gas Ranges ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS GEBKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.; and ELECTROLUX CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01426-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the California's False Advertising Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants' "Frigidaire Gas Ranges" contained a defect that results in the oven of the gas range to not achieve the set temperature which ultimately results in food being undercooked. The defective gas range will reach a temperature that is 25 to 30 degrees lower than the set temperature. Thus, for example, if the homeowner sets the oven to cook at 350 degrees, the oven will only reach a temperature of 320 degrees (the "Defect"). Had Plaintiff known or otherwise been made aware of the Defect in the Frigidaire Gas Range, he would not have purchased it or would have paid significantly less for it. At a minimum, due to Defendants' omission of the Defect, Plaintiff paid a price premium for the Product, which he would not have paid had he known the truth, says the suit. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes electrical appliances. The Company offers refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, cookers, air-conditioners, and microwave ovens. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Loses Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Landis" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kathy Landis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Elevance Health Companies, Inc., f/k/a The Anthem Companies, Inc., and Amerigroup Corporation, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:23-CV-5-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina adopted in full the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank. The Court denied the Defendant's motion to decertify the conditionally certified collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify a Rule 23 class. The case came before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation, which recommended that the Defendant's motion to decertify the conditionally certified collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act be denied and that the Plaintiff's motion to certify a Rule 23 class be granted. No party filed an objection to the memorandum and recommendation, and the time for doing so expired. The Court reviewed the memorandum and recommendation for clear error and found none. Accordingly, the Court certified the following Rule 23 class under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act: All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendant in North Carolina as utilization review nurses in a Nurse Medical Management I, II, or Senior job title who are/were paid a salary and treated as exempt from overtime laws, and whose primary job is/was to perform utilization reviews at any time within the two years prior to the commencement of this action to the present. Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and Barrett Law Office, PLLC, were appointed as Rule 23 class counsel. A copy of the Court's decision dated 25 November is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u1fApW from PacerMonitor.com EPETAH LLC: Soliday Suit Filed in C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Epetah LLC. The case is captioned as KAREN SOLIDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPETAH LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10792-AH-E (C.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Anne Hwang, and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. Epetah LLC is an e-commerce supplement brand, operating under the name "Balbare". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (929) 996-3053 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Kandel Sues Over Defective Car Seat Products ------------------------------------------------------------- CALLIE KANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC.; and GOODBABY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13564 (D. Mass., Nov. 24, 2025) alleges that the Defendants sell defective car seats products, where are unsafe due to a choking hazard. According the complaint, the Defendants sells Evenflo Revolve360 Slim, and Gold Revolve360 Slim car seats (the "Affected Products" or "Products") that are defective. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Affected Products with a dangerous defect: the headrest foam is improperly secured and can be easily accessed and dislodged by children, who can then place pieces of foam in their mouths, creating a serious choking and suffocation hazard (the "Choking Hazard Defect"). Had the Plaintiff known that the Product's headrest foam was improperly secured and could be accessed and ingested by children, creating a serious choking hazard, she would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less for it. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations and material omissions, the Plaintiff Kandel has suffered economic injury, the suit asserts. Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactures markets infant and juvenile products. The Company offers juvenile travel systems, car seats, strollers, child carriers, saucers, gates, jumpers, monitors, and oral development items. Evenflo serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Nicole Maruzz, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 Email: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashle Kay Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 25CV025229 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03460-JAM-SCR. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against the corporate defendant: Private Attorneys General Act; Pregnancy Discrimination (FEHA); Failure to Accommodate Pregnancy; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; and Retaliation for Requesting Accommodations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wanja S. Guy, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.862.4669 Facsimile: 901.492.5641 Email: wanja.guy@fedex.com FIRST STUDENT: Hamm Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kerry Hamm, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,, Case No. CVRI2505134 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03221. The original complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David J. Dow, Esq. Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 Email: ddow@littler.com jhannah@littler.com FIVE BELOW: Discovery Underway in Pennsylvania Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Five Below, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that discovery is underway in the putative class action lawsuit pending in a Pennsylvania court. On August 1, 2024, a putative class action was filed against the Company and a certain former senior officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between March 20, 2024 and July 16, 2024. On September 16, 2024, a similar action was commenced against the Company in the same court on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between December 1, 2022 and July 16, 2024. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company. On October 28, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing lead plaintiff. On January 13, 2025, lead plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 14, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 13, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendants filed their reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss on June 12, 2025. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on August 25, 2025 and the parties are now in the discovery phase. FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Court Certifies Appeal in "Hallman" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brittney Hallman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, 8:24CV222 (D. Neb.), Senior United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the Defendant's motion to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). This is an action wherein the Plaintiff asserts individual and collective claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. Plaintiff Brittney Hallman, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, asserts Defendant Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, operated unlawful tip credit practices and failed to pay lawful overtime compensation. Flagship, a Nebraska company, owns and operates a number of restaurant brands in several states, including twenty locations of Blue Sushi Sake Grill. Hallman is a former Flagship employee at the Blue Sushi in Kansas City, Missouri. During her employment, Hallman was a server and trainer. The Court granted Hallman's motion to allow conditional certification and the motion for notices but denied the motion for text messages. The Defendant then moved the Court to certify an interlocutory appeal. The Court analyzed the Defendant's position and found that leave to file an interlocutory appeal should be granted. First, it appears that this involves a controlling question of law as to the standard to be applied in this and similar cases. Circuits are split on the construction, and the Eighth Circuit has not yet weighed in on the issue. Second, there is substantial difference of opinion, given the diversity of standards used by the various courts, both in and out of the Eighth Circuit. These standards include a two-step, conditional framework for certification; a middle standard; and a third much stricter standard. Third, the Court thinks a decision might substantially advance the case, saving substantial resources for the Court and the parties. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for interlocutory appeal was granted. All deadlines orders are hereby stayed until such time as the Eighth Circuit makes a decision on this appeal. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 2, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLrNBR from PacerMonitor.com FORD MOTOR: Class Certification Bids in Dolan Suit Due Dec. 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN and JAMES MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order that the parties shall file anew any motions regarding the experts that they believe need to be resolved before class certification by Dec. 17, 2025: -- corresponding responses by Jan. 7, 2026 -- Replies by Jan. 14, 2026. The Court further entered an order that the parties shall ensure that the new motions conform to the merits of the Second Amended Complaint. Ford is a major American global automaker. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bpNO6n at no extra charge.[CC] FULL HOUSE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Foschi Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH FOSCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULL HOUSE RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02326 (D. Nev., Nov. 21, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name and Social Security number. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information—and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit alleges. Full House Resorts, Inc. develops, owns, operates and manages casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities in regional US markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Haines, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRM 8985 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89213 Telephone: (702) 880-5554 Facsimile: (702) 385-5518 Email: ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com GESA CREDIT: Erban Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- LEAH ERBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GESA CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv1341 (E.D. Tex., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants seeking redress for their unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Gesa employs Marquis' enterprise applications in the course of conducting its business activities. As part of their business, Defendants receive and maintain the personally identifiable information ("PII") of thousands of Gesa's current and former customers including the Plaintiff and Class Members' name, account number, Social Security number, driver’s license number, date of birth, and other information. By collecting and retaining the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members for its own financial benefit, Defendants assumed an ongoing duty to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect such information for unauthorized disclosure to third parties. On August 14, 2025, Defendant Gesa was impacted in a widespread cyberattack targeting Marquis. The incident was reported to Maine's Attorney General on November 26, 2025. The information compromised in this Data Breach is impossible to "close" and difficult, if not impossible, to change such as Social Security numbers and names. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the exacerbated risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from her Private Information being placed in the hands of criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face years of constant surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring, and loss of rights. Plaintiff Leah Erban is a citizen of Othello, Washington. Defendant Gesa Credit Union is a Washington financial institution with its principal place of business at 51 Gage Blvd Richland, WA 99352. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides data analytics, CRM tools, compliance reporting, and digital marketing services to over 700 banks, credit unions, and mortgage lenders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com Service only: service@eksm.com GITLAB INC: "Dolly" Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------- Gitlab Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiff in the putative class action captioned Dolly v. GitLab et al., has asked a California court to dismiss his claims with prejudice and enter a judgment in favor of the defendants. "On September 4, 2024, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Dolly v. GitLab et al., Case No. 24-cv-06244-EKL ("Dolly"), naming the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired our common stock between June 5, 2023 and June 3, 2024 (the "Class Period"). "Plaintiff alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's use of AI features and ability to monetize the Company's AI capabilities that artificially inflated the Company's stock price. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, as well as fees and costs. Plaintiff amended his complaint on February 5, 2025 and March 7, 2025, and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in April 2025. On August 14, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave for the Plaintiff to amend and refile a third amended complaint. "On September 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a stipulation stating that he had decided not to file an amended complaint or to appeal the motion to dismiss order, and asked the Court to dismiss his claims with prejudice and enter final judgment in favor of the defendants," the Company stated. GREP ATLANTIC: Defeats Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims in "Cordeiro" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Shaun Cordeiro and Kevin Matlack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREP Atlantic, LLC and Eddy Owner, L.L.C., Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-CV-12901-AK (D. Mass.), Judge Angel Kelley of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Counterclaim Defendants' motion to dismiss the counterclaim and denied their motion to strike the first, eighth, fifteenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses. The Plaintiffs brought a class action complaint against the Defendants in November 2023, alleging a violation of Mass. G.L. ch. 93A based on unlawful legal cost and attorney fee assessments during eviction proceedings. After the Court resolved the Defendants' motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part, the Defendants answered the complaint and asserted their own counterclaim and affirmative defenses. According to the Counterclaim Plaintiffs, the lease between the parties terminated on March 12, 2024. At the time of the termination, Cordeiro and Matlack owed more than $8,000 in unpaid rent and fees, and upon application of their security deposit to the outstanding amount, they still owed $5,142.65. The Counterclaim Plaintiffs contended that Cordeiro and Matlack materially breached the lease by failing to pay the outstanding balance. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction and a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses. The Plaintiffs argued that the Court had no supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract counterclaim. They contended that the breach of contract counterclaim is a state law claim with no common nucleus of operative fact with the Chapter 93A claim, and that different facts and evidence are required to prove the two claims. The Court found that under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over any claims so related to claims the court has original jurisdiction over that they form part of the same case or controversy. The Court noted that following the enactment of 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, the First Circuit altered the former rule and no longer requires different bases for jurisdiction between compulsory and permissive counterclaims. Instead, for both categories, courts look to whether the claims in question share a common nucleus of operative fact, and if a party would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. The Court determined that the evidence, discovery, and testimony necessary to prove the two claims are sufficiently overlapping that they constitute a common nucleus of operative fact. The Court stated that to resolve both the Chapter 93A claim and the breach of contract counterclaim, the parties will necessarily need to produce the lease involved in the dispute, rent ledgers of Cordeiro and Matlack that include alleged nonpayment of rent and any assessment of Legal/Eviction Recovery fees, invoices or proof of any attorneys' fees expensed by Counterclaim Plaintiffs to collect any alleged outstanding rent, documentation of events that led to the assessment of legal fees, and communication between the parties. Further, whether the attorneys' fees clause is lawful, central to Counterclaim Defendants' original claim, would ultimately influence the calculation of any damages potentially awarded in resolving the counterclaim. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that 26 U.S.C. Section 1367(c) counsels dismissal of the counterclaim because it would substantially predominate over the Chapter 93A claim. The Court found that a single breach of contract claim where the underlying facts and dispute arise under the same lease would not eclipse Plaintiffs' Chapter 93A claim. The Court noted that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is to ensure judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants. Given that the present action has been ongoing for two years, severance of the breach of contract counterclaim and a remand to state court would not facilitate the aforementioned purposes. Regarding the motion to strike affirmative defenses, the Plaintiffs argued that the first, eighth, fifteenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses should be stricken. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had not established beyond cavil that the Defendants could not prevail on the defenses raised. While some of the affirmative defenses may be redundant or mischaracterized, the insufficiency of the defenses is not clearly apparent to justify being stricken, particularly because the Plaintiffs failed to show how they are prejudiced if these affirmative defenses survive. Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the counterclaim and denied their motion to strike the first, eighth, fifteenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 9, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yEZ8cq from PacerMonitor.com HAJOCA CORPORATION: Segura Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Luis Segura, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAJOCA CORPORATION dba WHCI PLUMBING SUPPLY, a Maine corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV147246 was removed from t the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10311. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads the following nine causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to indemnify, and unfair business practices in violations of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Katharine Liao, Esq. Eric W. Witt, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 624 2500 Facsimile: +1 213 623 4581 Email: katharine.liao@squirepb.com eric.witt@squirepb.com HAPPY CORNER: Hernandez Sues Over Discriminative Website -------------------------------------------------------- Yudy Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAPPY CORNER HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company D/B/A MOTEK, Case No. 1:25-cv-25596-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://motek.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. HAPPY CORNER HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC D/B/A MOTEK, is a company that sells hummus, oven pita, street food, chicken, fish, sauces, steak, grilled salmon, and sides.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com HAWX SERVICES: Joens Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- JONATHON JOENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWX SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01560 (W.D. Tex., November 24, 2025) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers, including Plaintiff, after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Hawx Services LLC is a national pest control company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com HEALTHEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Healthequity, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit arising from a cybersecurity incident. As a result of a cybersecurity incident in fiscal 2025 in which a business partner's user account containing personally identifiable information was breached, the Company is subject to multiple legal actions, including a consolidated putative class action lawsuit in federal court in the District of Utah and a mass arbitration action. The plaintiffs in these legal actions allege that the Company failed to implement reasonable data security practices, which resulted in a breach and disclosure of plaintiffs' and others' personally identifiable information and protected health information. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other damages, unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief, costs, and attorneys' fees arising out of the incident. With respect to the consolidated putative class action lawsuit, on August 22, 2024, the court issued an order granting a motion to consolidate the class action lawsuits, on October 15, 2024, a consolidated class action amended complaint was filed, on December 13, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action and a motion to compel arbitration, and on May 5, 2025, the court dismissed without prejudice the Company's motion to compel arbitration and the motion to dismiss, with the court noting that the Company could refile both motions after the conclusion of discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend these remaining legal actions. In addition, the Company is subject to several regulatory inquiries related to the cybersecurity incident. The amount of the potential loss associated with these lawsuits and any potential regulatory action cannot be reasonably estimated based on currently available information. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Eppersin Seeks Third Amended Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE EPPERSON, V. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Motion and enter the proposed third amended scheduling order for class certification hearing. Accordingly, BNSF has no objection to the attached proposed Third Amended Scheduling Order for Class Certification Hearing. The amended scheduling order is sought in good faith and not intended to cause improper delay. This amended scheduling order will also not materially impede the progress of this case or prejudice the parties. International is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z1Md8s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry R. Sanders, Jr., Esq. THE SANDERS LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (719) 630-1556 E-mail: perry@perrysanders.com - and - David L. Wallace, Esq. 518 North Pine Street DeRidder, LA 70634 Telephone: (337) 462-0473 E-mail: wnblawoffice@bellsouth.net - and - Andrew K. Glenn, Esq. Trevor J. Welch, Esq. Jason Rotstein, Esq. Nathan J. Ades, Esq. GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 970-1600 E-mail: aglenn@glennagre.com twelch@glennagre.com jrotstein@glennagre.com nades@glennagre.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. T. Joel Fyke, Esq. Taylor D. Waxley, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8600 Facsimile: (601) 960-8613 E-mail: LAEService@formanwatkins.com - and - Kyle L. Gideon, Esq. Kevin M. Dills, Esq. DAVIDSON, MEAUX, SONNIER, McELLIGOTT, FONTENOT, GIDEON & EDWARDS, LLP 900 South College Road – Suite 100 Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 237-1600 Facsimile: (337) 237-3676 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert. in Consumer Suit Gets Partial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth H. Ryesky, writing for VitalLaw, reports that questionable practices in obtaining additional method-of-use and manufacturing patents were alleged to have surreptitiously extended original composition patent by 16 years. The federal district court judge in Norfolk, Virginia has partially approved class certification of third-party payers in the litigation against Johnson & Johnson regarding its autoimmune treatment biological drug Stelara(R). Classes were certified as to the federal and state antitrust claims, but certification was denied as to the state consumer law and unjust enrichment claims. Daubert motions to exclude the plaintiffs' experts' testimony and reports were denied. Class representatives and class counsel were approved. The class notification scheme was approved, but the court deferred judgment regarding the claims form to be used by class members (CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2025)). Background. Ustekinumab is a biologic drug for treatment of certain autoimmune diseases. Johnson & Johnson received a composition patent for ustekinumab in 2005, and began marketing it under the Stelara(R) brand name after the drug was approved by the FDA in 2009 to treat specific autoimmune conditions. FDA approvals for treating other autoimmune diseases followed in 2013 and 2016. This patent expired on September 25, 2023. In July 2020, J&J's method-of-use patent application for ustekinumab to treat certain autoimmune conditions was rejected by the patent examiner. Johnson & Johnson then submitted additional materials to the patent examiner, who subsequently allowed the method-of-use patent to be issued on March 30, 2021. The expiration date of the method-of-use patent was September 24, 2039, 16 years after the composition patent's expiry. In 2020, J&J acquired Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., thereby gaining exclusive rights to four manufacturing patents covering drugs biosimilar to ustekinumab. CareFirst, Inc. and some of its subsidiaries (collectively, CareFirst) are third-party payers (TPPs) who fund the purchase of drugs for healthcare plan members. CareFirst brought a putative class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and its wholly-owned subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine (formerly Janssen Biotech, Inc.) (collectively, J&J), alleging that irregularities in the method-of-use patent application constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, and that the obtaining and enforcement of that patent and the manufacturing patent rights obtained from Momenta constituted illegal anticompetitive activity. The amended complaint asserted claims of illegal monopolization under the Sherman Act and state statutes. The antitrust claims and other allegations survived dismissal. CareFirst moved for (1) class certification; (2) appointment of class representatives and class counsel; (3) approval of class notice and the notice plan; and (4) appointment of a notice administrator. J&J disputed these, and also moved to exclude the opinions and testimony of CareFirst's experts. Certification. The court partially granted class certification. With thousands of eligible TPPs estimated to exist, there was no question that the numerosity requirement was satisfied. CareFirst's overcharges incurred on its purchases of Stelara(R) are the same harm as any other putative class member is alleged to have incurred and therefore typical of the proposed class. The quantity of CareFirst's Stelara(R) purchases made it an adequate enforcer of the class claims. Although there was no dispute over the objective criteria to define class membership, "(1) whether a TPP purchased Stelara(R), (2) whether a TPP made at least one of those purchases within the applicable states, and (3) whether a TPP purchased Stelara(R) during the class period," J&J took issue with how CareFirst indicated its intention to ascertain class members. But the court noted that "the focus of the ascertainability analysis asks whether class members can be identified prior to the claims process," and was convinced that the diverse sources and alternatives identified by CareFirst's expert were "a helpful backstop and gap-filler" that would serve to "cover the universe of class purchases such that class members can be readily identified" in an administratively feasible manner. Inasmuch as class certification was sought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the commonality requirement for certification was subsumed in the court's analysis of the more stringent predominance requisite. Here, predominance was found for the antitrust claims, where all class members were injured by the antitrust impact of J&J's actions. Nevertheless, because the various state laws significantly differ from one another on the consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims, class certification was denied as to those allegations. Notice to class members. The court partially approved the proposed scheme for giving notice to class members. Marketing consulting firm A.B. Data Ltd. (ABD) which has had more than 20 years of experience in devising and implementing class action notification and claims administration programs (including cases involving drug plan end-payor classes), was appointed as the notice and claims administrator. ABD's proposed notice advertising plan and notice forms were found to be adequate and approved. The court reserved judgment on ABD's proposed claim form, however, inasmuch as further relevant developments in the litigation might occur. The Case is No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL. Judge: Walker, J. Attorneys: Marc Christian Greco (Glasser & Glasser PLC) for Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. Christina Guerola Sarchio (Dechert LLP) for Johnson & Johnson. Companies: Carefirst of Maryland, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson Cases: CaseDecisions AntitrustNews DrugBiologicNews PrescriptionDrugNews VirginiaNews [GN] LIVE NATION: Judge Likely to Proceed Antitrust Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Perreault, writing for TicketNews, reports that millions of Ticketmaster customers will likely be able to proceed with an antitrust class action lawsuit against the ticketing giant and its parent company Live Nation. On Thursday, December 4, U.S. District Judge George Wu took the motion for class certification under submission following a hearing. The consumer lawsuit, filed in January 2022, seeks monetary damages on behalf of millions of both original and resale ticket purchasers, claiming that Live Nation and Ticketmaster dominate the ticketing market, leading to inflated prices. The court previously found that these claims of monopolistic practices are plausible. The plaintiffs specifically allege that Ticketmaster controls around 60% of a specific submarket in the ticketing industry. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Live Nation Entertainment's appeal seeking to enforce its controversial arbitration clause, leaving the concert giant and its Ticketmaster subsidiary to face a consumer antitrust lawsuit in federal court. The decision marks a major setback for Live Nation, which had argued that its updated arbitration system -- designed to route thousands of consumer complaints away from the courts -- was protected under the Federal Arbitration Act. Instead, the justices let stand a Ninth Circuit ruling that found the company's prior arbitration terms "unconscionable" and invalid under California law. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are facing a separate antitrust action filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and 39 states. Earlier this year, Judge Wu denied denied Live Nation's request to delay the proposed class action until after the government's case, which aims to break up the two companies and is set for a trial beginning in March of next year. [GN] MAINE STATE CREDIT: Raymond Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- NELLIE RAYMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAINE STATE CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-1344 (E.D. Tex., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants seeking redress for their unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Maine State employs Marquis' enterprise applications in the course of conducting its business activities. As part of their business, the Defendants receive and maintain the personally identifiable information ("PII") of thousands of Maine State's current and former customers including the Plaintiff and Class Members' name, account number, Social Security number, driver's license number, date of birth, and other information. By collecting and retaining the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members for its own financial benefit, Defendants assumed an ongoing duty to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect such information for unauthorized disclosure to third parties. This duty extended not only to safeguarding the information while in Defendants' possession, but also to the proper and secure disposal or destruction of the Private Information of potential customers. However, on August 14, 2025, Maine State was impacted in a widespread cyberattack targeting Marquis. The incident was reported to Maine's Attorney General on November 26, 2025. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face an increased risk of fraud and identity theft, says the complaint. Moreover, the Defendants' failure to properly notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach exacerbated Plaintiff's and Class Members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to take appropriate measures to protect their PII and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused by the Data Breach, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff Nellie Raymond is a citizen of Benton, Maine. Defendant Maine State Credit Union provides a comprehensive suite of banking and lending services to individuals and businesses, including personal and business checking and savings accounts, residential mortgages, vehicle loans, and digital banking solutions. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. provides data analytics, CRM tools, compliance reporting, and digital marketing services to over 700 banks, credit unions, and mortgage lenders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com Service only: service@eksm.com MARKETING LABS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Oriaku Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIAN ORIAKU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARKETING LABS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10778-AJR (C.D. Cal., Nov. 10, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin. Marketing Labs LLC is an Advertising Services company located in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com MAULIK HOTEL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Bodie Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA BODIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAULIK HOTEL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01226-KGB (E.D. Ark., Nov. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' hotel located at 3121 Bankhead Dr., Little Rock, AR 72206, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Maulik Hotel LLC owns and operates a hotel establishment in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Denise Ried Hoggard, Esq. RAINWATER, HOLT and SEXTON PO Box 17250 Little Rock, AR 72222 Telephone: (501) 868-2982 Email: hoggard@rainfirm.com META PLATFORMS: Enabled Stock Manipulation Scheme, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MAURIE DAIGNEAU; UDAY PARMAR; JOHANN WIEBE; and ILAY GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10180 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's role in enabling, facilitating, and materially contributing to a stock manipulation scheme that used advertisements. According to the complaint, Meta creates and develops ads that target particular user groups based on a range of demographic characteristics (e.g., geographic location, income, age, and ethnicity) and interests (e.g., past engagement with content related to a particular activity or product), and optimizes the ads to increase the likelihood of engagement by the targeted users. Meta's advertising tools enabled the scammers to target victims with hundreds of advertisements for supposed investment clubs associated with celebrities, well-known investors, and advisory firms, none of which were Meta ad customers. Victims who clicked on the ads were then added to WhatsApp groups where the scammers posed as financial advisors and encouraged victims to purchase securities whose prices the scammers were manipulating so that their co-conspirators could unload their holdings at inflated prices, reaping massive, illicit profits. Meta's advertising tools were the primary means through which the scheme was implemented, which led to Plaintiffs and other victims interacting with and being victimized by the scammers, says the suit. Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonid Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 555 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 780-3993 Email: leo@moka.law METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Methode Electronics, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against two putative securities class action lawsuits. On August 26, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Company common stock between June 23, 2022 and March 6, 2024, inclusive, entitled Marie Salem v. Methode Electronics, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, a former Chief Executive Officer, President and director of the Company and a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including in respect of the Company's transition to production of more specialized components for manufacturers of electric vehicles and the Company's operations at its facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages along with equitable relief and costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. Another purported shareholder filed a substantially similar action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 7, 2024 against the same defendants and a former Chief Operating Officer of the Company, in a case entitled City of Cape Coral Municipal General Employees Retirement Plan v. Methode Electronics, Inc., et al. The second securities class action was filed on behalf of a broader putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between December 2, 2021 and March 6, 2024. In addition, two purported shareholders filed derivative lawsuits on November 26, 2024 and February 4, 2025, respectively. The derivative lawsuits were filed on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the current members of the Company's Board of Directors, as well as certain former directors and executives, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to issue various statements that are alleged to have been false or misleading for the same reasons alleged in the securities class action complaints. The derivative lawsuits are entitled Ray Homsi v. Donald Duda, et al. and Kevin D. Murphy v. Mark D. Schwabero, et al. (collectively with the Salem and City of Cape Coral matters, the "Stockholder Actions"). The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the Stockholder Actions. The Stockholder Actions could result in costs and losses to the Company, including potential costs associated with the indemnification of the other defendants. At this time, given the current status of the Stockholder Actions, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, that may result from the Stockholder Actions. MIKE FITZHUGH: Merckson Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh, et al. The case is styled as Ceasar Merckson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh, in their individual and official capacity; Chief Deputy Kevin Henderson; Lt. f/n/u Franzel, in their individual and official capacity; Lt. f/n/u Davis, in their individual and official capacity; Mrs. f/n/u Miles, deputy, visitation and receiving clerk, in individual and official capacity; Jackie Rackley, line staff receiving clerk, in official and individual capacity, Case No. 3:25-cv-01389 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mike Fitzhugh -- https://rcsotn.com/sheriff -- was elected as Rutherford County Sheriff in September, 201.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MOSHY GAMING: Fitzer Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling ------------------------------------------------------ JILL FITZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOSHY GAMING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01357-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 20, 2025) is an action seeking recovery of illegal gambling losses by Ohio residents who played Moshy's illegal online gambling games. Moshy Gaming, LLC develops, manufactures and distributes devices and systems that operate, control and monitor games of chance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Rockwell, Esq. ROCKWELL LLC 47 East Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 806-7672 Email: jrockwell@lawrockwell.com NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Commercial Emails ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Sutton of Top Class Action reports that plaintiff Harjot Bajwa filed a class action lawsuit against the National Automotive Parts Association LLC (NAPA). Why: Bajwa claims NAPA violated Washington law by sending commercial emails with false or misleading subject lines meant to create fake urgency. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses the National Automotive Parts Association of sending Washington consumers deceptive marketing emails with subject lines designed to create a false sense of urgency. Plaintiff Harjot Bajwa claims NAPA repeatedly sent emails that misrepresented the duration or availability of promotional deals, allegedly violating Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and the state's Consumer Protection Act. According to the class action complaint, NAPA routinely sent emails that declared a sale was ending "soon," "tomorrow" or within "final hours," only to extend or reissue the same offer days later. The NAPA class action lawsuit states that the organization revived the same discount offers repeatedly, often within days, despite subject lines claiming the sales were in their "last chance" window or "final hours." One example cites a June 29, 2024 email stating "Special Savings Ends Tomorrow," even though the same deal reappeared multiple times afterward. Bajwa argues the alleged NAPA spam emails violate CEMA's clear prohibition against sending commercial email messages with false or misleading subject lines to Washington residents. NAPA emails allegedly violated Washington anti-spam law Bajwa alleges the organization's email marketing practices are intentionally misleading, creating fabricated scarcity to push consumers into making faster and potentially more expensive purchasing decisions. The plaintiff argues NAPA's subject-line tactics are "manufacturing false pressure meant to drive consumers to its website and, ultimately, the checkout screen." Bajwa says NAPA is liable for violating CEMA and the Washington Consumer Protection Act by transmitting emails to addresses it allegedly knew, or had reason to know, belonged to Washington residents. The plaintiff seeks to represent a Washington class of consumers who received any of the emails listed in the complaint during the statutory period. Bajwa seeks injunctive relief to stop NAPA from sending such emails in the future, statutory damages, treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act and a jury trial. Other recent class actions over violations of Washington's CEMA law include allegations against Papa John's Pizza and clothing retailer Tommy Bahama. If you live in Washington state and received one or more unsolicited referral text messages inviting you to sign up for Acorns or MoneyLion, join the class action investigation and find out if you are eligible for compensation. The plaintiff is represented by Samuel J. Strauss and Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of Cohen & Malad LLP; and Gerard J. Stranch IV, Michael C. Tackeff and Andrew K. Murray of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC. The NAPA class action lawsuit is Bajwa v. National Automotive Parts Association LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02280, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King. [GN] NAVIENT CORP: Daubert Opposition to Class Cert Due March 10, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Caraballo entered an order granting in part Defendant's motion for extension of time: -- Telephone conference scheduled for Jan. 132,2026 -- Defendant's Daubert Opposition to the motion for class certification due by March 10, 2026. -- Replies to motion for class certification due March 10, 2026. Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqmHRd at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK HEALTH: Vaca Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN VACA, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, v. NEW YORK HEALTH & HOSPITALS CORPORATION and DIVERSE LYNX, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04804-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff shall move the Court at such date and time as counsel may be heard to grant the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective. New York Health operates the public hospitals and clinics in New York City as a public benefit corporation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gSCsRx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 NORTHWELL HEALTH: Dinu Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paula Dinu, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH INC., MICHAEL J. DOWLING, VASSAR BROTHERS HOSPITAL, NORTHERN WESTCHESTER HOSPITAL, INC., LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SOUTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Case No. 55604/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-09972. On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against Defendants. The SAC alleges that "Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class because she, like all Class members, was subjected to Defendants' uniform blacklisting and refusal-to-deal policies, suffered loss of employment opportunities, had hospital privileges revoked, and incurred economic and reputational injury as a result of the same unlawful anticompetitive conduct."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Pizl, Esq. Matthew Heyert, Esq. Daniel J. Teimouri, Esq. Erica L. Molina, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 Thirty-Ninth Ave SW Ste 13 Puyallup, WA 98373-3690 Phone: (253) 446-7668 Email: jim@ententelaw.com mheyert@ententelaw.com erica@ententelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Traycee Ellen Klein, Esq EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 351-4812 Email: TKlein@ebglaw.com NUTEX HEALTH: Continues to Defend Bhagavan Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nutex Health Inc. disclosed in its Form10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bhagavan securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Harris County. On August 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Harris County, captioned Anjana Bhagavan v. Nutex Health Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-03999. The complaint names Nutex Health Inc. (the "Company"), the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its President and Director as defendants and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations in the complaint generally track those contained in a recent short-seller report. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Nutex is a physician-led, healthcare services and operations company that began publicly trading via a reverse merger in April 2022. The Company operates through three divisions: a hospital division comprised of 24 hospital facilities in 11 states, a population health management division, and real estate.[BN] NVIDIA CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NVIDIA Corp. disclosed in its Form10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending October 26, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California The plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020. The amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604. On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. On November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA’s petition for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel's majority decision to reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA had filed on October 10, 2023. On December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA's motion to stay the mandate pending NVIDIA's petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court's final disposition of the matter. NVIDIA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on March 4, 2024. On June 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted NVIDIA's petition for a writ of certiorari. After briefing and argument, the Supreme Court dismissed NVIDIA's writ of certiorari as improvidently granted on December 11, 2024, and issued judgment on January 13, 2025. On February 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit's judgment, entered August 25, 2023 and corrected August 28, 2023, took effect, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. OAKLAND, CA: Class Settlement in Curran Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CURRAN, NICOLE BROWN BOOKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, Case No. 3:23-cv-02354-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order: -- granting the Parties' joint motion for final approval of class action settlement; -- granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs in the amount of $2,008,000, and -- granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Representative Payments of $35,000 to each Named Plaintiff. Accordingly, based on substantial evidence, Class Counsel's reasonable lodestar exceeds the $2,008,000 amount that Plaintiffs request for all of their attorneys' fees and costs in this matter, demonstrating that the requested amount is itself reasonable. Accordingly, the Court finds the requested individual payments of $35,000 to each Named Plaintiff appropriate given the time and effort Plaintiffs have expended on this matter, the reputational risks they faced, and their agreement to a broad release of claims for monetary damages. Accordingly, the Court provisionally certified the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), based on the findings in the Order of the same date: "All persons (including residents of and/or visitors to the City of Oakland) with any Mobility Disability, who, at any time prior to court judgment granting final approval to this Consent Decree or during the Term of the Consent Decree have been denied full and equal access to the City's pedestrian right of way due to the lack of a Curb Ramp or a Curb Ramp or Pedestrian Walkway that was damaged, in need of repair, not Accessible, or otherwise in a condition not suitable or sufficient for use." On September 5, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval and Certification of Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Court provisionally certified the following Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). The Plaintiffs Curran and Brown-Booker are persons with mobility disabilities who allege that the City violated federal and state disability access laws -- the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Government Code section 11135 et seq. -- by failing to make its pedestrian facilities that were newly constructed or altered since the effective date of those laws fully and equally accessible to people with mobility disabilities, and by failing to maintain the accessibility of its newly constructed or altered pedestrian facilities. Oakland is a city in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area in the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=flHlAS at no extra charge.[CC] OKTA INC: California Securities Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- Okta, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court was dismissed. On May 20, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executive officers, captioned In re Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-02990. The lawsuit asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's cybersecurity controls, vulnerability to data breaches and the Company's integration of Auth0, Inc. ("Auth0"). The lawsuit sought an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action and unspecified damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2023, the court dismissed in full the claims based on the plaintiff's allegations related to the Company's cybersecurity controls and vulnerability to data breaches, and dismissed in part and denied in part the claims based on allegations related to the Auth0 integration. On May 28, 2024, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") where, in exchange for the release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims, the Company agreed to pay and/or to cause its insurance carriers to pay a total of $60 million, which is covered through a combination of the Company's Director & Officer ("D&O") insurance and the balance of the Company's $10 million retention on the primary D&O policy. The Stipulation does not constitute an admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or its executives. On November 19, 2024, the court granted final approval of the Stipulation and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, with prejudice. OLYMPIC STEEL: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Ryerson Holding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde of Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Olympic Steel, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZEUS) related to its sale to Ryerson Holding Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Olympic shareholders will receive 1.7105 Ryerson shares of common stock for each Olympic share of common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/olympic-steel-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACLS) related to its merger with Veeco Instruments, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Axcelis shareholders are expected to own approximately 58% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/axcelis-technologies-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Veeco Instruments Inc. (NASDAQ: VECO) related to its merger with Axcelis Technologies, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Veeco shareholders will receive 0.3575 Axcelis shares for each share of Veeco. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/veeco-instruments-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. IF Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: IROQ) related to its sale to ServBanc Holdco, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, IF Bancorp shareholders will receive $27.20 in cash per share of IF Bancorp common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/if-bancorp-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] PATRIOT GROWTH: Class Cert Bid in Lawson Suit Due Sept. 30, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARNESTINE LEC'KEYCCI LAWSON, v. PATRIOT GROWTH INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00833-WWB-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Berger entered a case management and scheduling order: Motions to add parties or to amend pleadings: Jan. 9, 2026 Deadline for moving for class certification: Sept. 30, 2026 Discovery deadline: April 30, 2027 Dispositive motions, and Daubert motions: June 1, 2027 Meeting in person to prepare joint final Sept. 24, 2027 pretrial statement: Patriot is a national insurance services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sjz1nq at no extra charge.[CC] PAYSCALE INC: Dunnevant Sues Over Underpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------- Sarah Dunnevant, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PAYSCALE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02425 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") seeking to remedy Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff all unpaid or underpaid overtime to which they are entitled under the law. The Plaintiff and the similarly situated SDRs she seeks to represent worked for Defendant as non-exempt, salaried employees who are entitled to overtime pay. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and those she seeks to represent for all overtime hours worked over forty 40 in a workweek. As a result of these violations, Defendant has failed to pay the required overtime wages, pursuant to the FLSA for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff and those similarly situated she seeks to represent are therefore entitled to recover all unpaid and underpaid overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and all attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in pursuit of this litigation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Sales Development Representative (SDR) from July of 2024 to August of 2025. The Defendant owns and operates a software and data company called "Payscale."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT& THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104-1798 Phone: (206) 682-6711 Facsimile: (206) 682-0401 - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTONMARTIN&GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com PENSKE LOGISTICS: English Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyce English, an Arizona resident; v. Penske Logistics, LLC, a Delaware company; Case No. 2:25-cv-04343-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All hourly employees including but not limited to delivery helpers (or similar job titled and/or similar job duties and responsibilities); who work[ed] for the Defendant Penske within the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek; as a past or present employee are known as (the "Collective Members")." These Collective Members did not receive time-and-a-half overtime compensation for all hours worked off-the-clock including but not limited to lunch breaks. The Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to meet this lenient threshold for conditional certification; therefore, the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff English worked for the Defendants full-time from on or around January 2024, to on or around June 2025. Penske provides logistic management solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VhrfBg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com PERFORMANCE FOOD: $4.7MM Settlement in Bokma Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNAM BOKMA and DANIEL SAMSIL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, V. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00686-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Novak entered an order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and Scheduling Final Approval Hearing: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1), and for purposes of settlement only, the Action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the following non-opt-out Settlement Class: "All individuals residing in the United States who paid a tobacco surcharge in connection with their participation in the Plan from Sept. 30, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval." 2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the terms of the Agreement are preliminarily approved and likely to be approved at the Final Approval Hearing. 3. The Court finds and concludes pursuant to Rule 23, and for purposes of settlement only, that Plaintiffs Donna Bokma and Daniel Samsil are adequate class representatives and certifies them as Class Representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class. 4. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 33.33% of the Settlement Fund and a request for reimbursement of reasonable costs. The Agreement also authorizes Plaintiffs to seek service awards of $7,500. The Court will defer ruling on this request until the Final Approval Hearing. 5. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for PFG to pay $4,700,000 into a non-reversionary Qualified Settlement Fund and distribute cash, by check, to nearly 18,500 Class Members based on the amount of tobacco surcharges they paid during the Class Period. Performance is an American food service distributor. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mVZyky at no extra charge.[CC] PERRIGO COMPANY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Perrigo Company plc ("Perrigo Company plc" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRGO) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Perrigo Company plc investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 27, 2023 and November 4, 2025. Visit the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of the team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/perrigo-company-plc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=179884&wire=3 PRGO investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the infant formula business acquired from Nestlé suffered from significant underinvestment in maintenance, operational improvements, and repairs; (2) Perrigo needed to make substantial capital and operational expenditures above the Company's outwardly stated cost estimates to remediate the infant formula business; (3) there were significant manufacturing deficiencies in the facility for the Company's infant formula business; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results, including earnings and cash flow, were overstated; and (5) 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. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Perrigo Company plc during the relevant time frame, you have until January 16, 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 a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] PHARMACY CORPORATION: Biondo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jason Del Biondo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHARMACY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a foreign profit corporation; PHARMERICA HOSPITAL PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; PHARMERICA INSTITUTIONAL PHARMACY SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; PHARMERICA LOGISTIC SERVICES LLC, a foreign limited liability company; PHARMERICA SOLUTIONS SERVICES LLC; and Does 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities,, Case No. 25-2-31621-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02424. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of the following putative class (the "Class"): All current and former employees of Pharmerica who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from October 23, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Bugbee, Esq. Claire L. Rootjes, Esq. DBS | LAW 819 Virginia Street, Suite C2 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-489-3802 Fax: 206-973-8737 Email: dbugbee@lawdbs.com crootjes@lawdbs.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CROWELL v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-02301 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec. 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). The Defendant is a debt collection agency.[CC] PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Kaiser & Kerwin Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL KAISER AND LOGAN KERWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Progressive Corporation, Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company Inc., and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09900 (N.D. Cal., November 18, 2025) challenges a systemic and unlawful insurance scheme conceived and implemented by The Progressive Corporation and Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company Inc. In a bid to win Uber's lucrative statewide insurance contract, the Defendants allegedly engineered an unlawful UM/UIM product that systematically violates California law. Defendants' policy contains illegal provisions that render its Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage secondary, not primary, and that unlawfully excludes entire categories of damages, such as all medical expenses for injured drivers. This scheme allowed Defendants to offer artificially low premiums to Uber by drastically reducing its own risk exposure, gaining a decisive competitive advantage at the direct expense of Plaintiffs and other passengers who fund the unlawful policy, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this class action against the Defendants, asserting claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, and for violations of the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in Mayfield Village, OH, The Progressive Corporation, alongside its subsidiary Blue Hill, offers automobile, homeowners, and other lines of insurance throughout the United States, including within California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 630 1st Ave, Ste 219 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net - and - Michael A. VanGalio, Esq. VANGALIO LAW CORP 7710 Hazard Center Dr. Ste E401 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (805) 720-3938 E-mail: michael@vangaliolaw.com PRUDENTIAL FINANC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-06818-SRC-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Chesler entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. Prudential is an American financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OTKEUD at no extra charge.[CC] PUCKERBUTT PEPPER: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUCKERBUTT PEPPER COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14331 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://Puckerbuttpeppercompany.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Puckerbutt Pepper Company, LLC is a producer of natural pepper products intended to provide food from the organic farm. The company's products include pepper sauce, green sauce, peanuts, yellow pepper, dried pepper, habanero sauce, and mustard, enabling customers to order spices and pepper online. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Tel: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ludyn Vasquez, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS TB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS HEALTH & WELLNESS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. 25STCV31641 was removed from t the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11464. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges ten causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to timely pay final wages; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to maintain payroll records; failure to reimburse business expenses; and (10) violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Max Fischer, Esq. Mason J. Hattam, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com mason.hattam@morganlewis.com RESTAURANT PEOPLE: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE RESTAURANT PEOPLE, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation D/B/A BOATYARD, Case No. 1:25-cv-25598-JB (S.D. Fla., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://boatyard.restaurant. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. THE RESTAURANT PEOPLE, INC. D/B/A BOATYARD, is a company that sells oysters, clams, ceviche, calamari, salad, filet, steaks, seafood, sides, and gift cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces Virgo Suit Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services L.P. The case is captioned as Amy Virgo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Case No. 9:25-cv-81397-AMC (S.D. Fla., November 11, 2025). The suit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is assigned to Judge Aileen M. Cannon. Resurgent Capital Services L.P. provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Mitchell David Hansen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th St. Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com RINC MANAGEMENT: Rumary Files FLSA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Rinc Management, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Rachel Rumary, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rinc Management, LLC a New Jersey limited liability company, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-09436-RA (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2025). The case is brought over Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The class suit is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams. Rinc Management, LLC is a company that operates in the HR & Staffing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey T. Lee, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF COREY T. LEE, PLLC 225 Broadway Suite 3005 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 566-5509 Facsimile: (888) 251-9306 E-mail: corey.lee@coreyleelaw.com ROBLOX CORP: Faces G.G. Class Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- G.G., by and through OMAR GUERRA; I.C., by and through MARIE CORNEJO; L.M., by and through MURISSA MORGAN; and W.E., by and through MARGO ELLERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10137 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant has knowingly permitted and encouraged children under the age of 13 to create user accounts on the Roblox platform without age-based restrictions ("Full Access Platform"), for the purpose of collecting intimate, deeply intrusive data points about them and their online behavior without notice and parental consent. The Defendant used the unlawfully collected Private Information to increase its profits by providing personally curated content that increases user engagement, to target and serve behavioral advertising, and/or to share users' information with third parties for advertising and other purposes. The Defendant engaged in this wrongful behavior for its own profit and in disregard of the privacy and other interests of Plaintiffs and Class Members, alleges the suit. Roblox Corporation provides entertainment products and services. The Company designs and develops a wide range of online games. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher L. Springer, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com ROQ US LLC: Hanes Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Hanes, individually and for others similarly situated v. ROQ US, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-06076 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), the New York Labor Laws ("NYLL"), and the California Labor Code & applicable Wage Order(s). The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers regularly work more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. In fact, the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers regularly work 10 to 12 hours a day for up to 7 days a week. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and its other Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead, the Defendant misclassifies the Plaintiff and its other Date Workers as independent contractors and pays them a flat amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a workweek (a "day rate"). the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and its other Day Rate Workers under its uniform day rate pay scheme regardless of any individualized factors. the Defendant's uniform day rate pay scheme violates the FLSA, the IMWL, the CWCA/CMWA, the NYLL, and the California Labor Code & applicable Wage Order(s) by depriving The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers of overtime wages for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for ROQ as a Technician. ROQ bills itself as the premier screen-printing equipment provider that provides its customers "with the most technologically advanced printing machines and services that reduce the industry's environmental impact."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. Daniel Kalish, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 838-2504 Fax: (206) 260-3055 Email: jrittereiser@hkm.com dkalish@hkm.com - and - Taylor A. Jones, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1201 Fannin Street, Suite 202 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (832) 446-9403 Fax: (832) 356-2684 Email: tjones@hkm.com ROTISYSTEMS INC: Filing for Class Cert. Due April 20, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fuentes v. Rotisystems, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-07182-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a case management and scheduling order: 1. Trial date: Dec. 13, 2027 2. Final pretrial conference: Nov. 4, 2027 3. Motion for class certification: Last day to be April 20, 2027, 2:00 p.m. Reply due by: March 26, 2027 Opposition due by: March 12, 2027 Last day to file: January 26, 2027 4. Close of expert discovery: Jan. 12, 2027 5. Close of fact discovery: Sept. 4, 2026 6. Last day to amend pleadings: May 1, 2026 Rotisystems is a gourmet rotisserie food truck and retail product company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=moiOiS at no extra charge.[CC] RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Amended Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY), ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order preliminarily approving amended class action settlement, approving procedure and form of notice, and scheduling final approval hearing: 1. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), which is consistent with the Class previously certified by the Court: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or after Oct. 1, 2015, through May 23, 2019, who had any portion of their account invested in the Russell Funds." Consistent with the Court's prior Order Granting Class Certification, Named Plaintiff Ann Johnson is appointed as the Class Representative, and Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A. are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 2. The Court approves the proposed Notices of Settlement (Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Settlement Agreement) and the method of giving direct notice to Settlement Class Members by U.S. mail. 3. No later than forty-five (45) calendar days following the entry of this Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator shall distribute the proposed Notices to the Settlement Class by first class mail. 4. On April 2, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. or at such other date and time later set by Court Order, in courtroom 10-2 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128, this Court will hold a Fairness Hearing. Russell is an American investment firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=np2xe6 at no extra charge.[CC] SALESFORCE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Salesforce, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a purported securities class action lawsuit pending in a California state court. Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits were filed against Slack, its directors, certain of its officers and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration statement on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement") filed with the SEC. All but one of these actions were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff originally filed in the County of San Francisco before refiling in the County of San Mateo (and the original San Francisco action was dismissed). The remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Federal Action"). In the Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, Slack and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2020. In April 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, Slack and the other defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal, which the court granted. Slack and the other defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. Oral argument was heard in May 2021. On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Slack filed a petition for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit on November 3, 2021, which was denied on May 2, 2022. Slack filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 31, 2022, which was granted on December 13, 2022. On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision vacating the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit ordered the parties to submit additional briefing in light of the Supreme Court's decision. On February 10, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court's order and instructing the district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On July 10, 2025, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6, 2025. On November 4, 2025, the defendants requested that the district court enter judgment against the plaintiff in the Federal Action. On November 10, 2025, the court entered judgment for defendants and against the plaintiff, which marks the conclusion of the Federal Action. The state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and the consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370 (the "State Court Action"). An additional state court action was filed in San Mateo County in June 2020 but was consolidated with the State Court Action in July 2020. Slack and the other defendants filed demurrers to the complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020. In August 2020, the court sustained in part and overruled in part the demurrers, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, which they filed in October 2020. Slack and the other defendants answered the complaint in November 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 21, 2021, which remains pending. On October 26, 2022, the court stayed the State Court Action pending resolution of Slack's petition for a writ of certiorari in the Federal Action. On November 7, 2025, the court lifted the stay in the State Court Action solely to permit plaintiffs to take certain discovery and to file a renewed motion for class certification, if they choose to do so. The State Court Action seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Slack's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Fake Discounts --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Trevor Gililland filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America Inc. Why: Gililland claims Samsung falsely advertises fake discounts on its appliances. Where: The Samsung class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Samsung falsely advertises fake discounts on its home appliances. Plaintiff Trevor Gililland alleges Samsung advertises discounts on its website for appliances, such as refrigerators, ovens, ranges, dishwashers, microwaves, cooktops and hoods, washers and dryers, that are not actually available. "Defendant creates the false impression that its products' regular prices are higher than they truly are," the Samsung class action lawsuit says. According to the lawsuit, "Reasonable consumers reasonably believe that the list prices Defendant advertises represent the amount that consumers had to pay on Defendant's website for Defendant's goods, before the sale began, and will again have to pay for Defendant's goods when the sale ends." Gililland also argues Samsung advertises the appliances with purported discounts alongside purported regular prices in strikethrough font. The company also allegedly includes representations in colorful font that consumers will "Save $X" by purchasing a product from its website. Samsung inflates regular prices, class action alleges Gililland claims Samsung's regular prices are inflated and that the company rarely sells its products for that amount. Instead, the company allegedly sells its products for the purported discount price the "vast majority of the time." "Defendant regularly represents that its purported sales are time-limited promotions tied to specific holidays or events," the Samsung class action lawsuit says. "But, instead, immediately after purportedly time-limited sales end, Defendant generates another similar discount." Gililland claims Samsung is guilty of breach of contract, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment as well as violating California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages for himself and all class members. A similar class action accuses JCPenney of running a widespread false discount scheme. If you purchased a product advertised with a discount from JCPenney, you may have a legal claim. The plaintiff is represented by Simon Franzini, Jonas B. Jacobson and Grace Bennett of Dovel & Luner LLP. The Samsung fake discounts class action lawsuit is Gililland v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-09841, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] SAN BENITO: Kendall Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against San Benito Heating & Sheetmetal, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as RODNEY KENDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAN BENITO HEATING & SHEETMETAL, INC. et al., Case No. CU-25-00300 (Cal. Super., San Benito Cty., November 12, 2025). The case is brought over Defendants' alleged employment law violation. A case management conference is set for February 23, 2026. San Benito Heating & Sheetmetal, Inc. is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning contractor in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shounak S. Dharap, Esq. ARNS DAVIS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom St Fl 3 San Francisco, CA 94105-3177 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 SANA SKIN STUDIO: Watson Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ James Watson, on behalf of others similarly situated v. SANA SKIN STUDIO, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-25605-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff is unable to effectively access, navigate, and communicate with Defendant through the Website due to his blindness and the Website's access barriers. Thus, Plaintiff as well as others who are blind and with visual disabilities will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant's intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly enjoined by this Court. As the result of the barriers to communication which are present within the website and by continuing to operate and/or benefit from the mobile website with such barriers, Defendant has contributed to Plaintiff's frustration, humiliation, sense of isolation and segregation and has deprived Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the public. The Plaintiff has suffered (and will continue to suffer) direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's violations until Defendant is compelled to comply with the ADA and conform the website to WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities. Sana Skin Studio, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company which owns and operates boutique spa and skincare studios branded as "Sana" offering goal-driven facials, clean skincare services, wellness services, and retail a selection of skincare, cosmetic, and wellness products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220, Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com SENTINELONE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Sentinelone, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit. "On June 6, 2023, a securities class action was filed against us, our Chief Executive Officer and our former Chief Financial Officer, in the Northern District of California, captioned Johansson v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02786. The suit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the Company's Class A common stock between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023. The complaint alleged that defendants made false or misleading statements about our business, operations and prospects, including its annual recurring revenues and internal controls, and purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). "A substantially similar suit was filed on June 16, 2023 in the same court against the same defendants asserting the same claims, captioned Nyren v. SentinelOne, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02982. On October 4, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating both cases under the caption In re SentinelOne, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No. 4:23-cv-02786 (Securities Litigation) and appointing a lead plaintiff. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. "On July 2, 2024, the District Court granted defendants' motion, dismissing the consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 1, 2024. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16, 2024. On October 2, 2025, the District Court granted defendants' motion, dismissing the action with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants. On October 28, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. "We believe the case is without merit and defendants intend to defend the suit vigorously," the Company stated. SEQUOYAH ELECTRIC: Anderson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anndria Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. SEQUOYAH ELECTRIC, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-33271-3 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02420. The Complaint asserts nine claims for relief: Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled; Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Sick Leave; Unlawful Deductions and Rebates; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; Willful Refusal to Pay Wages; and Failure to Pay All Compensation Owed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Randall T. Thomsen, Esq. Shane P. Cramer, Esq. Elisabeth Read, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-623-1700 Email: randall.thomsen@bclplaw.com shane.cramer@bclplaw.com elisabeth.read@bclplaw.com SEVILLE SERVICES: Najera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seville Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Stephanie Najera, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seville Services, LLC, Momentum Senior Living LLC, Does 1 to 50, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV028578 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Seville Services, LLC -- https://sevilleservicesllc.com/ -- is a trusted partner for small business IT Support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com SIMONMED IMAGING: Class Cert Filing in Schwanke Due Nov. 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lawrence E. Schwanke, D.C., individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, v. SimonMed Imaging LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01759-DGC (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Campbell entered a case management order as follows: 1. Initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be exchanged no later than Jan. 16, 2026. 2. The deadline for completing fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be June 26, 2026. 3. Expert depositions shall be completed no later than Oct. 16, 2026. 4. The class certification motion will be filed by Nov. 6, 2026. 5. All parties and their counsel shall meet in person and engage in good faith settlement talks no later than Oct. 23, 2026. Simonmed provides diagnostic imaging services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1rqBVf at no extra charge.[CC] SISKIYOU, CA: Class Cert Filing Modified to March 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL MATHIS; JORDAN CHONG MOUA; YING SUSANNA VA; MAI NOU VANG, and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU; and JEREMIAH LARUE, in his official capacity as Sheriff, Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered a modified scheduling order EVENT DATE Close of Fact Discovery: Jan. 23, 2026 Initial Expert Witness Disclosures: Mar. 10, 2026 Last Day to file motion for class Mar. 20, 2026 certification: Rebuttal expert witness disclosures: Apr. 7, 2026 Close of Expert Discovery: May 5, 2026 Last date to file dispositive motions: May 29, 2026 Siskiyou is located in inland northern California, adjacent to the Oregon border. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZQLizF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emi Young, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 293-6333 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437 E-mail: eyoung@aclunc.org - and - Megan Vees, Esq. ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 Facsimile: (415) 896-1702 E-mail: meganv@asianlawcaucus.org - and - Stanley Young, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 E-mail: syoung@cov.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Scott Donald, Esq. SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT, P.C. 300 University Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 448-7888 E-mail: scottd@sdnlaw.com - and - Jeffrey V. Dunn, Esq. Christopher M. Pisano, Esq. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 325-4000 E-mail: jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com SISTINA RESTAURANT: Cerra Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------ Antonio Cerra, Miguel Audelo, Maurizio De Rosa, Raul Dominguez, Fray Priego, and Pedro Pineda, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. SISTINA RESTAURANT, INC., and GIUSEPPE BRUNO, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-09968 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("Labor Law"), as a result of the Defendants willful violated the FLSA by: unlawfully retaining gratuities; and failing to pay overtime premiums. The Defendants have had a policy of not paying their bartenders, busboys, and food runners overtime premiums of 1.5 times their regularly rate of pay for hours they work over 40 in a week. When Defendants' bartenders, busboys, and food runners work 10 hours or more in a day, Defendants do not pay them an extra hour at the minimum wage. As a result of these practices, Defendants regularly do not pay their bartenders, busboys, and food runners for compensable time. The Defendants' bartenders, busboys, and food runners' paystubs do not correctly reflect all of the hours that they worked as a consequence of Defendants altering their time records. The Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs or the other bartenders, busboys, and food runners with an accurate wage statement under Labor Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Sistina is an Italian restaurant located in Manhattan, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Frank J. Tantone, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: 212.392.4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com frank@lipskylowe.com SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stack Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN STACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09773 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name and Social Security number (collectively defined herein as "PII" or "Private Information"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit alleges. SitusAMC Holdings Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides real estate services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Maccarone, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: maccarone@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com SJOLIE INC: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SJOLIE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09664 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.sjoliespraytan.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Sjolie, Inc. is a luxury sunless brand based in Rocklin, CA, offering a wide range of professional and retail products for spray tanning. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SKECHERS USA: Erakat Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ SHAHD ERAKAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03374-DC-AC (E.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that 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 Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol addresses, session data, and clickstream activity in real time, says the suit. Skechers USA, Inc. designs and markets branded contemporary casual, active, rugged, and lifestyle footwear for men, women, and children. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com SKINNYCORP LLC: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Arianna Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKINNYCORP, LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a WWW.THREADLESS.COM, Case No. 25STCV18353 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 Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11472. On August 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (hereinafter, "FAC"), amending the Initial Complaint from a single Plaintiff action to a class action.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Angeli C. Aragon, Esq. Alex J. L. Sharp, Esq. Kristen T. Varda, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 530 Woodland Hills, CA, 91367 Phone: (213) 306-1610 Facsimile: (213) 306-1615 Email: aaragon@ohaganmeyer.com asharp@ohaganmeyer.com kvarda@ohaganmeyer.com SMITH & WESSON: Continues to Defend Data Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the putative class action alleging violations of data privacy laws. "We were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2025 in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Privacy Act, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud/deceit/misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract and fair dealing, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. "Plaintiffs allege that after they clicked on the "reject all" cookies button on our website, our website enabled third parties to place cookies and similar tracking technologies on their browsers and devices and/or to transmit their user data to third parties for their financial gain and other purposes. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages (including statutory damages), punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, disgorgement of revenues and profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. "On May 30, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to our motion to dismiss. On August 1, 2025, we filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition brief. On October 9, 2025, the court conducted a hearing on our motion to dismiss, and the parties filed an initial case management statement. On November 7, 2025, plaintiffs served us with their first set of written discovery. On November 13, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order selecting an alternative dispute resolution process, notifying the court of their selection of a private mediator and their proposed June 30, 2026 deadline to mediate the case. "We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive, time consuming, and diverts the time and attention of our management," the Company stated. SNAP INC: Black Suit Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kellie Black v. Snap Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08892-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Accordingly, the Court certifies the proposed class solely for the purposes of effectuating the delineated Settlement and concomitantly grants the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Trying individual cases brought by the Lead Plaintiff or other Class Members would be highly inefficient and costly. The Court finds, therefore, that a class action is the superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating Lead Plaintiff’s securities fraud claims. . For purposes of settlement, the parties have agreed upon a class definition of: "All Persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Snap publicly traded securities or call options, or sold Snap put options, between Feb. 5, 2021, and Oct. 21, 2021, inclusive," excluding (1) Defendants, (2) the officers and directors of Snap during the Class Period, (3) the immediate family members of any Defendant or any officer or director of Snap during the Class Period, and (4) any entity that any Defendant owns or controls, or owned or controlled, during the Class Period; as well as those Persons and entities who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class pursuant to the Notice and where such exclusion is accepted by the Court. This securities class action commenced on November 11, 2021. Following the Court's consolidation of the related cases into this action and the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On May 3, 2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss the action. See Docket No. 78. On Aug. 3, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint. The Settlement Amount shall be paid as follows: Snap shall cause to be deposited $65,000,000 on behalf of all Defendants into an interest-bearing escrow account controlled by Lead Counsel by wire transfer(s) or check(s) within 30 business days after the later of: (i) preliminary approval of the Settlement; and (ii) the provision to Defendants' Counsel of all information necessary to effectuate a transfer of funds. Snap is an American technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wF1Ngm at no extra charge.[CC] SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: "Higley" Remains in Mediation ---------------------------------------------------- Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class action lawsuits filed by Kjersten Higley are currently being mediated. On July 18, 2024, Kjersten Higley filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in King County. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a class of individuals stating Company failed to properly compensate the class members for all time worked and business expenses. In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, Ms. Higley seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses on behalf of the class. This is currently being mediated. On January 13, 2025, Kjersten Higley filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in King County. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a class of individuals stating they were required to sign non-disclosure agreements preventing the class of individuals from discussing salary information. In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, Ms. Higley seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses on behalf of the class. This is currently being mediated. SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: "Kogut" Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Jon Kogut has voluntarily dismissed the putative class action lawsuit he filed in a Delaware court. On January 22, 2024, Jon Kogut filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the members of its Board of Directors (the "Board") in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit asserted claims on behalf of a putative class comprised of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors or officers of the Company and was captioned Kogut v. Bejar, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0055-MTZ (Del. Ch.). In his complaint, Mr. Kogut contended that certain provisions in the Company's advance notice bylaws (the "Challenged Provisions") were invalid and void and that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and maintaining the Challenged Provisions. In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, Mr. Kogut sought an award of attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses on behalf of the putative class. On March 27, 2025, the Court stayed the action pending the resolution of motions to dismiss in other cases challenging advance notice bylaws. On December 2, 2025, Mr. Kogut voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice, and the Court granted the dismissal. SPRINKLR INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Sprinklr, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a putative securities class action lawsuit pending in a New York court. On August 13, 2024, a putative securities class action (the "Securities Action") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Boshart v. Sprinklr, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06132, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On November 22, 2024, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and changed the case title to In re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation. On January 24, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class comprised of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 29, 2023 and June 5, 2024 (the "Class Period"). The amended complaint alleges that the defendants misled investors during the putative Class Period, including by failing to disclose risks associated with Sprinklr Service, one of its product suites, and that the Company was focusing resources on Sprinklr Service rather than other product suites, and primarily seeks compensatory damages for all affected members of the putative class. On March 17, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on June 2, 2025 and the motion is currently pending before the Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Given the nature of the case, including that the proceedings are in their early stages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the case or estimate the range of potential loss, if any. SPROUT FOODS: Class Cert Bid in Davidson Due April 29, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILLIAN DAVIDSON and SAMUEL DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. SPROUT FOODS INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01050-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting motion to continue the class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Deadline Motion for class certification & Plaintiffs' April 29, 2026 disclosure of class certification experts: Opposition to motion for class certification; June 26, 2026 Defendant's disclosure of class certification experts and rebuttal experts: Reply in support of motion for class Aug. 21, 2026 certification; Plaintiffs' disclosure of rebuttal experts: Hearing on motion for class certification: Sept. 3, 2026 Sprout manufactures organic baby food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zZwSnn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth V. McNulty, Esq. Joshua D. Cools, Esq. Christopher J. C. Waldon, Esq. EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, Ca. 92614 Telephone: (949) 339-5026 Facsimile: (949) 966-0706 E-mail: emcnulty@efstriallaw.com jcools@efstriallaw.com cwaldon@efstriallaw.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Williams Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC. The case is captioned as EBONI WILLIAMS, on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 25CV156317 (Cal. Super., November 12, 2025). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law violation. The case is assigned to Judge S. Raj Chatterjee. A complex determination hearing is set on December 18, 2025 and an initial case management conference is scheduled on March 30, 2026. Sprouts Farmers Market is a specialty food retailer.[BN] SSA HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baron Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- KAIA BARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03793 (D. Colo., Nov. 24, 2025) is an action arising from the 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. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, 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. 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. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, the suit contends. SSA Holdings, LLC is a hospitality and revenue flow consulting company based in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com STATE FARM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Safont Due Feb. 14, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to set class certification briefing schedule and to continue trial date and other case deadlines: Deadline Date Deadline to complete the 450 claim file Jan. 14, 2026 review that is the subject of the Magistrate Judge's 11/26/25 Order. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Feb. 14, 2026 motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's deadline for expert Apr. 28, 2026 disclosure relating to claim review (for trial purposes): Expert discovery/deposition deadline: June 28, 2026 Date of Final Pre-Trial Conference: Sept. 21, 2026 This putative class action case was originally filed in late 2022 by a single Plaintiff, Sandra Safont. After a First Amended Complaint was filed naming Thomas and Yvonne Barbato as additional representative plaintiffs, Safont was voluntarily dismissed from the case. State is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GfFKRM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 200 Southeast Second Avenue Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com md@lklsg.com - and – Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. Paulino A. Núñez Jr., Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 E-mail: frr@rtgn-law.com pan@rtgn-law.com - and – Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745-2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com susan@mikeknecht.com The Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Bryan T. West, Esq. Scott E. Allbright, Jr., Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com bryan.west@akerman.com scott.allbright@akerman.com SUGAR TRANSPORT: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Transport of the Northwest LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jose Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Sugar Transport of the Northwest LLC, Cherokee Freight Lines Stockton, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0017638 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sugar Transport of the Northwest LLC specialize in hauling dry freight, wine-related products, and food grade liquids, including kosher-certified cargo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. 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 SUNCOAST CREDIT: Anderson Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-1328 (E.D. Tex., December 4, 2025) is a class action seeking redress for the Defendants' unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. The complaint relates that Suncoast is an enterprise consumer of Marquis and uses Marquis' software for business and commercial purposes. As such, Marquis stores a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") about Suncoast's current and former customers that was inadequately protected and was exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). The complaint says the Plaintiff and Class Members include both current and former customers of Suncoast and other financial institutions affected by Defendant Marquis's negligent handling of PII. The Defendants have access to Class Members' names and addresses affected by the Data Breach. The Class Members have already been preliminarily identified and sent notice of the Data Breach by Defendants. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, including: (a) invasion of privacy; (b) financial "out of pocket" costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft risk; (d) financial "out of pocket" costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; (f) loss of time due to increased spam and targeted marketing emails; (g) the loss of benefit of the bargain (price premium damages); (h) diminution of value of their PII; (i) anxiety, annoyance and nuisance, and (j) the continued risk to their PII, which remains in the possession of Defendants, and which is subject to further breaches, so long as Defendants fail to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendants' data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendants Plaintiff William Anderson is a citizen of Richey, Florida. Defendant Suncoast Credit Union is a financial institution that provides a range of banking and lending services to its members, including checking and savings accounts, credit cards, mortgages, auto loans, and insurance products. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. provides data analytics, CRM tools, compliance reporting, and digital marketing services to over 700 banks, credit unions, and mortgage lenders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com Service only: service@eksm.com SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Foster Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ANDREW FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED d/b/a STAKE.US, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02383-TWP-MKK (S.D. Ind., Nov. 20, 2025) is an action arising out of the Defendant's operation of an illegal online casino that it markets as a "free" "social casino," but in reality, is an unlicensed casino prohibited under Indiana law. Sweepsteakes Limited d/b/a Stake.US is a sweepstakes casino that offers free online games to players that can be played with virtual currency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 West Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 Email: JDeMay@brysonpllc.com TC HEARTLAND: Garcia Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL GARCIA, et al., v. TC HEARTLAND, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-04192-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order denying motion for class certification. The Court denies the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and his request for appointment as class representative and for the appointment of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding how, if at all, this case will proceed. The matter is set for a Case Management Conference on Feb. 3, 2026. The Plaintiff Garcia brings several claims on behalf of himself and a putative class alleging that Defendant TC Heartland has engaged in consumer fraud by marketing Splenda to health-conscious consumers (including those with Type 2 diabetes) as a sugar alternative with health benefits. The Plaintiff asks to Court to certify this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23, and for his appointment as class representative and for the appointment of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel. The Plaintiff argues that the putative class members were equally economically harmed regardless of any differences in diabetes status because all class members paid a price premium. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff Garcia challenges the label “Suitable for People with Diabetes.”3 Plaintiff contends that: this label is misleading because Splenda products contain sucralose, which may have negative health consequences when consumed in high amounts, and therefore the label is false and deceptive because the products do not provide the advertised benefit. On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff moved to certify this putative class action on behalf of the following class: "All residents of California who, within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint, purchased Splenda Zero Calorie Sweetener or Splenda Granulated Zero Calorie Sweetener for personal use and not for resale." TC provides packaged food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pyp2Vc at no extra charge.[CC] THATCHER GROUP: Jamerson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thatcher Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Larry Jamerson, on befalf of all others similarly situated v. Thatcher Group, Inc., Thatcher Company of California, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV028480 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Thatcher Company -- https://www.tchem.com/ -- is a trusted global leader in chemical manufacturing, distribution, and related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. 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 TRIPLE LIFT: Manier Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sharon Manier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIPLE LIFT, INC., Case No. CVRI2505643 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03223. The Complaint asserts six causes of action: violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), California Penal Code section 631; violation of California Penal Code section 638.51; violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), California Penal Code section 502; invasion of privacy in violation of Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professional Code section 17200; and common law invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alisha C. Burgin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: 310.788.9900 Facsimile: 310.788.3399 Email: ABurgin@perkinscoie.com - and - Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq. Anna Mouw Thompson, Esq. 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3804 Phone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com TURNING STONE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Jones" ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as David Jones, Keith Wilcox, and Keely Vondell, Individually and on behalf of Oneida Nations Enterprises LLC 401(k) Plan and on behalf of all the similarly situated Participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiffs, v. Turning Stone Enterprises LLC, Employee Benefits Plan & Investment Committee of the Oneida Nation Enterprises, LLC 401(k) Plan, and John and Jane Does 1-30, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:24-CV-1596 (GTS/ML) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on tribal sovereign immunity. The Plaintiffs asserted six claims based on the Defendants' management of the 401(k) plan that was provided to them and other putative class members as a result of their employment with Defendant Turning Stone: (1) a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence against Defendant Committee and the John and Jane Doe Defendants; (2) a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty against Defendant Committee and the John and Jane Doe Defendants; (3) a claim for breach of co-fiduciary duties against Defendant Committee and the John and Jane Doe Defendants; (4) a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence against Defendant Turning Stone; (5) a claim for engaging in prohibited transactions in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a) against Defendant Committee and the John and Jane Doe Defendants; and (6) a claim for engaging in prohibited transactions in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(b) against all Defendants. The Defendants argued that the Oneida Nation, as a federally recognized tribe, is immune from suit and, because the Defendants are arms or instrumentalities of the Oneida Nation, they too are immune from suit. The Defendants argued that they are controlled by the Oneida Nation and exist solely to serve its interests, and that Turning Stone and the Turning Stone Resort Casino have previously been found to be instrumentalities of the Oneida Nation that share its immunity. The Defendants also argued that ERISA does not abrogate the Oneida Nation's sovereign immunity and that the Oneida Nation has not waived its tribal sovereign immunity. The Plaintiffs argued that Congress abrogated tribal sovereign immunity through amendments made to ERISA in 2006. The Plaintiffs argued that ERISA as amended clearly applies to the relevant plan at issue because such plan is commercial rather than governmental given that it is open to all employees and the ERISA amendments exempt only governmental plans from its scope and enforcement. The Plaintiffs also argued that the Defendants have waived sovereign immunity related to the Plaintiffs' ERISA rights. The Court found that the amendments made to ERISA in 2006 provide a clear expression of Congress' intent to abrogate tribes' sovereign immunity related to pension plans provided in the context of commercial activities. The language of the 2006 amendment reads as follows: The term governmental plan includes a plan which is established and maintained by an Indian tribal government, a subdivision of an Indian tribal government, or an agency or instrumentality of either, and all of the participants of which are employees of such entity substantially all whose services as such an employee are in the performance of essential government functions but not in the performance of commercial activities (whether or not an essential government function). The Court stated that the fact that only governmental plans administered by tribes are exempted from ERISA necessarily implies that a commercial plan administered by a tribe would be subject to ERISA. The Court noted that the relevant provisions of ERISA indicate that the provisions shall apply to any employee benefit plan if it is established or maintained by any employer engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce. The Court stated that taken together, these provisions, including the 2006 amendment which specifically included tribal non-commercial plans in the definition of a governmental plan, evince an intent that commercial plans administered by Indian tribes are covered by ERISA and subject to the provisions in Subchapter I. The Court rejected the Defendants' argument that whether ERISA applies to a commercial plan administered by an Indian tribe and whether it abrogates that entity's sovereign immunity to be free from private civil enforcement are two distinct questions. The Court stated that the statute makes clear that, barring the application of explicit exceptions not relevant here, all of Subchapter I applies to a plan that comes within the scope of 29 U.S.C. Section 1003, which, per the 2006 amendment, includes commercial tribal plans. The Court found that courts that have rendered decisions on this specific issue have almost uniformly determined that the 2006 amendment to ERISA exempting government plans administered by tribes acts as an expressed intention that non-governmental, or commercial, plans administered by tribes are subject to ERISA and the tribe's sovereign immunity is abrogated as to those plans. The Court found that the relevant provisions of ERISA, including the 2006 amendment, express a clear intent that the sovereign immunity to suit for Indian tribes is abrogated as to commercial plans those tribes provide for their employees. The Court noted that the Defendants acknowledged that the plan covers substantially all eligible employees of Turning Stone Enterprises and that most members of the putative class work at Turning Stone Resort Casino, which has been recognized by the Second Circuit as a commercial enterprise. The Court stated that based on the Defendants' own statements, it does not appear that the plan would meet the definition of a governmental plan because it is not one in which substantially all of the employees' services are in the performance of essential government functions but not in the performance of commercial activities. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is denied. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 9, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=trIV6p from PacerMonitor.com TYRONE OLIVER: Plaintiffs Win Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIS BENJAMIN; FANTASIA HORTON; NAEOMI MADISON; BRYNN WILSON; and JOHN DOE; on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, v. COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER, in his official capacity; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RANDY SAULS, in his official capacity; STATEWIDE MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. MARLAH MARDIS, in her official capacity; and CENTURION OF GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04470-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Calvert entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for order to give class notice is Granted in part as to dissemination by one-on-one meetings between class members, including those with a transgender profile in GDC custody, and medical and mental health staff, and Denied in part as to posting in common areas where patients go for medical or mental health appointments. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class on a final basis is granted. -- the Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction and for partial summary judgment is granted, and the Court enters the following permanent injunction: As to Class A: To the extent they have not done so already, Defendants are directed to immediately cease tapering hormone therapy doses to class members for the purpose of S.B. 185 compliance. As to Class B: Defendants are directed to evaluate class members for hormone therapy according to the applicable standard of care without regard to S.B. 185 compliance. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' implementation of S.B. 185 violates their Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment under color of state law, entitling them to permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of that law under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pSJy6i at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Bid in Davis Modified to July 24, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK DAVIS, SR., MATHEW KOOHNS, and BRETT A. LOCKHART, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly shared, v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF WASHINGTON, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01220-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order on joint motion to modify scheduling order: Event Deadline Substantial completion of fact discovery: June 12, 2026 Disclosure of the Plaintiffs' class July 10, 2026 certification expert name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected testimony: Class certification motion and service of July 24, 2026 the Plaintiffs' class-certification expert report (if any): Disclosure of the Defendants' class Aug. 21, 2026 certification expert name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected testimony: Opposition to class certification and Sept. 11, 2026 service of the Defendants' class certification expert report (if any): Reply to class certification and service Oct. 9, 2026 of rebuttal class-certification expert report (if any): Substantial completion of any supplemental Jan. 8, 2027 fact discovery: Close of expert discovery: April 2, 2027 UnitedHealth is an American multinational for-profit company specializing in health insurance and health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g7CBQY at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SEATING: Class Settlement in Ducrepin Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ducrepin v. United Seating and Mobility, LLC (RE: NUMOTION DATA INCIDENT LITIGATION), Case No. 3:24-cv-00545 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Trauger entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and (e), the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class in this matter defined as follows: "All living persons who received notice of the Data Incidents." 2. The Settlement Class is likely to include over a million people. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) the Defendant and its parents, subsidiaries, officers and directors, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (2) all Persons who submit a timely and valid opt out from the Settlement Class; (3) the Judge assigned to this Action, and the Judge's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrences of the Data Incidents, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 3. The Court finds that Plaintiffs will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. United provides mobility solutions, wheelchairs, and mobility equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n0mfyH at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Angel Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is styled as Joshua J. Angel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:25-cv-02040-RMM (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., Dec. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua J. Angel, Esq. 9 East 79th Street New York City, NY 10075 Phone: (907) 714-0409 Email: joshuaangelnyc@gmail.com UNITED STATES: Dickinson Sues Over Excessive Force v. Protesters ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACK DICKINSON (a.k.a. "the Portland Chicken"); LAURIE ECKMAN; RICHARD ECKMAN; MASON LAKE; and HUGO RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in her official capacity; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendants, Case 3:25-cv-02170-SB (D. Or., Nov. 21, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' pattern and practice of violating Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants are repeatedly deploying unnecessary, excessive and indiscriminate force against Plaintiffs and class members to retaliate against them for protesting against Defendants' immigration policies and trying to report on their violence against those who speak out. At the same time, they are allowing people who favor the administration's frightening and violent tactics behind their lines to record events. The Defendants must be enjoined from gassing, shooting, hitting and arresting peaceful Portlanders and journalists willing to document federal abuses as if they are enemy combatants, says the suit. The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly Simon, Esq. Eri Andriola, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON PO Box 40585 Portland, OR 97240 Email: ksimon@aclu-or.org eandriola@aclu-or.org - and - J. Ashlee Albies, Esq. ALBIES & STARK LLC 1500 SW First Ave., Ste. 1000 Portland OR 97201 Facsimile: (503) 427-9292 Email: ashlee@albiesstark.com - and - Jane L Moisan, Esq. PEOPLE'S LAW PROJECT 1500 SW First Ave., Ste. 1000 Portland OR 97201 Facsimile: 503.558.2025 Email: jane@pdxplp.com - and - Alexander M. Tinker, Esq. Daniel H. Skerritt, Esq. Maureen S. Bayer, Esq. Olivia Ashe, Esq. TONKON TORP LLP 1300 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 2400 Portland, OR 97201 Email: alex.tinker@tonkon.com daniel.skerritt@tonkon.com maureen.bayer@tonkon.com olivia.ashe@tonkon.com UNITED STATES: San Jose, Calif. Court Hears Immigration Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dustin Dorsey, writing for ABC 7 News, reports that in a San Jose federal courtroom, a judge heard a local case with nationwide implications. A federal class-action lawsuit against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Justice seeks to put a stop to a policy of detaining immigrants the government previously determined were neither dangerous nor a flight risk. The policy implemented this year allows ICE to detain people, who have not been determined to be a danger to the community or a threat to flee, at check-in appointments and at immigration court. The class-action lawsuit seeks to end this policy. Bree Bernwanger, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, says the case of Frescia Garro Pinchi is an example of why that policy is problematic. "It's about what ICE, what police can do and why they can throw someone into jail," Bernwanger said. "We have all seen the images of ICE agents going into immigration courts and grabbing people out of their family's arms for no reason. That is something that should concern us all." Garro Pinchi is a Hayward resident who left Peru and is seeking asylum based on her sexuality. In July, she was detained while attending her immigration court hearing in San Francisco. After filing a petition for her arrest, Berwanger said the government was asked by U.S. Federal Court Judge Casey Pitts what reason they had to detain Garro Pinchi. "They said, 'nothing. We just think we have discretion to detain her,'" Bernwanger said. "That explains what they have been doing when they sweep people up who have been following the rules and complying with the law and that's what has to stop." Tuesday, December 9, in U.S. federal court, the government justified their position. The DOJ did not provide a formal comment after the hearing despite our request. But during court, their lawyers said arrest is part of the risk of being here illegally and that laws on detention give them the ability to detain at their discretion. Jordan Wells, a Senior Staff Attorney at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, argued this presents a catch 22 - offering immigrants and asylum seekers the choice of giving up an immigration case or giving up their freedom. "It's not that ICE can never do this. It's that they have to have a policy that's well-reasoned," Wells said. "And, as with so many of the policies under this administration, they declare an emergency or declare an invasion and they just start moving fast and breaking stuff." The ACLU formally requested to pause this policy while the lawsuit plays out in court. Judge Pitts will mull over the arguments made during this hearing. While he says there is some urgency to this matter, a final decision may take several weeks. [GN] URNER BARRY: Habash et al. Sue Over Egg Price-Fixing Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- TARIQ HABASH, DELIA GOVEA, ANDREW PHILLIPS, and CATALINA TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC., CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; HILLANDALE FARMS CORPORATION, OPAL FOODS LLC, and ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., Defendants, Case No.1:25-cv-14112 (N.D. Ill., November 18, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating antitrust, consumer protection and common laws in connection with their alleged conspiracy to fix prices of eggs. While the relevant market faced minor headwinds due to an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, the supply of eggs in the relevant market remained relatively stable. Despite this, Defendants, UEP and other egg producers used avian flu as a cover for their conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize Egg prices. At the behest of consumers, this price-fixing conspiracy enabled egg producers in the relevant market to delegate pricing to a common decision maker, enabling producers to drastically inflate prices of eggs without fear that their competitors would undercut their prices and capture market share, alleges the suit. Headquartered in Toms River, New Jersey, Urner Barry Publications, Inc. provides market news, data, and analysis for the global food industry, particularly poultry, egg, meat, and seafood. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 1330 Ave. of the Americas, Suite 23A New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: byagman@sshhzlaw.com VALVE CORP: Welty Class Suit Filed in W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valve Corporation. The case is captioned as PAMELA WELTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALVE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02450-DWC (W.D. Wash., Nov. 10, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge David W. Christel. Valve Corporation operates as a software company. The Company develops and publishes video games. Valve serves customers in the worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW Ste 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 Email: dperry@masonllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Virginia F Milstead, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM 2000 Avenue of the Stars Ste 200 N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 Email: virginia.milstead@skadden.com VESTIS CORPORATION: Faces O'Neill Securities Suit over Bylaws ------------------------------------------------------------- Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that it is currently facing a consolidated shareholder suit over its bylaws. On June 4, 2024, a purported Vestis shareholder commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Vestis, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned "O'Neill v. Vestis Corp.," Case No. 2024-0600-JTL. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of Vestis' shareholders. The complaint alleges a single claim for declaratory judgment, seeking to invalidate and void Section II.5(d) of Vestis' Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective September 29, 2023. On October 7, 2024, the court granted a stipulation to consolidate multiple related actions involving similar company defendants, including the Vestis action, solely for purposes of adjudicating an omnibus motion to dismiss the complaints in each of those actions. On October 11, 2024, Vestis and the other consolidated defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. The court held a hearing on the omnibus motion to dismiss on May 14, 2025 and Vestis is awaiting the court's decision. Vestis Corporation is a provider of uniform rentals and workplace supplies across the United States and Canada. VESTIS CORPORATION: Faces Torres Suit over Business Figures ----------------------------------------------------------- Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that it is facing a June 9, 2025, a purported Vestis shareholder putative class action lawsuit against it and certain of its former officers, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned "Torres v. Vestis Corporation, et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-04844. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Vestis' common stock between May 2, 2024 and May 6, 2025, inclusive. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly false or misleading statements generally related to its business and operations, pricing practices, and financial results and outlook. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. Motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the Court on August 8, 2025. On August 25, 2025, the court appointed the Board of Trustees of the Police Officers' Retirement Plan and Trust Fund for the City of Miramar to serve as lead plaintiff and also appointed lead counsel. Vestis Corporation is a provider of uniform rentals and workplace supplies across the United States and Canada. VIRMEDICE LLC: Dossett Sues Over Unprotected Patient Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karin Dossett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VirMedice, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04322-ASB (D. Ariz., November 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to secure the personal identifiable information and the protected health information of its patients. On or around September 11, 2025, the Defendant experienced a data breach that was made by the ransomware group Pear. The data breach resulted in the unauthorized access and exfiltration of files containing private information including name, Social Security number, address, and medical information. To date, the Defendant has yet to issue any public disclosure about the data breach. As a result of the Defendant's ongoing failure to notify Plaintiff and Class Members regarding the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been unable to take the necessary precautions to prevent future fraud and mitigate damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to its impermissibly inadequate data security measures and seeks injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of proper security measures to protect the Private Information that remains in Defendant's possession. Headquartered in Phoenix, AZ, VirMedice, LLC. provides practice management and electronic health record solutions and medical data management services to its various medical practices and practitioners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7508 N. 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Telephone: (602) 730-7100 E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 612-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com VOLATILITY SHARES: Mertiri Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volatility Shares LLC, et al. The case is styled as Erguis Mertiri, individually and others similarly situated v. Volatility Shares LLC, John Does 1-10, VS Trust, Case No. 1:25-cv-09752-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Volatility Shares -- https://www.volatilityshares.com/ -- builds leveraged, crypto-linked, and VIX related exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for experienced traders.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. VOLT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figueroa Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP.; VOLT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS; VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, INC.; NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV32973 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 10, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Figueroa was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Volt Management Corporation provides recruitment and staffing services. The Company offers consulting, direct hire, temporary staffing, training, direct placement, contract employees, and payroll services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. Ana Galdava, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 WALMART INC: Continues to Defend Opioid Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Walmart Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the opioid-related securities class action. The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's disclosures with respect to opioids purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017 through December 22, 2020. Those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2021 and later consolidated. On April 8, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss these actions. The plaintiffs appealed, and on August 29, 2025, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of these actions. WALMART INC: Opioid Distribution Suits Remain Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Walmart Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and certain other subsidiaries of the Company have been named as defendants in two putative class action complaints filed in Canada related to distribution practices involving opioids. These matters remain pending. WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYMIE GUSTAFSON, on behalf of herself and the putative class, v. WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03033-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit Mehta entered an order granting consent motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The Court says that the Plaintiff is excused from filing a Motion for Certification within the 90-day time period set forth under Local Rule 23.1. Washington Nationals operates as a professional baseball team. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2CmXD9 at no extra charge.[CC] WAYFAIR LLC: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair LLC. The case is styled as Charles White, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Wayfair LLC, Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV155144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Wayfair Inc. -- https://www.wayfair.com/ -- is an American e-commerce company based in Boston, Massachusetts that sells furniture and home goods online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Fax: (855) 786-6356 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com WEL COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Island Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ADRIENNE ISLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-1867 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 24, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that due to the Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff has already expended time and suffered loss of productivity from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate, mitigate, and address the future consequences of the data breach, including investigating the breach, researching how best to ensure that she is protected from identity theft, reviewing account statements and other information, and taking other steps in an attempt to mitigate the harm caused by the said data breach, alleges the suit. WEL Companies, Inc. provides trucking and warehousing services. The Company offers logistic services, including fine-tuned transportation management, warehousing, detailed specialized program, and cheese financing services, transportation such as temperature-controlled transport, and freight dry transport, truckload, rail, fleet, and other warehousing services. [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 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com WP COMPANY: Kim Files Data Breach Class Suit in D.D.C. ------------------------------------------------------ JUN HEE KIM, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. WP COMPANY LLC D/B/A THE WASHINGTON POST, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04229 (D.D.C., December 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct. According to the complaint, as an employer, Defendant was entrusted with, and obligated to safeguard and protect, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class in accordance with all applicable law and industry standards. The Defendant, however, failed to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. Specifically, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to take place between July 10, 2025, and August 22, 2025. The types of personal data exposed included names, employee ID numbers, bank account numbers, and routing numbers. Approximately 10,000 employees and contractors had their personal and financial data exposed as a consequence of the Breach. The Defendants learned of the Data Breach on October 27, 2025, and determined that Class members' Private Information had been compromised. Yet, Defendants unreasonably delayed notifying affected issues, failing to begin issuing its Notice of Data Breach letters until November 12, 2025, the complaint asserts. As a result of Defendant's Data Breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of Class members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, it adds. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate, long-term credit monitoring services funded by Defendants, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Jun Hee Kim was an employee of Defendant from 2018 through 2019. Defendant The Washington Post is a daily newspaper located at 1301 K Street NW, Washington, D.C., 20071. It offers both print and digital publications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane N. Manwarring, Esq. 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: jmanwarring@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***