251218.mbx

251218.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 252 Headlines ALEXANDRIA REAL: Hern Sues Over Improper Investment Scheme AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification AMERICAN HONDA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mayes Says AMERICAN TEXTILE: Final Hearing in $750,000 Suit Deal Set Feb. 11 AURA HOME: Agrees to Settle Facial Matching Data Suit for $1.89MM B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Gale Shareholder Class Suit BETTER RISE: Faces Pratt Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls BOLLA OPERATING: Vasquez Wins Class Cert Bid BOX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christopher Alleges BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Seeks to Certify Class Action BULLDOZER HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Bids in Fernandez Due Dec. 10 C&W FACILITY: Villa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALMAT COMPANY: Court Stays Tejede Suit CAMPBELL SOUP: Judge Dismisses Deceptive Label Class Action Suit CASELY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Quigley Suit Claims CAZZY'S GRILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Friedenstab Claims CEREBRAL INC: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit for $500,000 CLASSICA CRUISE: Seaberg Class Suit Filed in M.D. Fla. CLUB 180: Plaintiffs' Bid to Compel Mediation Tossed CLUB 180: Streblow Class Suit Seeks Video Mediation Conference COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Initial Scheduling Conference Order Entered CORVEL ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 15, 2026 CURB MOBILITY: Kretschmer Sues Over Transport Service Price-Fixing CURRENEX INC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Jan. 13, 2026 CYTODYN INC: Settles Securities Suit over COVID Drug DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid DECOPAC INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $400,000 DELTA DENTAL: Green Files Suit in W.D. Virginia DELTA DENTAL: Livingston Files Suit in W.D. Virginia DEPTFORD COMMONS: Maurer Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers DEREK LOESER: Pete Files Suit in N.D. California DIVINE LIFE: Milton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ELEVANCE HEALTH: Nurse Class Gets Certification in Landis Suit ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bhagavan Securities Suit ETSY INC: Illegally Collects Web Visitors' Personal Info, Suit Says EXXON MOBIL: Faces Kennedy Suit Over Fossil Fuel Monopoly FALCON HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $800,000 FATHOM REALTY: $2.85MM Suit Deal Deadline for Exclusion Set Jan 7 FIRST ADVANTAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 13, 2026 FLOWERS BAKERIES: Walls Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FULL HOUSE: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Monroe Says FULLSTORY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 30, 2026 GERBER PAYROLL: Class Cert. Bid in Coghill Suit Due July 15, 2026 GOOGLE LLC: Kwitny Sues Over Defective Smart Home Devices GRUBHUB INC: Agrees to Settle Restaurant Listing Suit for $7.15MM HARCROS CHEMICALS: Court Consolidates Securities Cases HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI HEALTHPLEX INC: Davis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York HUGHES FEDERAL CREDIT: Gatlin Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona INTEGER HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Epperson JIT-EX LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, O'Donnell Says KODY KINSLEY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 5, 2026 KRISTI NOEM: Noncitizen Class in Hernandez Gets Certification LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Burrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Opposition Briefs Due Jan. 26, 2026 LAVOI CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Suit Claims LELAND STANFORD: Class Cert. Hearing Set for August 20, 2026 LEMONAID HEALTH: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $3.25 Million LOS ANGELES, CA: Black Lives Matter Seeks to Certify Classes LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Guan Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Seeks to Stay Discovery MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Hart Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Delgado Due June 12, 2026 MUNICIPAL PARKING: Court Stays Levine Pending Class Cert Resolution NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $1.4-Mil. NCAA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Opposition Deadline NORWAY SAVINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Domenichello Says ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, King Suit Says ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lamere Suit Says PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lester Alleges PERSONIC MANAGEMENT: Hesselberg Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info PHILADELPHIA PARKING: Underpays Security Officers, McCleary Says PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Penna Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $7.75-Mil. RAYONIER INC: M&A Investigates Merger With PotlatchDeltic SAN ANTONIO, TX: Judge Certifies Harassment Class Action Lawsuit SIGNALHIRE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gaul Due Dec. 18 SIRENS DESIGN: Bell Class Suit Filed in Cal. Super. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kelechian Says ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Miller" T & D DOHERTY: Fails to Pay Premium Overtime Wages, Montes Says TACO BELL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chautin Suit Claims TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Defective Powerwall 2 Battery Systems TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Kids' Data Privacy TRANS UNION: Bilodeau Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA TRIMBLE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hightower Alleges UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Malone Suit Says UNITED STATES: Pay Nurses Overtime Wages as Class Settlement UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Do‑Not‑Call Texts UNIVERSAL COMPANIES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website V COVINGTON: Faces Lavin Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection VANGUARD PARKING: Discloses Drivers' Personal Info, Lahitte Says VITAS HOSPICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fleitas Suit Alleges VITAS HOSPICE: Miakos Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data WEL COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Eriksen Alleges WELLS FARGO: $33M Free Trial Suit Deal Final OK Hearing Set Mar. 26 WESTERN REPORTING: Removes Hall Suit from Cal. Super. to W.D. Wash. WONDER GROUP: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ZILLOW HOME: Federal Judge OKs Motion to Combine Two Kickback Suits ********* ALEXANDRIA REAL: Hern Sues Over Improper Investment Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- WARREN HERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, INC.; PETER M. MOGLIA; MARC E. BINDA; and JOEL S. MARCUS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-11319 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2025) is a class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Alexandria securities between January 27, 2025 to October 27, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Class Period, the Defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon. The Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such scheme was intended to, and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Alexandria's common stock; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase or otherwise acquire Alexandria's securities at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan and course of conduct, Defendants, and each of them, took the actions set forth herein, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases, acquisitions and sales of the Company's common stock. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. is a real estate investment trust based in Pasadena, California that invests in office buildings and laboratories leased to tenants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 515 South Flower Street 18th and 19th Floors Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 Email: aapton@zlk.com AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), (2) appointing the Named Plaintiffs as Class representatives, (3) appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Sperling Kenny Nachwalter, LLC as Class Counsel, and (4) granting such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Amazon.com is a global technology company primarily involved in the sale of a range of products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hBbSVx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Nathan Emmons, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com nathane@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Paul E. Slater, Esq. Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Phillip F. Cramer, Esq. James Almon, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com pes@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com pcramer@sperling-law.com jalmon@sperling-law.com AMERICAN HONDA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Mayes Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FAREED MAYES, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a corporation, and ADECCO USA, INC., a corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-11253 (C.D. Cal., November 24, 2025) is a collective and class action brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff and their hourly employees for the donning and doffing work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts, when they were not clocked into Defendant's timekeeping system. This resulted in hourly employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked and in workweeks in which the Hourly Employees worked overtime, for straight time. The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to include non-discretionary bonuses and other forms of remuneration in hourly employees' regular-rate calculations and by applying a multiplier of less than one and a half times the regular rate when calculating overtime, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately January 29, 2024 through August 11, 2025. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. manufactures and produces automobiles, engines, transmissions, EV batteries, and powersports products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park E. #860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 579-0600 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com AMERICAN TEXTILE: Final Hearing in $750,000 Suit Deal Set Feb. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that American Textile Company has agreed to pay $750,000 to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed that certain Sealy bed sheets were falsely labeled as having a 1250 thread count, an allegedly highly inflated calculation. The Sealy class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 30, 2025 and covers all consumers in the United States who, between October 19, 2016 and October 30, 2025, purchased a Sealy bedding product labeled as having a 1250 thread count. Per court documents, the Sealy products covered by the settlement include, but are not limited to, "Ultimate Indulgence," "Premium Comfort," "Cool Comfort," "Premium Cooling," and "Superior Cooling" bedding. The court-approved website for the Sealy class action settlement can be found at https://www.ThreadCountSettlement.com/. According to the settlement website, Sealy settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form proof of purchase of any of the Sealy products at issue are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $5 per product, with no set limit on the number of products for which a class member can receive reimbursement. In lieu of a documented-proof-of-purchase settlement payment, class members with a valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $5 per product, for a maximum of eight products, the site says. Should the aggregate amount of approved claims be more or less than the amount of money made available to class members, the amount paid out for each valid claim may be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis, the website notes. Importantly, a class member can submit a claim form for eligible Sealy purchases with and without proof and will be paid for the total combined amount of the claim, the settlement website says. Per the settlement agreement: "Claims with Proof of Purchase and without Proof of Purchase shall be cumulative. For example, if a Claimant makes a claim for six (6) products without Proof of Purchase and for five (5) Products with Proof of Purchase, that Claimant shall receive compensation for eleven (11) Products for $55.00." Sealy class members may elect to receive their settlement payout via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days after issuance before expiration. To submit a Sealy settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and complete the applicable fields to receive their payout as outlined on the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the bottom of the document. Consumers with questions about the agreement and their payment can contact the settlement administrator to receive more information. All Sealy settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 12, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Sealy settlement at a hearing on February 11, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Sealy class action lawsuit alleged that Sealy maker American Textile Company significantly inflated and subsequently mislabeled the thread count on a number of its bedding products. [GN] AURA HOME: Agrees to Settle Facial Matching Data Suit for $1.89MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of Claim Depot LLC reports that Illinois consumers who signed up for an Aura account between July 16, 2019, and Nov. 4, 2025, and whom Aura Home Inc. d/b/a Aura Frames collected facial matching data from their photographs may be eligible to claim up to $13.28 from a class action settlement. Aura Home Inc. agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it collected, stored and used individuals' biometric identifiers and information, specifically, facial geometry, without obtaining informed written consent or providing the required data retention and destruction policies in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Who can file a claim? To qualify as a class member and file a claim, individuals must meet all of the following criteria: 1. They signed up for an Aura account within the state of Illinois between July 16, 2019, and Nov. 4, 2025. 2. Aura Home collected facial matching data from their photographs. How much is the Aura Frames payout? The settlement administrator will divide the total settlement fund of $1,897,553 equally among all claimants. Eligible class members could receive a payment of up to $13.28. The actual amount may be less, depending on the number of valid claims submitted and deductions for attorneys' fees, service awards and administrative costs. How to claim a settlement payment Class members can submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Feb. 2, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: AF BIPA Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 Required proof and documentation To file an online claim, class members must log in with the unique ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Those who are unable to locate their ID and PIN should contact the settlement administrator by emailing info@AFBIPASettlement.com or calling 833-417-4975 and providing their full name and mailing address. Payout options The settlement administrator will mail checks to eligible claimants at the address they provide on the claim form. Checks will expire and become void 90 days after the administrator issues them. $1.9 million settlement fund breakdown The $1,897,553 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees, costs and expenses: Up to $759,021.20 -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each for three representatives ($7,500 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Jan. 16, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Feb. 2, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 12, 2026 When is the Aura Frames BIPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will mail checks to eligible claimants approximately 11 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged that Aura Home Inc. collected, stored and used facial geometry data from Illinois users' photographs without obtaining informed written consent or providing the required data retention and destruction policies in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Aura Home denies any wrongdoing or liability. The parties agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainties and expenses of ongoing litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $13.28 Deadline: February 2, 2026 [GN] B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated 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 a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On January 24, 2024, a putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mike Coan in U.S. Federal District Court, Central District of California, against the Company, Mr. Riley, Tom Kelleher and Phillip Ahn. The purported class includes persons and entities that purchased shares of the Company's common stock between May 10, 2023 and November 9, 2023. A second putative class action lawsuit was filed on March 15, 2024 by the KL Kamholz Joint Revocable Trust ("Kamholz"). On August 8, 2024, this matter was consolidated with the Kamholz matter and an amended complaint was then filed on April 21, 2025. The amended complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose to investors material financial details concerning a going private transaction involving FRG, and that the Company made false or misleading statements concerning the Company's lending practices, its high concentration of risk in transactions involving Mr. Kahn and his affiliates, the condition and composition of the Company's loan portfolio, the Company's due diligence and risk management procedures, and the Company’s level of concern and internal scrutiny concerning Mr. Kahn after it learned he was potentially implicated in a fraud involving an unrelated third party. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company cannot estimate the amount of potential liability, if any, that could arise from these matters and believes these claims are meritless and intends to defend these actions. 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. B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Gale Shareholder Class 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 Gale shareholder class suit in the Delaware Chancery Court. On July 9, 2024, a putative class action was filed by Brian Gale, Mark Noble, Terry Philippas and Lawrence Bass in the Delaware Chancery Court against Freedom VCM, Mr. Kahn, Andrew Laurence, Matthew Avril, and the Company. This complaint alleges that former shareholders of FRG suffered damages due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by officers, directors and other participants in the August 2023 management-led take private transaction of FRG and that the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The claim seeks an award of unspecified damages, rescissory damages and/or quasi-appraisal damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and interest thereon. 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. BETTER RISE: Faces Pratt Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------- KRISTEN PRATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER RISE CAPITAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01558 (W.D. Tex., November 24, 2025) is a putative class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant engages in unsolicited robocalling to promote its products and services. The Defendant harassed Plaintiff and members of the Class with prerecorded robocalls, the purpose of which was to promote and advertise the commercial availability of Defendant's goods and services, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages to put an end to Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet of Plaintiff and the Class members. Better Rise Capital LLC is a loan agency headquartered in California.[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 BOLLA OPERATING: Vasquez Wins Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE A. VASQUEZ and BASHARAT ALI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. BOLLA OPERATING L.I. CORP. d/b/a/ Bolla Market, BOLLA OPERATING CORP. d/b/a/ Bolla Market and HARVINDER SINGH, Case No. 2:22-cv-07014-NCM-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, in -- appointing Jose Vasquez as lead Plaintiff, -- appointing Peter Romero and David Barnhorn as class counsel, and -- authorizing dissemination of class notice under Rule 23. On Nov. 16, 2022, Jose Vasquez filed a class action against Harvinder Singh, Bolla Operating L.I. Corporation and Bolla Operating Corporation alleging unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York’s Labor Law (NYLL). On April 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Basharat Ali as a named Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class of all minimum wage Bolla employees who were not compensated spread of hours pay. The Plaintiffs allege they did not receive a one-hour paid break during the workday. Both Vasquez and Ali worked as cashiers at various Bolla locations starting in 2019. The Plaintiffs were paid the statutory minimum wage and regularly worked shifts exceeding 10-hours. Bolla is gas station/convenience store. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UVVOD2 at no extra charge.[CC] BOX INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christopher Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- COLIN CHRISTOPHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOX, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-016634 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov. 28, 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 Christopher was employed by the Defendant as an outbound business representative. Box, Inc. develops intelligent content cloud software. The Company operates a content sharing platform that enables users to share, access, and manage content in the cloud, as well as provides mobile access, file storage, and online collaboration solutions. Box serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA HETTINGER, v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), -- Appointing Ms. Hettinger as the representative of the class, and -- Appointing Ms. Hettinger's counsel as counsel for the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Ms. Hettinger seeks certification of two classes: Drip-Pricing Class: "All current and former residential tenants at a Bozzuto managed property who filed a rental application while Bozzuto managed that property and who were charged or paid a Service Fee or variable utility charges between Dec. 5, 2020, and Aug. 27, 2025." Overcharge Class: "All current and former residential tenants of the Properties at a Bozzuto-managed property in the District of Columbia who were charged or paid a per-1,000 gallon rate for water or sewer service greater than the lawfully established regulatory cap at any point since Dec. 5, 2020." Bozzuto is engaged in renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9wUiR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com rchen@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com BULLDOZER HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Bids in Fernandez Due Dec. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fernandez v. Bulldozer Hospitality Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04490-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Subramanian entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' request to file their summary judgment and class certification motions on Dec. 10, 2025. The Plaintiffs’ claims for which they seek to summary judgment are identical to the class’s claims. In fact, the facts underlying those claims, i.e., that none of OLB's employees received the paperwork they required to receive, are the same facts that will support Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Bulldozer is a hospitality investment and management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmCgab at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 C&W FACILITY: Villa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&W Facility Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Villa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD WESTERN, INC., Case No. CU-25-00290 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Civil Unlimited." C&W Services -- https://cwservices.com/ -- is a leading integrated facility services company that provides customized solutions in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CALMAT COMPANY: Court Stays Tejede Suit --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN MANUEL TEJEDA, v. CALMAT COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00619-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Spero entered an order denying motion for class certification without prejudice and staying case: The Court denies the Motion without prejudice and stays this action pending issuance of a decision in that case. All dates in the case, including summary judgment briefing and hearing deadlines, are vacated. The parties shall notify the Court of a decision in the Camp case within 14 days of issuance of the decision. A status conference is set for June 3, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action asserting wage and hour claims under California law against his former employer, CalMat Company. Calmat manufactures, produces, distributes, and sells construction materials, including aggregates, hot mix asphalt, and ready mixed concrete. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xEhK0F at no extra charge.[CC] CAMPBELL SOUP: Judge Dismisses Deceptive Label Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimber Cooley, writing for MetNews, reports that a divided panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that a District Court judge properly dismissed a putative class action alleging that Campbell Soup Company deceptively labels chips as "Air Fried" when the preparation purportedly involves dipping the snacks in a "vat of oil," finding that other descriptions on the packaging indicating that the items are "Kettle Cooked" cure any reasonable confusion. Syed Husain, a resident of San Mateo County, filed his putative class action complaint against the New Jersey-based company on March 22 of last year, asserting unfair competition and false advertising claims under California's Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et. seq., the Unfair Competition Law, and Sec. 17500 et seq., the False Advertising Law. In the operative pleading, Husain alleged: "The phrase on the front . . . and . . . back label, 'Kettle Cooked Air Finished' does not remedy the deceptive nature of the 'Air Fried' representation. First, the phrase 'Kettle Cooked' is false. The Product is not cooked in 'kettles,' as admitted by at least one representative of Defendant. Second, the phrase 'Kettle Cooked' -- even if it had been true -- implies the use of steam, rather than oil, since kettles are commonly associated with boiling water . . . . Third, the phrase is in orders of magnitude smaller than the 'Air Fried' representation. Finally, the phrase is, at best, ambiguous since 'Kettle' is the brand name, leaving reasonable consumers to interpret the phrase . . . as a marketing jingle." Plaintiff's Intent He sought to represent "[a]ll persons who purchased any of [the purportedly deceptively-labeled products] . . . from on or about February 15, 2023, to the date of class certification." Last September, Senior District Court Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California granted the defendant's request to dismiss the operative complaint, saying: "Because the front label discloses that the Product is kettle cooked, Plaintiff's case, too, is fried. The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss." Majority Opinion Yesterday's memorandum decision, signed by Senior Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas and Circuit Judge Daniel Aaron Bress, affirms the dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, declaring: "Under California law, deceptive advertising claims are governed by the 'reasonable consumer' test, which 'requires a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.' . . . To determine whether a product label plausibly deceives, we first look at the challenged product's front label. "Here, Husain fails to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived into believing that the chips are not deep fried in oil. The front of the packaging prominently states that the chips are not just 'Air Fried,' but also 'Kettle Cooked Air Finished.' The front label therefore expressly describes a two-step process that involves both kettle cooking and air frying. The suggestion that the chips are exclusively air fried is belied by the plain language of the front of the packaging. And we agree with the district court that reasonable consumers would understand 'kettle cooked' to refer to the commonly understood method of deep frying potato chips in oil. Husain's contention that "kettle cooked" could refer to potato chips being cooked in water or steam is not plausible." Adding that "even if the front label is ambiguous, the rest of the packaging cures any ambiguity," they pointed out that the ingredients list includes "vegetable oil" and remarked: "There is also a pictorial depiction of potato slices being dropped into a vat of boiling liquid that a reasonable consumer would understand to be oil, especially given the visible droplets bubbling out of the pot. Given this context, no reasonable consumer unsure of the meaning of the front label would be deceived into thinking that the chips are not deep fried in oil." Disagreeing with that analysis, Circuit Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. penned a dissent, saying: "The majority's conclusion that no reasonable consumer could be misled by the Campbell Soup Company's 'Air Fried' chip packaging departs from the plausibility standard that governs at the motion-to-dismiss stage and misconstrues how reasonable consumers (rather than judges parsing labels with technical precision) interact with food claims in a typical marketplace." Mendoza wrote: "At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, our task is only to determine whether a 'reasonable consumer' could at least plausibly conclude what the front of this packaging obviously intends to communicate: that the chips are exclusively 'Air Fried.' The complaint alleges exactly that, and the labeling readily supports it." Noting that the defendant admitted at oral argument that "kettle cooked" is an "industry" term, he continued: "Consumers purchasing bags of chips at a store are not required to understand formalized industry jargon or technical food-processing methods. The suggestion that a reasonable consumer would read 'kettle cooked' as ambiguously qualifying the clearly-implied sole method of frying, rather than plausibly indicating parboiling, steaming, or other alternative chip-cooking methods, is inconsistent with the way we evaluate labels at the motion-to-dismiss stage and contrary to how the everyday grocery store shopper views packaging." As to the majority's reliance on the advertised fat content, he opined: "The majority contends that a reasonable consumer simply must know and conclude that the presence of any fat or oil necessarily means that the chips are also deep fried. But, again, the majority is simply incorrect. Air frying does not suggest the use of no oil or fat, but a lesser use of oil that is placed on the chips so that they fry via circulating hot air. By misconstruing the utility of the 30% Less Fat label in misleading a reasonable consumer, the majority also misconstrues Husain's complaint, which focuses on whether the packaging communicates that the chips are deep fried, not whether the chips have any oil or fat." The case is Husain v. Campbell Soup Company, 24-6041. [GN] CASELY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Quigley Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- CARSON QUIGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASELY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02424-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. The case is assigned to Judge David O. Carter, and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. Casely, Inc. is a lifestyle brand that makes tech accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane , Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com CAZZY'S GRILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Friedenstab Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ KATHERINE FRIEDENSTAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAZZY'S GRILL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00581 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 25, 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 Friedenstab was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Cazzy's Grill, LLC owns and operates two Cazzy's Corner Grill restaurants in the Knoxville Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com CEREBRAL INC: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit for $500,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Cerebral Inc. has agreed to a $500,000 class action settlement to wrap up a lawsuit that alleged the healthcare provider unlawfully disclosed the online activity and private information of patient accountholders via secret web analytics technologies like Facebook's Meta Pixel. The Cerebral class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 26, 2025 and covers all Cerebral accountholders residing in California who received a web usage disclosure notification letter from Cerebral in March 2023. The court-approved website for the Cerebral class action lawsuit settlement can be found at https://CerebralPixelSettlement.com/. According to the website, Cerebral settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time $300 in-kind payment credit to be used toward a future Cerebral Therapy & Medication plan, and a one-time, pro-rated cash payout from the net settlement fund. The settlement site adds that the total amount each class member may receive will be based on the total number of valid claims submitted and the amount left in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, settlement costs and service awards. Per the settlement agreement, the $300 credit can be applied only to eligible services billed as "self-pay" (not those paid through insurance or by CerebralRx), and the pro-rated cash payment can be deposited directly into the bank account provided by the claimant on their claim form, or sent through electronic payment services. To submit a Cerebral settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but were not sent a notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed at the bottom of the document. All Cerebral settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 22, 2026. The court will hold a hearing to determine whether to grant final approval to the Cerebral data sharing settlement at a hearing on March 9, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. If final approval is granted, claimants will receive a code for the $300 credit via email. To activate the code, they must email support@cerebral.com with their first and last name, Claimant ID, and Redemption Code to redeem the credit within 120 days of its issuance. There is no deadline by which the entire credit must be used. The Cerebral class action lawsuit alleged that the mental healthcare provider wrongfully tracked and disclosed sensitive patient information without consent to third parties through web analytics tools like the Meta Pixel. [GN] CLASSICA CRUISE: Seaberg Class Suit Filed in M.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against Classica Cruise Operator, Ltd, Inc. The case is captioned as DANIELLE SEABERG, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD, INC. doing business as: Margaritaville at Sea, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-02072-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Carlos E. Mendoza and referred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway. Classica Cruise Operator, Ltd, Inc. doing business as: Margaritaville at Sea is a cruise line that operates cruises out of Florida to the Bahamas and the Caribbean. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - William Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 401 E Jackson Street Truist Place Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com CLUB 180: Plaintiffs' Bid to Compel Mediation Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUCK STREBLOW, et al., v. CLUB 180, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Carson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Mediation. As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs makes several representations in the motion that cause concern. First, Plaintiffs affirmatively state that all the defendants have now been served, but that is then immediately contradicted by stating that the final three defendants are "being served by publication Nov. 28, 2025, to Dec. 16, 2025." The Plaintiffs have not complied with the previous court order requiring notice to be filed with the court confirming that all defendants have been served, nor could they until at least Dec. 16, 2025. The Plaintiffs also erroneously caption the motion as "unopposed," but it appears on the face of the motion there was little effort to engage in any meaningful conferral process, nor does it appear the motion is actually "unopposed." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EYKy8g at no extra charge.[CC] CLUB 180: Streblow Class Suit Seeks Video Mediation Conference -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUCK STREBLOW, KIMBERLY HERNANDEZ, IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES, INC. dba THE AMERICAN DREAM BAR, SARAH HOUSTON, JANE DOE DANCERS #1 – 25, JOHN DOE SECURITY GUARDS #1 – 7, JOHN & JANE DOE CUSTOMERS #1 – 100, and all Similarly Situated Residential & Commercial Neighbors of Club 180, v., CLUB 180, AM314, LLC, MATTHEW LONGCOR, AYDEN LONGCOR, DAVID EKDAHL, ERIC HAVERMANN, JAMES PULL, MICHAEL ALAN BEENE, NICHOLAS SCALISE dba DJ NEXT1, MIROSLAVA KOTSAN, BLAIKE KOCA, JESSICA RICHARDSON, ABDUL RAHMANZAI, TOAST, INC., EVRON, INC., SEVEN OAKS INVESTMENT CORP., PAUL WAGGENER, NANCY WAGGENER, BRAVO1 SECURITY, INC., and MICHAEL ELAYAN, Case No. 8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting mediation request with all Defendants with the exception of Defendant Koca. The Plaintiffs request a video mediation conference at 1:00 pm any afternoon between January 5, 2026, and January 23, 2026, as chosen by the Court with all parties except Defendant Koca. The Plaintiffs' counsel submits a Declaration in support. On Nov. 20, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email to all Defendants, inviting them to participate in a mediation. The email requested that they respond by November 25, 2025, if they had any objections and that they should provide the reasons for any objections so Plaintiffs could address them in this motion. As of Nov. 28, 2025, the only attorney to object to the mediation was Mike Milone attorney for Defendant Blaike Koca. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hiJ6DF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan Spencer, Esq. EVAN SPENCER LAW, PLLC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (917) 547-4665 E-mail: Evan@EvanSpencerLaw.com COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Initial Scheduling Conference Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-03535-SLS (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Sooknanan entered an order for initial scheduling conference: In accordance with Local Civil Rule 16.3(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1), counsel (including any non-incarcerated pro se party) shall confer at least twenty-one days before the date of the Initial Scheduling Conference to discuss the matters outlined in Local Civil Rule 16.3(c). Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.3(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(2), counsel shall file a joint report no fewer than seven days before the date of the Initial Scheduling Conference that addresses: (1) the proposed deadline for Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, (2) whether threshold dispositive motions, particularly motions that do not require extensive discovery, will be needed prior to determining class certification, (3) whether any discovery is needed to decide whether to certify the proposed class, and (4) all topics listed in Local Civil Rule 16.3(c). The Parties are to communicate with the Court by motion, opposition, reply, or notice, but not by letter or phone call. Inquiries concerning the status or scheduling of pending matters shall be directed to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Ms. Lauren Jenkins (Lauren_Jenkins@dcd.uscourts.gov), rather than to chambers. If Ms. Jenkins is unavailable, such inquiries shall be directed to the staff person in the Clerk's Office who has been designated as her substitute. Chambers personnel will not handle questions relating to the status or scheduling of pending matters, nor will chambers staff provide legal advice of any kind. In an emergency, however, chambers can be contacted at (202) 354-3220. The Court will grant continuances, extensions, or enlargements of time only upon the filing of a motion. Motions for continuance of a court date must be filed at least three days before the hearing and must include at least two alternative dates that have been agreed to by the Parties. Requests that do not include alternative dates acceptable to all parties will be denied. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s1NPWK at no extra charge.[CC] CORVEL ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeff Couto, and Couto & Sons Property Service, LLC, for themselves and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. Corvel Enterprises Comp., Inc., Alacrity Adjusting Solutions, LLC, Alacrity Claims Solutions, LLC, and Does 1-10, Case No. 9:24-cv-00144-DWM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Molloy entered an order as follows: -- Deadline for Amending Pleadings: Feb. 1,2026 -- Disclosure of the Plaintiff's Damages April 3, 2026 Experts and Simultaneous Disclosures of Liability Experts: -- Disclosure of the Defendant's May 4, 2026 Damages Experts: -- Class Certification Deadline: June 15, 2026 -- Discovery Deadline: Sept. 14, 2026 CorVel is a national provider of risk management solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kH86UI at no extra charge.[CC] CURB MOBILITY: Kretschmer Sues Over Transport Service Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRENDAN KRETSCHMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURB MOBILITY LLC, CREATIVE MOBILE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, ARRO, INC., and FLYWHEEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09758 (S.D.N.Y., November 24, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into horizontal agreements to fix prices and eliminate competition in the market for on-demand transportation services facilitated through mobile applications or online platforms. The complaint relates that starting in 2022, the Defendants and Uber Technologies, Inc. entered into agreements to coordinate pricing among (i) UberX, the standard ride-sharing option from Uber, (ii) Uber Taxi, the option within the Uber app that lets the user request a licensed taxi, and (iii) licensed taxis hailed using Defendants' apps. These agreements eliminated competition between Uber and the Defendants and resulted in higher fares, fewer consumer choices, and substantial harm to the competitive process. That pricing alignment is expanding nationally and is already in place in cities such as Boston, Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. The complaint alleges that these agreements constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act. They are horizontal arrangements among direct competitors to fix prices—precisely the type of conduct the antitrust laws were designed to prohibit. The agreements are not part of a larger procompetitive endeavor. Their sole purpose is to suppress competition and inflate prices, the complaint says. Accordingly, on behalf of customers who hailed rides through the Uber app in the relevant local geographic markets, the Plaintiff seeks to redress and enjoin the Defendants' unlawful conduct, occurring from March 23, 2022, to the present. Curb Mobility LLC operates an online ride booking company, providing a mobile app for booking ground transportation in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Roche, Esq. Edward Normand, Esq. Stephen Lagos, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 155 E. 44th Street, Suite 915 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 494-2900 E-mail: kroche@fnf.law tnormand@fnf.law slagos@fnf.law - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762 2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com CURRENEX INC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Jan. 13, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kaplan entered an order that the Defendants application: -- is granted only to the extent that the Defendants' time to file its opposition and supporting expert reports (including all data and code relied upon by the Defendants' experts) in opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion is extend to and including Jan. 13, 2026, and the Plaintiffs' time to file its reply in support thereof (including all data and code relied upon by the Defendants' experts) is extended to and including Feb. 13, 2026. -- is denied in all other respects. The Defendants recognize that the Court declined to extend the briefing schedule in its November 18, 2025, Memorandum Endorsement, which the parties received earlier today. The Defendants submit that the Court's decision addressing the briefing schedule was made without the benefit of argument by Defendants, as Plaintiffs only raised the issue in their reply on an unrelated motion. Currenex provides an independent global currency exchange to institutional buyers and sellers around the world. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FVVjJP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander B. Simkin, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 121 1 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (2 12) 596-5000 Facsimile: (212) 596-9090 E-mail: alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com CYTODYN INC: Settles Securities Suit over COVID Drug ---------------------------------------------------- Cytodyn Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report for November 23, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that on November 23, 2025, CytoDyn reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, "Courter et al. v. CytoDyn Inc. et al," Case No. C21-5190 BHS. The agreement in principle provides for a payment by the company to the class of $500,000 in cash and 49 million shares of common stock of the Company in exchange for the dismissal and release of all claims against all defendants in the Securities Class Action. The agreement is subject to final documentation, court approval, and other conditions. A stockholder filed lawsuit in said court against the company and certain former officers. The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the viability of "leronlimab" as a potential treatment for COVID-19. On August 9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the March 17, 2021 lawsuit. On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and May 17, 2021. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly false or misleading statements concerning, among other things, the safety and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the company's CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its HIV Biologic License Application (BLA). The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the Company’s common stock purportedly while in possession of material nonpublic information. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 24, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, makes similar allegations, names the same defendants, and asserts the same claims as the prior complaint, adds a claim for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder, and seeks the same relief as the prior complaint. All defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in whole or in part. By order dated June 25, 2025, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants answered the second amended complaint on August 25, 2025. Cytodyn Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company based in Washington. DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANI LITTLE, et al., v. DAUPHIN COUNTY, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-02169-KM-LAL (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Leo Latella entered an order that: 1) The Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to move for class certification is granted. 2) The Plaintiffs are granted 120 days from the date of this Order in which to file a motion for class certification or, for good cause, file a request for an additional extension. The Complaint challenges the conditions of confinement at the DCP RHU during a period in late 2023. In addition to the allegations made by the individual named Plaintiffs, the Complaint makes class allegations. It raises five claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act. The Complaint seeks class certification on behalf of all persons confined in Units P-3, P-5, and/or P-6 of the RHU at any point from November 16, 2023, to December 19, 2023, and for three distinct subclasses. The Defendants Dauphin County, Gregory Briggs, Lionel Pierre, Roger Lucas, Mark Skelton filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on Feb. 18, 2025, and requested that the Court deny Plaintiffs' request for class certification. The named Plaintiffs are Kani Little, Hector Ramos and James Patterson, all of whom were confined in the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) at the Dauphin County Prison (DCP) at one time prior to the filing of the complaint. The Defendants are Dauphin County, Gregory Briggs, Warden of DCP, Lionel Pierre, Chief Deputy Warden of Security at DPC, Roger Lucas, Custody Major at DCP, Mark Skelton, Lieutenant at DCP, and John Does, 1-23, correctional staff members at DCP in December, 2023. Dauphin is a county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KkuzZT at no extra charge.[CC] DECOPAC INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $400,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of Claim Depot reports that current and former employees in the United States, and their spouses and dependents, whose personally identifiable information the December 2024 DecoPac data breach potentially compromised may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $4,000 plus credit monitoring from a class action settlement. DecoPac Inc. agreed to pay up to $400,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to protect consumer PII, resulting in unauthorized access to sensitive information, including names and Social Security numbers. The data breach impacted approximately 2,860 current and former DecoPac employees, as well as their spouses and dependents. Who can file a data breach claim? Class members are living individuals in the United States whose PII the data incident DecoPac announced on or around Dec. 6, 2024, potentially compromised. How much is the settlement payout? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Documented out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $4,000 for actual, unreimbursed expenses that are fairly traceable to the data breach. This may include: -- Bank or credit card fees -- Fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or identity theft insurance purchased between Dec. 6, 2024, and Feb. 5, 2026 -- Unreimbursed monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft -- Flat cash payment: Class members who do not submit a documented out-of-pocket losses claim can submit a claim to receive a flat payment of $95. -- Credit monitoring: All class members may elect to receive three years of credit monitoring services, which includes at least $1,000,000 in identity theft protection insurance. The total amount available for cash payments to class members is capped at $400,000. If the sum of all valid claims exceeds the cap, the settlement administrator will reduce payments proportionally. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: DecoPac Data Incident Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Class members must submit the online claim form or postmark the printed form by Feb. 5, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- To submit a claim online or by mail, class members must provide the notice ID and confirmation code from their settlement notice. -- To submit a documented out-of-pocket losses claim, class members must provide third-party documentation, which may include receipts or bank and credit card statements showing actual, unreimbursed expenses and losses due to fraud or identity theft. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to address provided Data breach settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $150,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 -- Credit monitoring services: Cost determined by the number of valid claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Up to $400,000 Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Jan. 6, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Feb. 5, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 16, 2026 When is the DecoPac data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and credit monitoring enrollment codes to approved claimants 30 days after it approves the claim or 75 days after the court grants final approval to the settlement, whichever is later. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged a DecoPac data breach allowed unauthorized access to or acquisition of PII. The plaintiffs claimed that DecoPac failed to adequately protect sensitive information, potentially exposing class members to identity theft and fraud. DecoPac denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainties of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $95-$4,000 Deadline: February 5, 2026 [GN] DELTA DENTAL: Green Files Suit in W.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Dental of Virginia. The case is styled as Trudy Miller Green, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Delta Dental of Virginia, Case No. 7:25-cv-00873-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., Dec. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Delta Dental of Virginia -- https://deltadentalva.com/ -- provides high-quality, cost-effective dental and vision plans to more than two million members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Graham Beers, Esq. GLENN FELDMANN DARBY & GOODLATTE 111 Franklin Road, S.E., Suite 200 Roanoke, VA 24011 Phone: (540) 224-8035 Fax: (540) 224-8050 Email: pbeers@glennfeldmann.com DELTA DENTAL: Livingston Files Suit in W.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Dental of Virginia. The case is styled as Anna Livingston, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Delta Dental of Virginia, Case No. 7:25-cv-00882-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., Dec. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Delta Dental of Virginia -- https://deltadentalva.com/ -- provides high-quality, cost-effective dental and vision plans to more than two million members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Ave, Ste 320 Fairfax, VA 22030-7409 Phone: (703) 934-6377 Fax: (703) 934-6379 Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro DEPTFORD COMMONS: Maurer Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual, Plaintiff v. DEPTFORD COMMONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-17897 (D.N.J., November 24, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, against the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's property/place of public accommodation is a shopping center/plaza with several tenant spaces, known as Deptford Crossing, located in Woodbury, New Jersey. Mr. Maurer, an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA, has visited the Property several times; his last visit occurring on or about September 13, 2025, when he patronized several stores within the shopping center. He has personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety at the Property, says the suit. Specifically, the Plaintiff was repeatedly faced with sloping in parking lots, improper curb ramps, abrupt changes of level within paths of travel, and non-accessible restrooms. Accordingly, he seeks redress through the ADA, as Congress intended. Deptford Commons, LLC owns, leases, leases to, and/or operates a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA.[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 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com DEREK LOESER: Pete Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Derek Loeser, et al. The case is styled as David R. Pete, individually and others similarly situated v. Derek Loeser, an individual; Lesley Weaver, an individual; Keller Rohrback L.L.P., a limited liability partnership; Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, a limited liability partnership; Case No. 3:25-cv-10194-TSH (N.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Derek Loeser is a senior partner in Keller Rohrback's nationally recognized Complex Litigation Group and a member of the firm's Executive Committee.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DIVINE LIFE: Milton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE MILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIVINE LIFE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01549 (W.D. Mich., November 24, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Lansing, Michigan and was employed by the Defendant from approximately February 2024 to August 2025 as main cook. The complaint alleges that throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, asserts the complaint. Divine Life Management, LLC is a business corporation organized under the State of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49008 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kmilz@sommerspc.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Nurse Class Gets Certification in Landis Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHY LANDIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC., f/k/a THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., and AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00005-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Boyle entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The following Rule 23 class under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act is certified: "All persons who are or have been employed by the defendants 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, are appointed as Rule 23 class counsel. Mag. Judge Swank recommends that defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally certified collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act be denied and that plaintiffs motion to certify a Rule 23 class be granted. No party has filed an objection to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court has reviewed the M&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the M& is adopted in full. The Defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally certified collective action is denied. Elevance is an American multinational health insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rf89Wv at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bhagavan Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energizer Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending September 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. Energizer Holdings is an American manufacturer and one of the world's largest manufacturers of batteries, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. ETSY INC: Illegally Collects Web Visitors' Personal Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL GOLSH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETSY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 25CV04518 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., November 12, 2025) is an action for damages and equitable relief resulting from the illegal actions of Etsy in capturing the personally identifying information of website visitors without obtaining consent from Plaintiff and other individuals similarly situated, in violation of the California Trap and Trace law. Through its website, www.etsy.com, the Defendant installs the trackers on the users' browsers for marketing and commercial purposes. Among other personally identifying information, the trackers collect users' public IP addresses that identify the outgoing "routing, addressing, or signaling information" of the user. By installing TikTok Pixel, Etsy can track users and interactions on its platform and deliver more effective targeted ads, thus increasing ad revenue. This data allows Etsy to place targeted advertisements on TikTok, increasing brand awareness and sales, i.e., Etsy is using TikTok Pixel to obtain and analyze users' data for profit. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injury in fact, including the unauthorized exfiltration and commodification of valuable personal data, says the suit. Etsy is an American multinational e-commerce marketplace, specializing in handmade art, home decor, jewelry, and other products sold by independent small businesses to consumers. Etsy also owns and operates subsidiaries Depop and Reverb.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. ABIRI LAW, PC 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2133 Facsimile: (949) 534-4367 E-mail: rabiri@abirilaw.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com - and - John C. Carey, Esq. Ethan B. Rodriguez, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 E-mail: jcarey@careyrodriguez.com erodriguez@careyrodriguez.com EXXON MOBIL: Faces Kennedy Suit Over Fossil Fuel Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD KENNEDY; and MARGARET HAZARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; SHELL PLC; SHELL USA, INC.; EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US; SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY; CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; BP PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS OF NORTH AMERICA; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; and AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02378 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants' deceptive conduct and sophisticated and aggressive promotion of fossil fuel products without warning of their dangers worked as Defendants intended it to. It sustained and unduly inflated demand for fossil fuels, forestalled the move to low- and no-carbon alternatives, and generated trillions of dollars in profits for Defendants. The failures to disclose and deceptive promotion increased, inflated and maximized the market for and sales of Defendants' fossil fuels by forestalling the transition to clean energy sources, and has—in turn— resulted in atmospheric CO2 levels sufficient to cause the very "catastrophic" climate consequences the Defendants themselves foresaw they would since at least the 1960s, says the suit. Exxon Mobil Corporation operates as an oil and natural gas production company. The Company provides exploration and production integrated fuels, lubricants, chemicals, and refined products for automotive, trucking, aviation, and shipping industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sydney K. Thomas, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com sydney.thomas@hbsslaw.com - and - Jason Gustafson, Esq. Pat Michenfelder, Esq. Chad Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Tony Stauber, Esq. Josh Rissman, Esq. Michael Warkel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com mwarkel@gustafsongluek.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD PLLC 1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612)0778-9595 Email: rpeterson@4-Justice.com FALCON HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $800,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Falcon Healthcare, which does business as Interim Healthcare of Lubbock, Texas, has agreed to an $800,000 class action settlement to end a lawsuit over a 2022 data breach that allegedly exposed certain patients' personal health information. The Interim Healthcare class action settlement received preliminary court approval on October 9, 2025 and covers all individuals in the United States who received a notice from Falcon Healthcare that the 2022 data breach may have impacted their private information. The court-approved website for the Interim Healthcare settlement can be found at FalconDataSettlement.com. Per settlement documents, Interim Healthcare settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible for one of two cash benefits. First, eligible class members can submit a claim form to receive up to $ 5,000 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to the Falcon Healthcare data breach. Class members must also provide reasonable documentation, such as phone records, correspondence or receipts, for each claimed expense. Data breach-related expenses will not be reimbursed without sufficient documentation, or if another agency has already reimbursed them, the settlement website states. In lieu of an out-of-pocket-expense reimbursement from the deal, class members can submit a claim for an alternative cash payout of approximately $100. This settlement benefit requires no proof to be included with a class member's claim form, the website highlights. The final amount of the cash payout is subject to a pro rata (equal share) increase or decrease depending on the number of valid claims and is capped at $250, the settlement website shares. In addition to cash benefits, all settlement class members may also opt to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Data Monitoring, which provides real-time security alerts and up to $1,000,000 in medical identity theft insurance with no premium. To submit an Interim Healthcare claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Class members who prefer to submit a paper claim form can download a PDF claim form here to print, fill out and return to the settlement administrator. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 26, 2026. A hearing to determine whether the Interim Health data breach settlement will receive final approval is scheduled for February 10, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval is granted and all appeals are resolved. The Interim Health class action lawsuit alleged that Falcon Healthcare was liable for a data breach that occurred between April 29, 2022 and July 3, 2022, as the entity allegedly failed to adequately safeguard patient information from unauthorized third parties. Per court documents, information potentially compromised in the data breach included full names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and medical information such as diagnoses, lab results, medications and treatments. [GN] FATHOM REALTY: $2.85MM Suit Deal Deadline for Exclusion Set Jan 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Fathom Realty agreed to a $2.85 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated federal telemarketing laws by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers. The Fathom Realty class action settlement benefits individuals who received more than one text message from Fathom Realty within a 12-month period between Aug. 15, 2021, and Dec. 15, 2024, after their phone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for 30 or more days. If you received unsolicited phone calls, text messages and/or prerecorded messages regarding buying or selling real estate, you may qualify to participate in a real estate TCPA class action lawsuit investigation. Fathom Realty is a real estate company with locations across the country. According to a class action lawsuit, the company violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers. Plaintiffs in the case say the company sent spam texts to their phone numbers, even though the numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call Registry. The TCPA prohibits telemarketers from contacting consumers whose phone numbers are on the Do Not Call Registry without express written consent. Fathom Realty has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.85 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Fathom Realty class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of text messages they received from Fathom Realty. Class members who received one text message can receive $48, while those who received multiple text messages can receive $48 for each text message they received. Payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 7, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Fathom Realty unsolicited text messages settlement is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 7, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who received more than one text message from former Fathom Realty agent Marcus Edwards between Aug. 15, 2021, and Dec. 15, 2024, while their number was on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days. Potential Award Estimated $48 per call. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/07/2026 Case Name Bilal Ahmad v. Fathom Realty FL LLC, et al., Case No. 2025-013426-CA-01, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Final Hearing 02/06/2026 Settlement Website FathomTCPASettlement Claims Administrator Fathom TCPA Settlement P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@fathomtcpasettlement.com (833) 417-4950 Class Counsel Andrew Shamis SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. Defense Counsel Darci F. Madden BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP [GN] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 13, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Boyer, individually and as representative of the Class, v. First Advantage Background Services Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-06723-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order regarding joint statement on proposed amended schedule. Accordingly, the parties believe additional time is required for discovery on the individual claims and propose the following amended schedule: Last day to amend pleadings: Jan. 12, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert disclosures for March 3, 2026 Plaintiff's individual claims The Defendant's expert disclosures for the March 24, 2026 Plaintiff's individual claims: Close of fact discovery: July 31, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Sept. 30, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Oct. 13, 2026 Certification: The Defendant's response in opposition to Nov. 10, 2026 the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of Dec. 1, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification Dec. 15, 2026 (zoom requested): at 1:30 p.m. First provides detective, guard, and armored car services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MblzTX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Collen Fewer, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 376-2097 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: cfewer@bergermontague.com emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermotnague.com jhashmall@bergermontague.com The Defendant is represented by: Frederick T. Smith, Esq. Esther S. McDonald, Esq. Jasmine J. Stanzick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 E-mail: fsmith@seyfarth.com emcdonald@seyfarth.com jstanzick@seyfarth.com FLOWERS BAKERIES: Walls Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flowers Bakeries Sales of NorCal, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Markiss Walls, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Seville Services, LLC, Momentum Senior Living LLC, Does 1 to 50, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV028673 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Flowers Foods -- https://flowersfoods.com/ -- is the second-largest producer and marketer of packaged bakery foods in the US with 2024.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com FULL HOUSE: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Monroe Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KELVIN MONROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULL HOUSE RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02332 (D. Nev., November 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant customers' and employees' personally identifiable information, including full names and Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other former and current Defendant customers and employees' are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain services from the Defendant. On July 23, 2025, the Defendant learned that one of its IT support vendors had been penetrated by a cyberattack. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature of the data breach. As a result of its investigation, on October 14, 2025, the Defendant concluded that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised in the data breach between July 22 and 23, 2025. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Full House Resorts, Inc. owns and operates casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com FULLSTORY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 30, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FULLSTORY, INC., META PLATFORMS, INC., TIKTOK, INC., AND BYTEDANCE INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00059-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order extending case schedule: Event Deadline Deadline for substantial completion of March 31, 2026 document productions: Close of Fact Discovery: May 29, 2026 Expert Disclosures: June 29, 2026 Deadline for class certification motion: Sept. 30, 2026 Class certification opposition: Nov. 9, 2026 Class certification reply: Nov. 30, 2026 Hearing on class certification: Jan. 6, 2027 Pretrial conference: Dec. 13, 2027 FullStory provides software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LxLXHY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Rachel Kesten, Esq. Yuanchen Lu, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com rkesten@lowey.com ylu@lowey.com - and - (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 550-1250 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. Matthew Q. Verdin, 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: ehenn@cov.com clannin@cov.com mverdin@cov.com GERBER PAYROLL: Class Cert. Bid in Coghill Suit Due July 15, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coghill v. Gerber Payroll Services, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00759 (W.D. Wash., Filed April 24, 2025), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pretrial deadlines as follows: Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by march 12, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure/Reports due by April 2, 2026. Motions due by May 11, 2026. Class Certification Discovery completed by June 10, 2026. Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for Class Certification and Report of Class Certification Expert: July 15, 2026. Deadline for Defendant to file Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 12, 2026. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 26, 2026. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment Discrimination. Gerber is a provider of payroll and human resources solutions.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Kwitny Sues Over Defective Smart Home Devices --------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER KWITNY, NICHOLAS SCHIEDER, BRADLEY CALAME, and JOHN MUCCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10182 (N.D. Cal., November 24, 2025) arises from the common and device-wide malfunction of four different types of Google Home and Nest devices, the Google Nest Hub, Google Nest Hub Max, Google Nest Mini, and Google Nest Audio, all of which lose voice control functionality. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other Class Members invested hundreds of dollars and hours into creating an ecosystem of smart home devices for their homes centered around Google Nest. These smart home devices are all connected to each other through a voice-command system (Google Nest and Google Assistant) that no longer functions properly. Google induced Plaintiffs and other customers to spend hundreds of dollars to purchase Google Nest devices by promising a reliable voice-controlled smart home in which devices are interconnected to each other and to the Google Nest/Google Assistant tool and accurately register and respond to users' voice commands. The Plaintiffs purchased Google Nest devices with the reasonable expectation that the devices, including the voice-command system, would be dependable and fit for their ordinary and intended purpose and conform to the standards of the trade. As a result, the Plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of consumers like them suffered harm in that they did not get what they paid for and are stuck with an unreliable, nonfunctioning Google Nest ecosystem in which they've invested hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars that Google is unable or unwilling to fix, says the suit. Google LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc, is a provider of search and advertising services on the Internet.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Jason Lichtman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com jlichtman@lchb.com - and - Tiseme Zegeye, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: tzegeye@lchb.com - and - Darren T. Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN GORE, LLP 346 Westbury Ave., Suite 200 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (212) 999-7370 ext. 101 Facsimile: (404) 537-3320 E-mail: dkaplan@kaplangore.com GRUBHUB INC: Agrees to Settle Restaurant Listing Suit for $7.15MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDEPOT reports that individuals who owned or operated a restaurant business that Grubhub, Eat24, Tapingo, OrderUp, Seamless, LevelUp, AllMenus, MenuPages or BiteGrabber listed without a contract between Jan. 1, 2019, and April 30, 2024, may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. Grubhub Inc. agreed to pay $7.15 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it listed businesses on its affiliated food delivery platforms without first obtaining a contract. The lawsuit claims this practice harmed business reputations and sales as consumers may have believed these businesses agreed to be listed when they had not. Who can file a claim for a Grubhub payout? Businesses must meet the following criteria to qualify as class members: -- Any of the following companies listed them on their platform: Grubhub, Eat24, Tapingo, OrderUp, Seamless, LevelUp, AllMenus, MenuPages or BiteGrabber -- The business did not have a contract with Grubhub or any of the listed platforms at the time of the listing. -- The listing occurred between Jan. 1, 2019, and April 30, 2024. How much is the class action settlement payment? Businesses with valid claims can receive the following: -- Initial payment: $50 per valid claim (subject to proration if claims exceed available funds) -- Additional payment: Pro rata cash payment based on the length of the listing How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, eligible businesses must submit an online claim form or download and print the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Lynn Scott v. Grubhub Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 5749, Portland, OR 97228-5749 The deadline to submit a claim form is March 4, 2026. Required claim information and proof -- To submit a claim, class members must provide the unique ID and PIN from their settlement notice. -- Businesses that are not currently under contract with Grubhub must provide a federal tax identification number (EIN). Payout options -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the business address $7.15 million Grubhub settlement fund The $7,154,586 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated $375,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,382,477 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $150,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $20,000 each -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Feb. 2, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: March 4, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: April 15, 2026 When is the Grubhub restaurant settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments to approved claimants after it completes claim processing and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Grubhub and related platforms listed business on their platforms without consent or a contract. The plaintiffs claimed this practice harmed their reputations and sales as consumers may have believed the businesses partnered with Grubhub. Grubhub denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expenses of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Estimated $50 plus an additional pro rata settlement share Deadline: March 4, 2026 [GN] HARCROS CHEMICALS: Court Consolidates Securities Cases ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA TUCKER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HARCROS CHEMICALS INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order granting the joint motion to consolidate cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The Court further entered an order that the cases are consolidated for pretrial purposes, including class certification. The lower-numbered case, Jeffries v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc. et al. (Case No. 25-2352), is designated as the lead case. The motion seeks to consolidate the Jeffries action and a second class action captioned Tucker v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2569 (the Tucker action). The parties in both cases have informed the court that they do not oppose consolidation for pretrial purposes, including class certification. The court finds that consolidation of the Jeffries action and the Tucker action is appropriate, at least for pretrial purposes, including class certification. Both cases arise from the same nucleus of facts. Both complaints allege that defendants owned, operated, or controlled an industrial facility located at 5200 Speaker Road, Kansas City, Kansas (the “Facility”) during different time periods, and assert that emissions from the Facility caused or contributed to community exposures and related harms. The Plaintiffs in the Tucker action seek class certification for injunctive relief and the establishment of a medical monitoring protocol, while plaintiffs in the Jeffries action seek issue-class certification for liability and causation issues, with individual causation and damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings. Consolidation for pretrial purposes, including class certification, would promote judicial economy by eliminating duplication in discovery, given that fact witnesses, documents, and issues of law and fact in both cases may be the same.\ Harcros is a distributor and manufacturer of industrial and specialty chemicals. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RZvSbc at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alexis Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION dba BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:25-cv-00099-JTJ (D. Mont., Oct. 30, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including their names, social security numbers, birth dates and medical service details—including treatment and diagnosis codes, provider names and claim amounts (collectively, "Private Information"), resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. The Defendant knowingly obtains sensitive insured information and has a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. As Defendant is or should have been aware, this type of personal and sensitive data is highly targeted and sought after by hackers who seek to exploit that data for nefarious purposes. In the wrong hands, these types of sensitive data may be wielded to cause significant harm to individuals including Plaintiff and the Class Members. In 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 their Private Information from unauthorized access and intrusion, including the manner in which Defendant entrusted this information to third-parties. The Private Information was compromised and stolen due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its insureds' 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 to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana at all times relevant to the Breach. The Defendant is a health insurance provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Devlan Geddes, Esq. Cameron T. Clevidence, Esq. GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER, P.C. 35 N. Grand Ave. P.O. Box 6580 Bozeman, MT 59771 Email: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com cclevidence@goetzlawfirm.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Email: john@lawmontana.com - and - Raphael Graybill, Esq. Rachel Parker, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street North Great Falls, MT 59401 Phone: 406.452.8566 Email: raph@graybilllawfirm.com rachel@graybilllawfirm.com - and - David R. Paoli, Esq. PAOLI LAW FIRM, PC 257 West Front St. Ste. A Missoula, MT 59802 Phone: (406) 542-3330 Email: davidpaoli@paoli-law.com HEALTHPLEX INC: Davis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthplex, Inc. The case is styled as Emory Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Healthplex, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01682-AJB-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Healthplex -- https://yourdentalportal.com/Healthplex -- is a dental insurance agency providing managed care plans, preferred provider organization plans, and insured reimbursement plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com HUGHES FEDERAL CREDIT: Gatlin Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hughes Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Sharhonda Gatlin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Hughes Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:25-cv-04441-SMB (D. Ariz., Dec. 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hughes Federal Credit Union -- https://www.hughesfcu.org/ -- is a locally-owned, member-owned, not-for-profit financial instituti.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com INTEGER HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Integer Holdings Corporation ("Integer" or the "Company") (NYSE: ITGR) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Integer common stock between July 25, 2024 and October 22, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Integer Holdings Corporation, et al., No. 25-cv-10251 (S.D.N.Y.). Based in Plano, Texas, Integer purports to be one of the largest medical device contract development and manufacturing organizations in the world. The Company contracts with medical device companies to manufacture cardiac rhythm management and cardio and vascular ("C&V") medical devices. Integer's C&V product line generates approximately 60% of the Company's total revenue. As a part of the C&V product line, Integer manufactures electrophysiology ("EP") devices, which diagnose and map the heart's electrical activity to address problems such as irregular heartbeats (cardiac arrhythmias). Prior to the Class Period, EP devices underwent a technological revolution as Integer customers began to develop devices for pulse field ablation ("PFA") procedures that use brief, high-energy electrical pulses to treat atrial fibrillation. In turn, the industry became increasingly focused on integrating EP devices and PFA platforms to effectuate a more seamless cardiac procedure. As a result, EP devices represented a significant growth driver for Integer's C&V segment. Leading up to the Class Period, CEO Dziedzic described PFA platforms as "a tailwind" due to the Company's "vertically integrated offering[,]" while also touting that Integer "benefit[ed] significantly from electrophysiology procedure growth." CEO Dziedzic further explained, "We participate in the full procedure, which is . . . one of the strengths of Integer." The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Integer materially overstated its competitive position within the growing EP manufacturing market; (2) despite Integer's claims of strong visibility into customer demand, the Company was experiencing a sustained deterioration in sales relating to two of its EP devices; (3) in turn, Integer mischaracterized its EP devices as a long-term growth driver for the Company's C&V segment; (4) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The truth emerged before markets opened on October 23, 2025, when Integer disclosed that it had lowered its full-year 2025 sales guidance to a range between $1.840 billion and $1.854 billion, which fell short of analysts' estimates. Integer further disclosed that it expected net sales growth of -2% to 2% and organic sales growth of 0% and 4% for the full year of 2026. During the corresponding earnings call, COO Khales revealed that Integer "expect[s] sales of [three] new products to decline in 2026," with two of three being "electrophysiology [EP] products." COO Khales further revealed that "the market adoption of these products has been slower than forecasted." During the same earnings call, CFO Smith informed investors that, for the fourth quarter of 2025, "we expect C&V sales growth to decelerate from recent trends, reflecting a decline in the [two] new products in electrophysiology mentioned earlier. This is consistent with our prior outlook. However, we now expect this impact to continue into 2026, primarily the first half." On this news, Integer common stock fell $35.22 per share, or more than 32%, from a closing price of $109.11 per share on October 22, 2025, to a closing price of $73.89 per share on October 23, 2025. If you purchased Integer common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than February 9, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), a Senior Attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION Marco A. Dueñas, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, New York 10606 Tel: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 mduenas@saxenawhite.com www.saxenawhite.com [GN] INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Epperson ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Whitehurst entered a third amended scheduling order for class certification hearing: The scope of Phase I discovery shall be limited to matters necessary for Plaintiff to fashion a class and file a motion for class certification. A two-day Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of International Paper Company shall take place by Jan. 30, 2026. Phase I motions to compel discovery shall be filed no later than March 13, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 25, 2026. Motions to amend the pleadings must be filed no later than May 25, 2026. The Plaintiff shall serve disclosures related to class certification on or before May 25, 2026. The Defendant is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rtiesw at no extra charge.[CC] JIT-EX LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, O'Donnell Says -------------------------------------------------------------- THADDEUS O'DONNELL, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JIT-EX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03072-SHL-CGC (W.D. Tenn., November 24, 2025) is brought against the Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jit-Ex, LLC is a trucking company with headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff was employed as a salaried dispatcher by the Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay owed to him and other similarly situated non-exempt employees who are members of the FLSA multi-plaintiff action and currently or previously employed by Defendant during all times material to this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com KODY KINSLEY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by August 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B. et al v. Kody Kinsley, Case No. 1:22-cv-01046 (M.D.N.C., Filed Dec. 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. entered an order as follows: -- The parties shall serve any expert disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) by Aug. 5, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification by Aug. 5, 2026. -- The parties shall serve any rebuttal expert disclosures within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) by Oct. 5, 2026. -- The parties shall complete all discovery by Dec. 5, 2026. -- The parties shall file any summary judgment motion by Feb. 5, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Noncitizen Class in Hernandez Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez Lazo v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06639 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 1, 2025), the Hon. Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury entered an order granting class certification to: "All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination." The nature of suit states Immigration -- Habeas Corpus -- Alien Detainee. The Defendant is an American politician.[CC] LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Burrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM L. BURRELL JR., et al., v. LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER, INC., et al. Case No. 3:14-cv-01891-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a one-week extension of their deadline to file their motion for class certification. Event Proposed Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion and opening brief Dec. 15, 2025 for class certification: The Defendants' opposition briefs: Jan. 26, 2026 The Plaintiffs' reply brief: Mar. 2, 2026 A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5qtuZT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel E. Nadas, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. William A. Anderson, Esq. Martha E. Guarnieri, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 777 6th Street, NW Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-2433 E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com wanderson@hfajsutice.com mguarnieri@hfajustice.com - and - Marielle Macher, Esq. Peter Zurflieh, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 118 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 236-9486, ext. 214 E-mail: mmacher@cjplaw.org pzurflieh@cjplaw.org - and - Juno Turner, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. Brianne Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1410 High Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80219 Telephone: (720) 239-2060 E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org brianne@towardsjustice.org LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Opposition Briefs Due Jan. 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM L. BURRELL JR., et al., V. LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER, INC., et al. Case No. 3:14-cv-01891-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mariani entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of deadline to file motion for class certification and for briefing schedule of motion: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion and opening brief Dec. 15, 2025 for class certification: The Defendants' opposition briefs: Jan. 26, 2026 The Plaintiffs' reply brief: March 2, 2026 Lackawanna is a wholesaler of recycled plastics & paper. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dp9Yzh at no extra charge.[CC] LAVOI CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- AIYANNA JOHNSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAVOI CORPORATION d/b/a EPI BREADS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06788-TRJ (N.D. Ga., Nov. 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information, including, name and Social Security number, from criminal hackers leading to the data security incident that occurred on or around August 22, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of the Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, says the suit. Lavoi Corporation provides bakery products. The Company offers hoagies, breads, baguettes, buns and rolls, sandwich, doughnuts, croutons, pies, pastries, cookies, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com LELAND STANFORD: Class Cert. Hearing Set for August 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH CHISM, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:25-cv-06183-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a case-management and pretrial order: Case Event Date Updated joint case-management-conference Mar. 26, 2026 statement: Further case-management conference: Apr. 2, 2026 Class-certification hearing: Aug. 20, 2026 at 9:30 a.m./11:00 a.m. Motion due: Apr. 29, 2026 Opposition due: June 10, 2026 Reply due: July 22, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1IY7Lt at no extra charge.[CC] LEMONAID HEALTH: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $3.25 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a $3,250,000 class action settlement ends litigation that alleged Lemonaid Health implemented tracking pixels on its website to transmit users' personal information to third parties without their knowledge or consent. The Lemonaid Health class action settlement received preliminary court approval on October 2, 2025, and covers anyone who visited the Lemonaid Health website between June 30, 2019 and July 14, 2025. The court-approved website for the Lemonaid settlement can be found at LemonaidPixelSettlement.com. Per court documents, settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment from the settlement fund. Cash payments will be determined on a pro rata (equal share) basis from the settlement fund, depending on the total number of valid claims that are submitted. Submitting a Lemonaid claim form requires no proof from eligible class members, the website shares. To submit a Lemonaid claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Class members can also download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and mail back to the settlement administrator. All Lemonaid Health pixel claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 23, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant the Lemonaid Health Pixel settlement final approval at a hearing on January 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Lemonaid Health class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare company used tracking pixels on LemonaidHealth.com to surreptitiously transmit private, protected information, including medical conditions for which users sought treatment, medications, Facebook IDs and IP addresses, to third parties, such as Facebook and Google, without users' knowledge or consent. [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: Black Lives Matter Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, ET AL., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 3, 2026, will move the Court to certify a class action pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4)): 1. Injunctive relief class (F.R.Civ.P Rule 23(b)(2)) defined as: "All individual persons who have in the past participated, presently are participating, or may in the future participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City of Los Angeles in the peaceful exercise of their rights of free speech, assembly and petition in general, and particularly as it relates to protesting police violence and discrimination against people of color." The injunctive relief organizational class representatives are Black Lives Matter Los Angeles (“BLMLA”) and CANGRESS, dba Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN). Each is a representative of the injunctive relief class. The fact that the 23(b)(2) class includes members who “in the future may” be affected is proper in an injunctive relief class.1 2. Damages Classes: One or more of the named Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of proposed classes of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to F.R.Civ.P Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The damages classes are defined as: a. Arrest Conditions Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing through June 2, 2020, all persons present at or during the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were 1) arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor charges of failure to obey a curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow a lawful order of a police officer and/or unlawful assembly; 2) who were held on the street and then on buses or, in a very few instances, in "Slammer" vans; and 3) were subjected to prolonged restraint with their hands zip tied behind their backs for a minimum of two hours. The Class Representatives for this class are KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD, DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU, ALEXANDER STAMM, CHRISTIAN STEVEN ROE, MAIA KAZIM, NELSON LOPEZ, NADIA KHAN and JONATHAN MAYORCA. Within the Arrest Class are sub- classes of arrestees by day and location described in the Declaration of Carol Sobel at paragraph 108 This class consists of approximately 3000 people pursuant to the Defendants’ Exhibit 87, listing all arrestees over the course of the protests but eliminating approximately 800 people believed to have been arrested for vandalism, looting and similar offenses. b. First Amendment/ False Arrest Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing through June 2, 2020, all persons present at or during the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor charges of failure to disperse, unlawful assembly and/or failure to follow an order from a police officer where 1) the order on which people were arrested for violating involved failure to disperse or to move where police directed, or no order was given, and 2) the order, if given, was not provided in a manner that the full intended audience for the order could reasonably hear it, or LAPD officers prevented those gathered from complying with the order; or arrested for curfew violations on May 30 right after the curfew was imposed without first notifying protestors of the imposition of the curfew and providing them an opportunity to leave. The Class Representatives for this class are KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD, DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU, ALEXANDER STAMM, CHRISTIAN STEVEN ROE, MAIA KAZIM, JONATHAN MAYORCA, NELSON LOPEZ, NADIA KHAN, ALICIA BARRERA-TRUJILLO, and SHAE BACKES c. Subclasses For each Arrest Class No. 2 Subclass, we provide in this notice of motion the proposed class definition and the basic contours of the Subclass claim. Due to space limitations, it is not possible to provide a detailed presentation of the claim. However, the Sobel Declaration filed in support of this motion summarizes the evidence supporting certification of each Subclass and refers the Court to other evidence relevant to that Subclass. i. Subclass No. 2(A): May 29 Temple & Spring Subclass (Class Rep is Christian Steven Roe) Subclass Definition: Persons in the vicinity of Temple & Spring Streets on May 29, 2020, in the evening, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers, instructed to sit on the ground, restrained with zip ties and arrested for a curfew violation when they had no basis to know of the curfew, which had just been announced. The events for this Subclass occurred the first night of the curfew and the notification was sent out via LAPD text at approximately the same time that the group was told they were under arrest for violating the curfew. No dispersal order was given so there was no opportunity to comply with the dispersal order. The arrestees were held at this location for approximately an hour while LAPD attempted to arrange for Metro Transit buses and/or Sheriff's buses to transport the group. The arrestees were ultimately transported to a garage, where they continued to be held in zipties while the group was processed, issued citations and then released. There were multiple buses of arrestees from DTLA at the same location. The estimated size of this subclass is approximately 299 according to the Independent Report and the Safe LA After Action Report. See Sobel Dec. at ¶108 and exhibits referenced therein for further details. ii. Subclass No. 2(B): May 29 First & Spring Subclass (Class Rep is Nelson Lopez) Subclass Definition: Persons in the vicinity of 1st & Spring Streets on May 29, 2020, in the evening, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and blocked from leaving, first told to sit on the ground and that they would be arrested, then told that they would be cited and released, but were ultimately arrested anyway for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order. No audible order to disperse was provided. Defendants admitted for this Subclass that an order to disperse was given at another location earlier in the evening to a group that had been at the freeway, but Defendants’ PMK testified that the LAPD did not know if anyone at 1st and Spring was Present when the dispersal order was given earlier in the evening at a different location. The group was put in zip-tie restraints and held on the street while the LAPD attempted to arrange transport. On information and belief, the group was taken to the same garage as those in Subclass No. 2(A), where they remained zip-tied until they were processed, cited and released. The estimated size of this group is approximately 100. iii. Subclass #2(C): May 30 Beverly or Third & Fairfax Subclass (Class Reps are Jonathan Mayorca and Krystle Hartsfield) Subclass Definition: Persons in the vicinity of Beverly or Third & Fairfax on May 30, 2020, in the evening, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and prevented from leaving when they attempted to comply with orders to leave, instructed to sit on the ground, arrested and, at the police station, issued a cite and release for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order. Although there was an order to disperse, it was legally deficient because the subclass members were only given 5 minutes to leave and, when they attempted to do so, were met by lines of armed officers blocking their exit. The estimated size of this group is approximately 40. iv. Subclass No. 2(D): May 30 Third Street & Fairfax Subclass (Class Rep is Nadia Khan) Subclass Definition: Persons in the vicinity of Beverly & Fairfax on May 30, 2020, in the afternoon, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and pushed towards instructed to sit on the ground, issued a cite and release for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order, and to whom no audible order to disperse was provided. This class consists of approximately 100 people transported on two buses to Wilshire Division Station many were held for more than four hours in restraints. The people in this subclass were detained and cited for an infraction although there was no viable dispersal order; were herded and directed by LAPD officers to locations where they were then kettled and arrested; and were ziptied behind their backs for several hours and transported on buses. The arrests for this group was infraction arrests for violating LAMC 80.02. v. Subclass No. 2(E): June 1 Hollywood Subclass3 (Class Rep are Alexander Stamm, Linus Shentus and Shae Backes) Subclass Definition: Persons in the vicinity of Hollywood Boulevard on June 1, 2020, in the early evening, where a dispersal order was given at approximately 6:00 p.m, and, after following police directions regarding where to go, the subclass members were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and unable to leave, many ordered by the police to get on their knees and put their hands behind their backs, and arrested for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order. Stamm and Backes both followed officers’ directions to leave and attempted to get back to their homes, each of which was just a few blocks away when they found themselves kettled by officers and unable to leave the area. Shentu got to his car with two others to drive home. They stayed in a parking lot for a while to avoid being detained by the police. vi. Subclass No. 2(F): June 1 Downtown Spring or Grand & Fifth Subclass (Class Reps are Maia Kazin, Alicia Barrera-Trujillo) Subclass Definition: Persons in the vicinity of Spring or Grand & Fifth Streets on June 1, 2020, in the early evening, who were blocked and prevented from leaving by LAPD officers, for which the Incident Commander deliberately did not order issue a dispersal order. These events occurred despite the fact that the group had presented no problems as they protested and marched during the day according to radio transmissions by the Incident Commander. vii. Subclass No. 2G): June 2 Hancock Park Subclass (Class Rep is Devon Young) Subclass Definition: Persons in the vicinity of Getty House (the Los Angeles City Mayor’s House) on June 2, 2020, at around 8:30 p.m., who were ordered to disperse, left the Getty House area as directed and were subsequently blocked and prevented from moving by LAPD officers. 2. Infraction Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and through June 2, 2020, all persons present at or during the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were charged with infractions, arrested and taken into custody, and not released in the field, as required by Penal Code section 853.5. 1. The Class Representatives for this class are Jonathan Mayorca, Nadia Khan, Nelson Lopez, Alicia Barrera-Trujillo, Maia Kazin, and Devon Young, all of whom fit within the class definition. This class consists of approximately 1500 people. 3. Direct Force Issue Class Although Plaintiffs no longer assert a 23(b)(3) Direct Force Class for either liability or for liability and damages, and have now named many former Force Class members as individual plaintiffs, they seek certification of the following issues for all persons who, beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing through June 2, 2020, were present at or during the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were struck by either "less-lethal weapons" (including 37mm and 40 mm projectiles, and bean-bag shotguns), batons, or otherwise physically struck by an LAPD officer: The Class Representatives for the Direct Force Issue Class are named Plaintiffs David Contreras, Tina Crnko, Abigail Rodas, Christian Stephen Roe, Shannon Lee Moore, Clara Aronovich and Eva Grenier – all of whom were the direct object of police use of force by “less lethal” munitions, batons or knock-downs. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation’s film and television industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fzuamm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cynthia Anderson Barker, Esq. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-3246 Facsimile: (213) 381-3246 E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com - and - Paul Hoffman, Esq. Michael D. Seplow, Esq. Aidan McGlaze, Esq. John C. Washington, Esq. SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS, HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com mseplow@sshhzlaw.com amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com jwashington@sshhlaw.com - and - Barrett S. Litt, Esq. Lindsay Battles, Esq. MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT 975 E. Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com lbattles@mbllegal.com - and - Pedram Esfandiary, Esq. Monique Alarcon, Esq. Bijan Esfandiari, Esq. R. Brent Wisner, Esq. BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. Katherine Robinson, Esq. Weston Rowland, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 1158 26th Street, #552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com rowland.weston@gmail.com - and - Shakeer Rahman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHAKEER RAHMAN 838 East 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 546-9236 E-mail: shakeerr@cangress.org - and - Olu Orange, Esq. ORANGE LAW OFFICES 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 Telephone: (213) 736-9900 Facsimile: (213) 417-8800 E-mail: o.orange@orangelawoffices.com - and - Colleen Flynn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Ángeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: cflynnlaw@yahoo.com - and - James Do Kim, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DO KIM, APLC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 251-5440 Facsimile: (213) 232-4919 E-mail: dkim@dkimlaw.com - and - Matthew Strugar, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 696-2299 E-mail: matthewstrugar@gmail.com - and - Denisse Gastelum, Esq. GASTELUM LAW, APC 3767 Worsham Ave. Long Beach, CA 90808-1774 Telephone: (213) 340-6112 E-mail: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Guan Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE GUAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. DBA PEARLE VISION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01904 (W.D. Tex., November 24, 2025) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers 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. Luxottica of America Inc. is a North American subsidiary of the global eyewear company EssilorLuxottica.[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 MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Seeks to Stay Discovery --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, EDWENNIA PETTIGREW and SHAWN R. MOTON, v. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay individual discovery pending ruling on motion for class certification. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MoLfKb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Ardoin, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Ryan P. Monsour, Esq. AMO TRIAL LAWYERS, LLC 3045 Ridgelake Dr. Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (985) 446-3333 Facsimile: (985) 446-3300 MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Hart Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL HART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. and NORWAY SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01285 (E.D. Tex., November 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information entrusted to them by Class Members. According to the complaint, multiple consumer-facing banks and credit unions, including Norway Savings, recently reported a data breach of Marquis Software that occurred in August 2025. The data breach compromised personally identifiable information of tens or hundreds of thousands of current and former customers, including Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Marquis failed to implement practices and systems in order to mitigate against the risks posed by Marquis' negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. Norway Savings, in turn, negligently entrusted Marquis with Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the suit. Marquis Software Solutions is a technology vendor serving hundreds of banks and credit unions across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Stewart, Esq. K STEWART LAW, P.C. 4597 Belfort Avenue Dallas, TX 75205 Telephone: (972) 308-6166 E-mail: kelly@kstewartlaw.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Delgado Due June 12, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04181-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered a joint third amended case schedule: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiff's service of Jan. 16, 2026 rebuttal expert report(s), if any, related to early summary judgment merits issues: Deadline for completion of expert discovery Jan. 30, 2026 on early summary judgment merits issues: Hearing on early summary judgment motion: May 15, 2026 Plaintiffs deadline to file: (1) motion for June 12, 2026 class certification and (2) Expert reports related to class certification: Defendant's Deadline to File: (1) Response July 17, 2026 to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and (2) expert reports related to class certification: Plaintiffs deadline to file: (1) reply in Aug. 14, 2026 support of class certification and (2) rebuttal expert reports related to class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: Aug. 28, 2026 Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DMt5PI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com elise@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com - and - Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Michael Brandon, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Diana Feinstein, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com mbrandon@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com - and - Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Kathryn K. George, Esq. Robert C. Collins III, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: gary.feinerman@lw.com katie.george@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com MUNICIPAL PARKING: Court Stays Levine Pending Class Cert Resolution ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVINE v. MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-02920 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order granting the Defendant unopposed motion to stay. The Clerk is directed to stay and administratively close this case pending the resolution of the motion for class certification in Blue et al., v. Lob, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-09741-KAW (N.D. Cal), or entry of an order dismissing Defendant from that action, whichever comes first. The Defendant is directed to notify this Court when either event occurs, and in any event must provide a status update within 90 days of this Order The suit alleges violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Defendant is a privately held parking management, public safety, and communications company.[CC] NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $1.4-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company has agreed to an up to $1.4 million class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged it unlawfully left unsolicited prerecorded voice messages for consumers. The Nationwide TCPA settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 22, 2025. The deal covers all consumers in the United States who, from January 2, 2021 through October 22, 2025, received one or more prerecorded voice calls on their cell phone regarding the renewal and/or expiration of their pet insurance policy with Nationwide. The court-approved class action settlement website can be found at TCPAPetSettlement.com. Per settlement documents, settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $17.50. All cash payments will be distributed by check, the settlement website says. To submit a Nationwide claim form online, class members can head to this page of the settlement website and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Nationwide TCPA settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 11, 2026. A hearing to determine whether the court will grant final approval of the Nationwide Insurance settlement will be held on February 24, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Nationwide class action lawsuit alleged that the insurer placed to consumers unsolicited prerecorded voice messages regarding pet insurance policy expirations and renewals, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case alleged that the messages were an "intrusive" form of telemarketing that "harassed" consumers for the insurer’s benefit. [GN] NCAA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Opposition Deadline -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH "TREY" JOHNSON, et al., v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, a/k/a, the NCAA, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05230-JP (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay the deadline for them to oppose Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Conditional Certification. The Defendants also ask the Court to grant the and Notice until 60 days after the Court rules on the last of the currently pending Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and toll the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) statute of limitations on the claims of future opt-in plaintiffs, if any, to the putative collectives from October 30, 2025 until the earlier of: (1) the date when the Third Motion Defendants' opposition to the Third Conditional Certification Motion is filed; or (2) the date the Court denies, dismisses, or removes the Third Conditional Certification Motion from the calendar without opposition. The Plaintiffs include STEPHANIE KERKELES, NICHOLAS LABELLA, CLAUDIA RUIZ, JACOB WILLEBEEK-LEMAIR, ALEXA COOKE, RHESA FOSTER, ZACHARY HARRIS, MATTHEW SCHMIDT, TAMARA SCHOEN STATMAN, GINA SNYDER, ESTEBAN SUAREZ and LIAM WALSH, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The Defendants include the following NCAA Division I Member Schools as representatives of a Defendant Class of all private and semi-public NCAA Division I Member Schools: CORNELL UNIVERSITY, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY, VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, TULANE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY, and MARIST COLLEGE. NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and 1 in Canada. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fAPLXU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Todd A. Noteboom, Esq. Tracey Holmes Donesky, Esq. David P. Thoreson, Esq. Naima S. Starks, Esq. STINSON LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1500 Facsimile: (612) 335-1657 E-mail: todd.noteboom@stinson.com tracey.donesky@stinson.com david.thoreson@stinson.com naima.starks@stinson.com - and - Steven B. Katz, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETY, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 Facsimile: (424) 465-6630 E-mail: skatz@constangy.com - and - Anthony T. Pierce, Esq. Katherine I. Heise Jessica Taub Rosenberg AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2001 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 Facsimile: (202) 887-4288 E-mail: apierce@akingump.com kheise@akingump.com jrosenberg@akingump.com - and - Julie A. Busta, Esq. DAILEY LLP 11650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 367-1645 Facsimile: (484) 445-2122 E-mail: jbusta@DaileyLLP.com - and - Trenten D. Klingerman, Esq. William P. Kealey, Esq. STUART & BRANIGIN LLP 300 Main Street, Suite 900 Lafayette, IN 47902-1010 Telephone: (765) 423-1561 E-mail: tdk@stuartlaw.com wpk@stuartlaw.com - and - Marla N. Presley, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR LLP 1 Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street 41st Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 620-6500 Facsimile: (412) 275-2390 E-mail: mpresley@cozen.com - and - Steven W Schlesinger, Esq. Mark A. Konkel, Esq. Sandra L. Musumeci, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-7800 Facsimile: (212) 808-7897 E-mail: sschlesinger@kelleydrye.com mkonkel@kelleydrye.com smusumeci@kelleydrye.com - and - Sean P. Fahey, Esq. Christopher J. Moran, Esq. Brian R. Ellixson, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 3000 Two Logan Square, 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 E-mail: sean.fahey@troutman.com christopher.moran@troutman.com brian.ellixson@troutman.com - and - Rebecca Sha, Esq. Stephanie M. Poucher, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 566-1311 Facsimile: (504) 568-9130 E-mail: rebecca.sha@phelps.com stephanie.poucher@phelps.com - and - John L. Lamb, Esq. Joseph J. Centeno, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 South 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2555 Telephone: (215) 665-8700 E-mail: john.lamb@bipc.com joseph.centeno@bipc.com NORWAY SAVINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Domenichello Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY DOMENICHELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORWAY SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00594-JAW (D. Maine, November 24, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and approximately 45,000 Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information, which was stolen by cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. On August 14, 2025, cybercriminals hacked into the network systems of Defendant's service provider, Marquis Software Solutions, and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive PII stored therein, causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant, who received banking services from Defendant prior to the Data Breach. As a condition of obtaining Defendant's banking services, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust their sensitive, non-public private information to Defendant and through Defendant, to Marquis. The complaint alleges that the Defendant breached its duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard the private information it collected and maintained, including by failing to reasonably supervise Marquis' cybersecurity practices to ensure its vendor had adequate, reasonable, and legally-compliant data security to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information that Defendant provided, which caused and allowed criminal hackers to access and steal millions of individuals' private information from Marquis' possession and Defendant's care. To recover for these harms, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. Norway Savings Bank is a financial institution with its principal place of business in Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bauer, Esq. 443 Saint John Street Portland, ME 04102 Telephone: (207) 804-6296 E-mail: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, King Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- ERIC KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION; and INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01925 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 25, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop or mitigate breach of their systems, thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to their current and former employees' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Oracle Corporation supplies software for enterprise information management. The Company offers databases and relational servers, application development and decision support tools, and enterprise business applications. Oracle's software runs on network computers, personal digital assistants, set-top devices, PCs, workstations, minicomputers, mainframes, and massively parallel computers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parkes Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwella@stranchlaw.com ORACLE CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lamere Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ALLAN LAMERE; GUY WAGGONER; JACOB BRANNON; and JAMES MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORACLE CORPORATION; COPELAND LP; ENTRUST MN CORPORATION; LKQ CORPORATION; and SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01923 is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop or mitigate breach of their systems, thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to their current and former employees' PII. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. Oracle Corporation supplies software for enterprise information management. The Company offers databases and relational servers, application development and decision support tools, and enterprise business applications. Oracle's software runs on network computers, personal digital assistants, set-top devices, PCs, workstations, minicomputers, mainframes, and massively parallel computers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lester Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX LESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD, d/b/a DULCICH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01995-AR (D. Or., Nov. 28, 2028) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect the Plaintiff and the Class's PII and PHI, from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII and PHI that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the suit. Pacific Seafood, d/b/a Dulcich, Inc. is a provider of fresh, high-quality, and sustainable seafood products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com - and - Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com mrathur@caffertyclobes.com PERSONIC MANAGEMENT: Hesselberg Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER HESSELBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSONIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02155 (E.D. Va., November 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients that was allegedly compromised in a recent cyberattack. On September 1, 2025, the Defendant was alerted to unauthorized activity involving a third-party vendor that the Defendant uses to process patient information. In response, the Defendant launched a review to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. On November 18, 2025, the Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure about the data breach. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Personic Management Company is a physician-owned healthcare service provider. Defendant is headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, and serves patients in twelve states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com PHILADELPHIA PARKING: Underpays Security Officers, McCleary Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERREZ MCCLEARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06652 (E.D. Pa., November 24, 2025) is a collective and class action against the Defendant Philadelphia Parking Authority for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, the PPA has a uniform policy and practice of requiring security officers, including Plaintiff, to work through their 30-minute meal and rest breaks while automatically deducting that time from their paid hours. During these illusory breaks, the Plaintiff and other security officers must remain at their posts, continuously monitor vehicle and pedestrian traffic, respond to customers, conduct security rounds, operate entry and exit gates, and perform other regular job duties. The PPA's break policy unlawfully deprives Plaintiff and all similarly situated security officers of straight-time and overtime wages in violation of federal and state wage laws, including the FLSA, PMWA, and WPCL, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff has been employed by the PPA as a security officer in Philadelphia since October 2018. Philadelphia Parking Authority is a hybrid regulatory agency with multiple functions at the local and statewide level.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. POND LEHOCKY GIORDANO, INC. 2005 Market Street, 18th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (856) 528-8115 E-mail: jabay@pondlehocky.com PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Penna Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- GARY PENNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-17854 (D.N.J., November 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are students, alumni, faculty, and donors of Princeton, who entrusted their sensitive, non-public PII to the Defendant. To conduct its operations and provide educational and administrative services, the Defendant necessarily collects Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, which it retains for extended periods, including long after the relationship has concluded. On November 10, 2025, cybercriminals infiltrated the Princeton University Advancement database via a phone phishing incident. The Defendant has failed to properly notify all affected individuals that their PII was compromised -- diminishing Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased and continuing risk of identity theft and other harms caused by the incident, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members, therefore, seek damages and equitable relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose the full nature of the data breach and types of PII exposed; (b) implement data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches; and (c) provide, at Defendant's expense, all data breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Princeton University is a private, nonprofit research university with its principal campus in the City of Princeton and County of Mercer, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $7.75-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a $7,750,000 Purpose Financial class action settlement offers cash and reimbursements to consumers whose names and Social Security numbers may have been exposed in a February 2023 data breach. The Purpose Financial class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 2, 2025 and covers anyone whose name and Social Security number were possibly compromised in the February 2023 data breach that impacted the payday loan company and several subsidiaries. The court-approved website for the data breach settlement with Purpose Financial, which was formerly known as Advance America Cash Advance Centers, can be found at PurposeFinancialSettlement.com. Per the settlement website, settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive up to $5,000 for unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses associated with the Purpose Financial/Advance America data breach. A list of expenses covered by this benefit includes, but is not limited to, losses relating to identity theft and fraud, professional fees, fees for credit repair, costs for freezing or unfreezing credit, costs for credit monitoring, and miscellaneous expenses such as postage, mileage, or notary fees. Class members who submit a claim form for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses must also submit reasonable documentation, such as receipts or invoices, supporting the reason for and nature of each expense, the settlement website says. Alternatively, class members can opt to receive a pro rata (equal share) cash payment of approximately $50, an amount that may be increased or decreased depending on the total number of valid claims. Further, class members who lived in California during the breach may also receive a cash payout of about $50. To submit a Purpose Financial claim form online, class members can go to this page on the settlement website and enter the unique ID and PIN from their copy of the settlement notice. Settlement class members can also download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and mail to the settlement administrator. All Purpose Financial settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 2, 2026. A hearing will be held on March 17, 2026 to determine whether the Advance America Cash Advance Centers settlement will receive final court approval. Compensation will be distributed only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Purpose Financial class action lawsuit alleged that on or around February 7, 2023, an unauthorized third party accessed consumers’ private information, such as names and Social Security numbers, on Purpose Financial’s corporate network. Purpose Financial offers payday loans, flex loans, check cashing, check advances and more, for which it collects a significant amount of private data. The filing claimed that Purpose Financial failed to implement effective safeguards for the personally identifiable information accessed in the data breach. Per the complaint, Purpose Financial allegedly further failed to provide in its data breach notice all relevant information to the affected consumers, who were not warned that their private information was already for sale on the dark web. A similar class action lawsuit, Gibson v. Advance America, et al., raised concerns about the same February 2023 data breach, asserting that Purpose Financial and Advance America failed to notify consumers of the breach for six months. The two class action lawsuits were consolidated into a single case in October 2023. [GN] RAYONIER INC: M&A Investigates Merger With PotlatchDeltic --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Rayonier Inc. (NYSE: RYN) related to its merger with PotlatchDeltic Corporation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Rayonier shareholders will own approximately 54% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/rayonier-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- PotlatchDeltic Corporation (NASDAQ: PCH) related to its sale to Rayonier Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, PotlatchDeltic shareholders will receive 1.7339 common shares of Rayonier for each share of common stock of PotlatchDeltic. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, PotlatchDeltic shareholders will own approximately 46% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/potlatchdeltic-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE: HOUS) related to its sale to Compass Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Anywhere shareholders will receive 1.436 shares of Compass Class A common stock per share of Anywhere common stock. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, current Anywhere shareholders will own approximately 22% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 7, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/anywhere-real-estate-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Compass, Inc. (NYSE: COMP) related to its merger with Anywhere Real Estate Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, current Compass shareholders will own approximately 78% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 7, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/compass-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] SAN ANTONIO, TX: Judge Certifies Harassment Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dillon Collier, writing for KSAT, reports that Judge Artega reversed course and took the class action designation away in a court order signed December 12. A Bexar County state district court judge on Wednesday, December 10, granted a motion for class action certification in a lawsuit filed against the City of San Antonio by former convention center employees who said they were sexually harassed and assaulted at work. The order, signed by Judge Toni Arteaga, noted that all female non-supervisory employees at the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center are "in the zone of danger" -- even if they have not been direct victims of sexual harassment and retaliation. The class, as defined in the order, extends to all non-supervisory employees who work or worked at the city-run convention center from April 2021 to the time of trial. A class action designation typically increases the size of a lawsuit, as the pool of potential victims grows and visibility of the case increases. The suit, which seeks more than $1 million in damages, was filed after a series of stories from KSAT Investigates revealed that at least five maintenance supervisors at the convention center were accused of improperly treating female coworkers in recent years. The original suit claims that under the watch of Convention and Sports Facilities Director Patricia Muzquiz Cantor, the convention center "has become a den where male supervisors prey on their female subordinates." The motion for class action certification filed earlier this year stated that attorneys for the former employees contend at least 13 men employed at the convention center since 2021 "sexually harassed, assaulted, battered, and/or sexually abused their female colleagues." Nine of those 13 male employees were supervisors, according to the motion. "This ruling sends a clear message," attorney Mark Anthony Sánchez told KSAT Investigates. "Powerful institutions do not get to hide behind broken systems or indifferent leadership. Maria (Villegas) and Sarah (Schneuker) stood up because they believed the truth mattered -- not just for themselves, but for every woman who worked under these abusive conditions." Sánchez added that the group's voices will now be heard and the city will have to answer for what happened. A City of San Antonio spokesperson sent KSAT the following statement. "Late Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2025, the City received notice that the judge in this case had entered an order contrary to the judge's notes from July 2025," the statement began. "The City will be seeking reconsideration and clarification from the court." [GN] SIGNALHIRE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gaul Due Dec. 18 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaul v. SignalHire LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01301 (C.D. Ill., Filed Aug. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order a follows: -- Motions for Class Certification or Status Report to be filed by Dec. 18, 2025. -- Responses to class certification motions are due by Feb. 5, 2026. -- Replies due by March 5, 2026. -- The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property – Other Personal Property Damage. SignalHire is a comprehensive talent acquisition and lead generation platform.[CC] SIRENS DESIGN: Bell Class Suit Filed in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Sirens Design LLC. The case is captioned as DYLAN M. BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIRENS DESIGN LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV31793 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 28, 2025). Sirens Design LLC provides specialized design services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lavi Joseph, Esq. 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, # 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 861-2797 SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kelechian Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARMEN KELECHIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09748-LJL (S.D.N.Y., November 24, 2025) is a class action complaint 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. On November 12, 2025, Defendant learned that it had been the subject of a cyberattack. 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 complaint alleges the failure of the Defendant to adequately protect 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. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and give them timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Situsamc Holdings Corporation is a New York-based real estate finance services firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: gregory@emeryreddy.com anderson@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.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 ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Miller" ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Bradley Miller, Kayla Kilpatrick, and Blake Bumann, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. St. Clair County, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-2597-JPG (S.D. Ill.), Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims in the case. The case is a conditionally certified collective action under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), comprising all full-time, hourly paid Telecommunicators who are or were employed by defendant St. Clair County in its Emergency Management Agency from May 13, 2021, to the present, who worked twelve-hour shifts, and who were only compensated at one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 80 hours in a 14-day pay period. The Plaintiffs are employed as Telecommunicators—dispatchers, in common lingo, who manage 911 calls and responses to them—for the County's Emergency Management Administration (EMA), a subdivision of the County. The Plaintiffs asserted that two specific policies of the EMA violated Section 7(a)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1) (Count I), and Section 4a(1) of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820 ILCS 105/4a(1) (Count II). The first policy, which the Court referred to as the Break Policy, was the automatic deduction of a half-hour from workers' hours to represent a break. However, Telecommunicators were often so busy they did not take a meal break or step away from their stations. Telecommunicators could request a correction when they were unable to take the automatically deducted break. However, the Plaintiffs alleged that on numerous occasions, the EMA did not correct the automatic deduction. The Court had dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim that the Break Policy violated the IMWL. The Plaintiffs did not respond to the County's request for summary judgment on the claim that the Break Policy violated the FLSA. In the absence of any evidence before the Court to support such a claim, the Court granted summary judgment for the County on the Break Policy. The second policy, which the Court referred to as the Work Week Policy, was paying overtime premiums only for hours worked over eighty hours in a two-week period even where employees worked over forty hours in a one-week period. This arrangement was consistent with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the County and the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council, the certified exclusive bargaining representative for the Plaintiffs. The CBA defined a work week for employees working twelve-hour shifts as a fourteen-day period and a normal work schedule as eighty hours within that period. In practice, Telecommunicators working twelve-hour shifts worked forty-six hours in one week and thirty-four hours in the next week, for a total of eighty hours in a two-week period. The EMA paid time-and-a-half overtime pay only if a Telecommunicator worked beyond eighty hours in the fourteen-day work week but not when they worked beyond forty hours in one of those two weeks. The Plaintiffs claimed the Work Week Policy violated Section 7(a)(1) of the FLSA, which generally required an employer to pay one and a half time the normal wage for hours worked over forty hours in one week. The EMA contended that Section 7(b) of the FLSA exempted its work arrangement from Section 7(a). The IMWL mirrored the FLSA's requirements and exemptions. Because all parties essentially agreed to the relevant facts connected to the Work Week Policy, the question of whether the Section 7(b) exemption applied was dispositive of this summary judgment motion. The County did not point to any portion of the CBA satisfying these three requirements for Section 7(b) to apply. Nor did it point to any reasons not to apply the plain meaning of the statute's words. For these reasons, the Court could not say as a matter of law that Section 7(b)(2) applied to exempt the County from the overtime requirements of Section 7(a)(1). Accordingly, the County was not entitled to summary judgment on the Work Week Policy claims. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part the County's motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted to the extent it sought summary judgment on Count I based on the Break Policy. The motion was denied to the extent it sought summary judgment on Counts I and II based on the Work Week Policy. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cI3CWi from PacerMonitor.com T & D DOHERTY: Fails to Pay Premium Overtime Wages, Montes Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARVIN MONTES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T & D DOHERTY AND SON WASTE DISPOSAL, INC., and DONALD DOHERTY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06535 (E.D.N.Y., November 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff premium overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to provide accurate wage statements for each pay period, and failure to furnish a proper wage notice at his time of hire. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver and laborer from August 2022 through January 10, 2025. T & D Doherty and Son Waste Disposal, Inc. provides garbage collection and removal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 TACO BELL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chautin Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA CHAUTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACO BELL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01632-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La., Nov. 28, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Taco Bell Corporation owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The Company offers tacos, burritos, quesadillas, salads, nachos, desserts, and beverages for on-premises and off-premises consumption. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. David Andress, Esq. ANDRESS LAW FIRM, LLC 143 Ridgeway Drive, Suite 227 Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 347-9919 Facsimile: (337) 541-2553 Email: andresslawfirm@gmail.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Defective Powerwall 2 Battery Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Arthur Brown filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla Inc. Why: Brown claims Tesla sold Powerwall 2 battery systems with a defect that can cause them to overheat, emit smoke or catch fire. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges Tesla sold its Powerwall 2 battery systems with knowledge of a defect that can cause them to overheat, emit smoke or catch fire. Plaintiff Arthur Brown's class action lawsuit claims Tesla's Powerwall 2 battery systems have a defect in their lithium-ion cells and/or associated components that can cause them to overheat, emit smoke or even catch fire under normal operating conditions. Brown further argues Tesla knew about the defect but failed to disclose it to consumers and, instead, sold and installed thousands of defective units in homes and businesses across the United States. The Tesla class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who purchased one or more Tesla Powerwall 2 battery systems that were included in, or otherwise subjected to, Tesla's safety recall of certain Powerwall 2 battery systems for fire and burn hazards. Tesla's 2023 recall of Powerwall 2 battery systems inadequate, class action claims In response to the alleged defect, Tesla issued a recall of the affected Powerwall 2 units in September 2023, with the recall covering 10,500 units sold between 2020 and 2022, including the one Brown purchased, according to the Tesla class action. Brown argues, however, that Tesla's recall remedy was inadequate, only involving remotely discharging or limiting the charge of the affected units to near-zero levels to reduce the risk of overheating. This, Brown alleges, left many owners without the backup power and energy storage they paid for. "Tesla has not offered consumers full refunds of the purchase price and has not offered to reimburse consumers for the loss of use of their Powerwall 2 systems during the recall period, the cost of alternative backup solutions, the time and inconvenience of dealing with the recall, or other incidental and consequential losses," the Tesla class action says. Brown claims Tesla is guilty of breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and violations of Florida consumer protection laws. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for himself and all class members. Another class action lawsuit filed against Tesla earlier this year claims the company violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by collecting users' data on its website without consent. The plaintiff is represented by Antonio A. Cifuentes Jr. of Poulin | Willey | Anastasopoulo. The Tesla Powerwall 2 class action lawsuit is Brown, et al. v. Tesla Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01462, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Kids' Data Privacy -------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Boynton, writing for Global News, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been launched against TikTok, accusing the popular video-sharing platform of exposing children and teens to harmful content and using their data for targeted ads without their consent or knowledge. The civil claim was filed in B.C. Supreme Court in October after federal and provincial privacy commissioners reached the same conclusions from a more than two-year investigation that also found TikTok had failed to keep young kids off the platform, despite the company saying the app is not intended for users under 13. The lawyers behind the class action are now seeking other affected Canadians -- not including those in Quebec -- who used TikTok between October 2021 and October 2025 to sign on. Linda Visser, a partner at Siskinds LLP which is bringing the class action alongside Rice Harbut Elliott LLP, told Global News in an email that the law firms have received "well over 100 inquiries" from potential claimants. "Our hope is that through the class action we can get compensation for people whose information was misused, and then hopefully improve practices going forward so that companies are more transparent about what information is being collected and used," she said in an interview. Visser said she is hopeful the class action is certified sometime next year or early 2027 at the latest, but it will depend on the court's availability. She added the law firms are "still in the process of serving" the defendants, which include not just TikTok and its Canadian subsidiary but also its China-based owner ByteDance. The claims in the lawsuit have yet to be proven in court. Visser said a hearing has been scheduled for early next year seeking to appoint a judge to the case. What the lawsuit alleges The class action's representative plaintiff, referred to in the claim as S.L., was under 13 years old when they created their TikTok account in 2021, according to the allegations in court documents. The claim says S.L. used TikTok approximately one to two hours per day to connect with friends and view videos related to their interests. The B.C. user would like and share videos but would not typically comment on them, and did not share details about their specific interests with TikTok. "At the time of registering a User Account on TikTok, S.L. did not read any policies, terms, or conditions on the Platform and was unaware that TikTok would collect, use and share their sensitive information, including information collected through their browsing activity both on and off the Platform, for tracking, profiling, and advertising purposes," the claim says. "TikTok has not, at any time, sought verification of S.L.'s age or any form of consent from S.L.'s parents with respect to their use of the platform." The lawsuit goes on to highlight TikTok's targeted advertising practices, including the company's "mantra" to advertising partners: "Don't Make Ads. Make TikToks." Those instructions, coupled with TikTok's sharing of users' information with third-party advertisers, "blur the line between ads and content on the platform, which increases user attention to ads, makes it less likely ads will be skipped, and makes it more likely ads will influence user behaviour," the claim says. Children and teens are "at particular risk of privacy-related and secondary harms arising from this practice," the claim adds, as well as from the ability for users to purchase products advertised to them directly through TikTok Shop. It cites resolutions and statements from third-party organizations like the Global Privacy Assembly and UNICEF, as well as studies from the National Library of Medicine, that have made similar conclusions. "With respect to all class members, TikTok did not, at any time, provide a clear, comprehensive, and meaningful explanation of its practices related to targeted advertising and content personalization," the lawsuit says. The claim cites data from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that says 40 per cent of Canadians -- about 14 million people -- use TikTok, with 70 per cent of those users under the age of 40. Close to three-quarters of Canadian teens use the app, while 40 per cent of Canadians under 13 "use or have used" TikTok despite the platform's purported age restriction. The claim says TikTok has also used inadequate age verification or "age gate" measures as well as "opt-out, rather than opt-in, advertising practices" that children cannot be expected to fully understand or consent to -- a finding also underscored by privacy commissioners in their September findings. It also accuses TikTok of failing to comply with requests from parents and guardians to delete their children's accounts, and "largely inadequate and ineffective" measures to detect and remove underage users. "At all material times, TikTok knew or ought to have known that its age assurance measures were ineffective," the claim says. "While it had tools capable of detecting underage users on the platform . . . it chose not to apply these technologies to prevent, identify, or remove underage users from accessing the platform, resulting in a deliberate and significant invasion of the child class members' privacy." The class action seeks $500 million in general damages and $20 million in aggravated damages, or another amount deemed appropriate by the judge, as well as an acknowledgment by TikTok that it violated class members' rights and commitments to update its policies and practices. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit's claims. Following their investigation, privacy commissioners in Ottawa, B.C., Alberta and Quebec said TikTok committed to "stopping use of granular information, such as interests inferred from use of the platform, to target ads to users under 18," among other changes in response to the findings. "We welcome the conclusion of this investigation after working openly and constructively with the privacy commissioners, and are pleased they agreed to a number of our proposals to further strengthen our platform for Canadians," a spokesperson for TikTok said at the time. "While we disagree with some of the findings, we remain committed to maintaining strong transparency and privacy practices." Visser said she's hopeful the class action will result in damages awarded and improved efforts to protect children, but acknowledged past attempts to hold TikTok accountable have resulted in settlements and no changes to its practices. She pointed specifically to a $2-million settlement by TikTok in 2022 to end class-action lawsuits filed in B.C., which accused the company of violating the privacy rights of both minors and adults. However, Visser added, "we wouldn't have started the case if we weren't confident that we would get a good result for our class members." [GN] TRANS UNION: Bilodeau Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ---------------------------------------------------- STEVEN BILODEAU, JR.; SUSAN HUDSPETH; BRIAN MITCHELL; RAYMOND SMITH; and WILTON WAHLKAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00686-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va., Oct. 27, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Trans Union LLC operates as a global information and insights company. The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk management, marketing, and other related solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Thomas Domonoske, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. Adam W. Short, Esq. John Maravalli, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 Email: tom@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com adam@clalegal.com john@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com TRIMBLE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hightower Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT HIGHTOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIMBLE, INC.; and ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01921 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that they were responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from disclosure. The Defendants had a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect the PII of Plaintiffs and the Class Members from involuntary disclosure to third parties. Despite recognizing its duty to do so, on information and belief, Defendants had not implemented reasonable cybersecurity safeguards or policies to protect Plaintiff and the Class Members' PII. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered an actual injury, similar to an intangible harm remedied at common law. Defendants' failure to implement an information security program resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. Trimble Inc. provides advanced location-based software solutions. The Company integrates its positioning expertise in GPS, laser, optical and inertial technologies with application software, wireless communications, and services to provide complete commercial solutions. [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 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Malone Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MILREACE MALONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03857-EA (D. Md., November 24, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach involving Defendant that compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public private information in connection with the services Defendant provides. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. 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. On November 17, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendant's inadequately secured systems and obtained files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff’s and Class Members' private information and give them timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence, the Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes as well as its own internal privacy policies, the suit alleges. Headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, Under Armour, Inc. is one of the largest athletic clothing producers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com UNITED STATES: Pay Nurses Overtime Wages as Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that The Court of Federal Claims court has ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay nurses and other medical workers for wages and pay not earned for premium shifts and overtime. The VA nurses settlement benefits current or former Department of Veterans Affairs employees who worked as a registered nurses, physician assistants, or expanded-function dental auxiliaries and who may not have received premium pay for night shifts, Saturday shifts, regularly scheduled overtime hours on days on which they had taken annual, sick, or nine other types of leave, or days where otherwise excused from work due to a holiday since August 23, 2012. According to the overtime pay class action lawsuit, the VA failed to pay some of its employees their owed premium wages and overtime. Plaintiffs in the case claim that this policy of underpaying premium pay caused them financial injury. The Department of Veterans Affairs is a federal department that provides healthcare and other benefits to veterans, service members and their family members. In May 2024, the court issued a liability decision determining that the government must pay retroactive premium pay to class members. In 2021, a federal judge approved a $160 million settlement to resolve claims over forced and unpaid overtime. Under the terms of the VA nurses settlement, class members can receive a payment for the Saturday premium pay, overtime additional pay and nighttime differential pay that was not paid while they were on certain paid leaves. Payments will vary depending on each class member's work history and wages. [GN] UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Do‑Not‑Call Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA Mag, reports that United Wholesale Mortgage is being sued in Texas over alleged Do‑Not‑Call texts to a registered number. Filed on December 8, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 7:25‑cv‑00564, the case—Alexander Victor Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC—alleges that multiple marketing text messages were sent to a cell number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The filing seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and class certification under federal and Texas law. According to the filing, the messages arrived between September 22 and September 24, 2025, and promoted the company's services. The filing states that the plaintiff's number has been on the National Do‑Not‑Call Registry since about February 1, 2019, that the number is used for personal purposes as a residential line, and that the plaintiff is the regular user of that number. The filing further alleges there was no business transaction with the company in the 18 months before the messages and no inquiry within the three months prior. It also asserts the plaintiff never signed any authorization permitting solicitations and that the outreach intruded on privacy. The filing cites 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c) and (e), which restrict telephone solicitations to numbers on the national registry. It seeks $500 per call for negligent violations and up to $1,500 per call for willful or knowing violations. Under Texas Business and Commerce Code Sec. 305.053, it seeks at least $500 per violation, with treble damages for knowing or intentional violations. The filing asks for an injunction requiring compliance with the telemarketing rules, a jury trial, and preservation of records related to the outreach. Two proposed classes frame the requested relief. A Nationwide Class and a Texas Class would cover persons who allegedly received more than one text message within any 12‑month period, to numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, regarding the company's property, goods, and/or services, who did not purchase or transact business with the company during the eighteen months immediately preceding the first text and did not contact the company during the three months immediately preceding the first text with an inquiry about a product, good, or service. The filing alleges numerosity, common questions, typicality, adequacy, and that a class action is superior to individual suits. For mortgage firms, the filing threads familiar compliance themes: maintaining accurate Do‑Not‑Call scrubs, verifying consent, and documenting any established business relationships or inquiries. It also alleges the company maintains or has access to outbound transmission reports showing dates, times, target numbers, and content of each call, suggesting recordkeeping could be central if the case progresses. The filing references broader national concerns about unwanted calls to frame why private actions continue in this area. No determination has been made on the claims. The document reflects the plaintiff's allegations at the pleading stage, and the filing does not include a response from United Wholesale Mortgage. [GN] UNIVERSAL COMPANIES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Companies, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-04398 (D. Minn., Nov. 20, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.universalcompanies.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers spa and salon products for sale including, but not limited to, skin care products, body care products, make up, massage supplies, equipment, apparel, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com V COVINGTON: Faces Lavin Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA LAVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V COVINGTON, LLC D/B/A LAKE BEHAVIORAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2025LA00001001 (Ill. Cir., Lake County, November 12, 2025) is a class action complaint for Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. This case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometrics by the Defendant. Using biometric enabled technology, the Defendant has captured, collected, stored, disseminated, and/or otherwise used the biometrics of the Plaintiff and other Class members, without their informed written consent as required by law, in order to track their time at work. Though the Defendant came into possession of Plaintiff's biometrics, the Defendant has failed to make publicly available any written biometric retention, storage or destruction policy, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other remedies as a result of Defendant's conduct in violating Plaintiffs state biometric privacy rights. The Plaintiff worked as an employee for Defendant in the year 2021. As part of the operational protocols set in place by Defendant, all employees are required to clock in and out of work using their fingerprints. By failing to comply with BIPA, the Defendant has violated Plaintiff's substantive state rights to biometric privacy, the suit alleges. V Covington, LLC provides mental health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Hammervold, Esq. HAMMERVOLD LAW, LLC 155 S. Lawndale Ave. Elmhurst, IL 60126 Telephone: (405) 509-0372 E-mail: mark@hammervoldlaw.com VANGUARD PARKING: Discloses Drivers' Personal Info, Lahitte Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JIRANDY LAHITTE, VANESSA LOUCHART, and MARCOS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VANGUARD PARKING SOLUTIONS INC. and T2 SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-25510 (S.D. Fla., November 24, 2025) is a putative class action seeking statutory damages, declaratory relief, and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants for violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act by knowingly obtaining, disclosing, and/or using personal information from a motor vehicle record for a purpose not permitted. As part of its enforcement practices, Vanguard uses automated license plate recognition technology and related software to monitor vehicle entry and exit and to generate mailed notices resembling parking tickets. Vanguard utilizes T2 Systems' enforcement and citation-management products to feed license plate data into T2 Systems' platforms, which then request and retrieve registered-owner information from motor vehicle record databases, and to generate and mail parking notices. In violation of the DPPA, the Defendants knowingly and without consent obtained or caused to be obtained Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' personal information, including their names and home addresses, from a motor vehicle record by matching license plates captured by ALPR cameras to state Department of Motor Vehicles records, and then disclosed and/or used that information to mail, or to have mailed, private parking invoices and related communications to Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' homes for purposes not permitted by law, the suit contends. Vanguard Parking Solutions is a private parking operator and enforcement company that manages and enforces parking at private lots and garages in Florida and around the U.S. T2 Systems is a parking-technology and enforcement services provider that offers integrated enforcement, citation-management, and payment-processing platforms.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles M. Garabedian, Esq. Victor Sanabria, Esq. MARK FERRER & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 E-mail: charles@mfh.law victor@mfh.law VITAS HOSPICE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fleitas Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL FLEITAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VITAS HOSPICE SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-25549-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 20250) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and private health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Vitas Hospice owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Vitas Hospice breached its duty by, among other things, failing to, or contracting with companies that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. Every year, millions of Americans have their most valuable PII stolen and sold online because of data breaches. Despite dire warnings about the severe impact of data breaches on Americans across all economic strata, companies still fail to make the necessary investments in implementing important and adequate security measures to protect their patients' and employees' data. As a result of Vitas Hospice's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiff's and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII/PHI have been exposed to unauthorized third parties, says the suit. VITAS Hospice Services, L.L.C. provides medical services. The Company offers nursing homes, assisted living communities, music therapy, telecare, and residential care facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. Markus M. Kamberger, Esq. Natalie M. Rico, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7896 Email: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com mkamberger@brysonpllc.com nrico@brysonpllc.com VITAS HOSPICE: Miakos Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARLENE MIAKOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VITAS HOSPICE SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-25490 (S.D. Fla., November 24, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients and employees, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The complaint alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. The Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Vitas Hospice Services provides hospice care and other health care services to its patients across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Andrew Hausdorff, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com hausdorff@kolawyers.com WEL COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Eriksen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KARL ERIKSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEL COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01877 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 25, 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 collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says 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 - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com WELLS FARGO: $33M Free Trial Suit Deal Final OK Hearing Set Mar. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of Claim Depot reports that individuals whom companies enrolled in a recurring subscription billing program for certain consumer products between 2009 and the present may be eligible to submit a claim to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement. Eligible products include Miracle Garcinia Cambogia, Ripped Muscle X, Elite Test 360, Bella Labs Instant Wrinkle Reducer and Miracle Green Coffee. Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank NA agreed to pay $33 million to settle a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Wells Fargo assisted three groups of companies, the Apex entities, Triangle entities and Tarr entities, in misleading consumers into monthly subscriptions for products by opening bank accounts and transferring funds for these companies. Th plaintiffs claim that these companies and their entities falsely marked online risk-free trial offers for more than 70 different products, which included personal care products, electronic cigarettes and dietary, health and beauty supplements. Shortly after consumers signed up for a trial offer, the companies charged them the full product price and enrolled them in a monthly subscription plan without consent. Who can file a Wells Fargo class action claim? -- Class members are individuals whom any of the Tarr, Triangle, or Apex entities enrolled in a recurring billing program for products sold between 2009 and the present. -- Class members can find a list of the companies that sold the products and the marketed products in the official notice under FAQ number 3. -- Class members who previously received a payment from the Federal Trade Commission refund programs for the Apex or Triangle entities do not need to submit a claim form for those entities and will automatically be eligible for an additional payment. -- Class members who did not receive a payment from the FTC for Apex or Triangle or whom a Tarr entity enrolled in recurring billing must submit a claim form to receive a settlement payment. How much is the settlement payment? The settlement administrator will allocate the net settlement fund, after fees, costs and awards, as follows: -- 45.17% for charges Triangle entities imposed -- 32.26% for charges Apex entities imposed -- 22.57% for charges Tarr entities imposed Class members have the following benefit options: -- With documentation pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim for out-of-pocket losses due to recurring billing minus any refunds or reimbursements they received. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of valid claims filed. -- Without documentation pro rata cash payment: Class members who do not have supporting documentation can submit a claim form to receive a flat cash payment of up to $20. These payments are limited to the net settlement fund amount allocated to each entity. -- Flat cash payments related to Tarr entities will total only 50% of the new settlement fund amount allocated to Tarr. -- Flat cash payments related to Apex entities will total only 25% of the net settlement fund amount allocated to Apex. -- Flat cash payments related to Triangle entities will total only 25% of the net settlement fund amount allocated to Triangle. -- The minimum threshold for all payments is $10. If a calculated payment is less than this amount, the claimant will not receive payment, and the settlement administrator will redistribute funds among other claimants whose payments exceed the threshold. How to claim a class action rebate Eligible class members must submit a claim form by March 4, 2026. They can file the online claim form or print and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Free Trial Recurring Billing Settlement Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 6397, Portland, OR 97228-6397 Class members who previously received a payment from the FTC refund programs for the Apex or Triangle entities do not need to submit a claim form for those entities. Is proof or documentation required to submit a claim? -- To submit an online claim, class members must provide the unique ID and PIN from their settlement notice. -- To submit an out-of-pocket losses claim, class members must provide supporting documentation showing unreimbursed monetary losses due to recurring billing by Tarr, Apex or Triangle entities. This may include bank or credit card statements showing monthly subscription charges or email receipts. -- To submit a flat cash payment claim, class members must provide a description or names of the products they purchased, the purchase dates, how they obtained each product and confirmation of enrollment in a recurring billing program through Tarr, Apex or Triangle entities. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to address provided $33 million Wells Fargo settlement fund The $33,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $11,000,000 -- Litigation expenses: Up to $2,967,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $15,000 each -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: March 4, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: March 5, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 26, 2026 When is the free trial recurring billing settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? This class action settlement resolves allegations that Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank NA assisted companies in misleading consumers into recurring billing for products marketed as "free trials." The plaintiffs claimed the defendants helped these companies by opening bank accounts and transferring funds, enabling deceptive practices. The Wells Fargo defendants denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $20 or pro rata share of documented losses Deadline: March 4, 2026 [GN] WESTERN REPORTING: Removes Hall Suit from Cal. Super. to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of LADESHA HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN REPORTING INC., and INHABITIQ INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of King (Case No. 25-00002-29061-1-SEA) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct. 27, 2025. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02112-JLR. The case is assigned to Judge James L. Robart. Western Reporting Inc. is a full-service background screening company, offering services catered specifically to the employment and property management industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Anne Adams TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th St Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Email: eadams@terrellmarshall.com - and - John G Albanese BERGER MONTAGUE PC (MN) 1229 Tyler St Ne Ste 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5997 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: jalbanese@bergermontague.com - and - Rory B O'Sullivan, Esq. WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ADVOCATES PLLC 240 2nd Ave S Ste 301-B Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (253) 289-7775 Email: rory@weba.law Toby James Marshall, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N 34th St Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: Kirsten Parris, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (SEA) 999 Third Ave Ste 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 946-4910 Email: kparris@seyfarth.com WONDER GROUP: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WONDER GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09843 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.wonder.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. Wonder Group, Inc. of New York develops a technology software. The Company, through its platform, provides online food services that includes dine-in, delivery, pickup, and meal kits through delivery solutions. [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 ZILLOW HOME: Federal Judge OKs Motion to Combine Two Kickback Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- AJ LaTrace, writing for Real Estate News, reports that a federal judge has approved the consolidation of two class-action suits accusing Zillow of using illegal kickbacks to boost its mortgage business -- a move that streamlines what could become a lengthy, high-stakes RESPA battle for the home search giant. In an order filed Dec. 10, U.S. District Judge James L. Robart granted the plaintiffs' request to merge the Taylor v. Zillow and Armstrong v. Zillow cases, concluding that the matters involve substantially similar allegations and overlapping proposed classes. Consolidation, the judge wrote, would "enhance fairness to all parties" and "aid in achieving efficiency and economy in what is likely to be expensive and complicated litigation." More on the Taylor case: Originally filed in September, the case was expanded in an amended complaint on Nov. 19. The updated filing alleges that Zillow and several real estate teams engaged in a scheme to compel agents to steer buyers to Zillow Home Loans (ZHL) in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The filing claims that agents risked being dropped from the Zillow Flex program if they recommended lenders other than ZHL or failed to meet certain quotas. The amended complaint also added two RICO claims, arguing that Zillow and participating real estate brokerages constitute an "enterprise" that uses deceptive digital funnels, scripted sales tactics and undisclosed fees to unlawfully keep commissions "high and inflexible." The filing argues that prospective homebuyers who click "Contact Agent" or "Request a Tour" believe they are contacting the listing agent but are routed to a Zillow Flex agent instead and not informed about Zillow's 40% Flex referral fees. More on the Armstrong case: The second lawsuit, Armstrong, was filed on Nov. 7 and echoed many of those RESPA claims but also raised concerns about Zillow's Premier Agent ecosystem and the structure of its lead-generation programs. The complaint alleges that Zillow pressures agents in its Premier Agent and Flex programs to steer buyers to Zillow Home Loans for pre-approval. Agents who sent more clients to Zillow's mortgage arm were allegedly rewarded with extra or higher-quality leads, which the plaintiffs characterized as "kickbacks." Zillow has firmly denied the claims, saying its programs comply with RESPA and that the lawsuits mischaracterize common industry practices. Why consolidation matters: By merging the two class actions, the court effectively accelerates the path toward a unified fight over Zillow's mortgage business and advertising structure. Consolidation also reduces duplication, focuses discovery and ensures that rulings apply consistently across all proposed plaintiffs -- an advantage for both the court and the litigants. For Zillow, the move means it will now defend a single, more comprehensive case rather than two parallel complaints. For plaintiffs, consolidation creates a broader class and a clearer litigation strategy heading into the next phase, which will likely involve challenges to class certification and motions to dismiss. Once the court rules on an interim counsel motion, plaintiffs are expected to file their consolidated complaint within two weeks. Zillow's response will follow five weeks later, according to the newly approved schedule. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***