260108.mbx

260108.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 8, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 6 Headlines 700CREDIT LLC: Neal Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info A. RADFORD MACFARLANE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hogan Says AMBRIT LLC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Newman Suit Alleges AT&T CORP: BHS Law Balks at Illegal Telephone Monthly Service Fees BAYSIDE SERVICES: Gapour Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages BEDROCK SANDALS: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BEE'S WRAP: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes BLUSKY RESTORATION: Maclin Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting BOHEMIAN BENEVOLENT: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BYTEDANCE INC: Ted Sues Over Unlawful Use of Copyrighted Videos CELTIC TILE: Faces Deleg Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Brewer Says CIGNA GROUP: Lopez Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info COMPASS GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated CA Securities Suit COMPASS GROUP: Continues to Defend Moreno Class Suit in Connecticut CONDUENT STATE: Bluemel Sues Over Improper Junk Fees CONSONUS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Kaushik Says COUPANG INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Barry Alleges CURATIVE DIGESTIVE: Faces Patel Suit Over Unpaid Overtime DIAMOND CELLAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Battle Says DL DELI: Faces Fernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. DONALD TRUMP: Bid to Expedite Hearing on Class Cert Bid Nixed DONALD TRUMP: More Time to File Class Response Partly OK'd ELECOM USA: Douglass Seeks Prelim OK of Agreement EVERYDAY DOSE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Calcano Says F10 FINANCIAL: Beamon Sues Over Deceptive Credit Repair Program FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Cruz Says GAONAS CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges HOME DEPOT: Panizo Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. JEREMY BACON: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid JONATHAN ADLER: Isbell Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. LABORATORY CORP: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Braham Says LIFE CARE: Latham Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LOS ANGELES, CA: Lee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action LUME DEODORANT: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Loses Bid to Reconsider "Melendres" Ruling MARIO BADESCU: Baker Sues Over Facial Spray's Rosewater Labeling MIXPANEL INC: Faces Doe Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info MONROE ENTERPRISES: Sparmak Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California MONSANTO CO: Gaffney Suit Alleges Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues Over Wrongful Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Barry Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Betker Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Black Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Brozan Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Bunkers Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Chies Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Childs Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Christensen Sues Over Negligent Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Cowan Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: D'Agostino Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Brown Suit Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Carstens Suit Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Thomas Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Miller Suit Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Product Causes Cancer, Spicer Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health MONSANTO COMPANY: Steffey Balks at Defective Herbicide Roundup NEIMAN-MARCUS GROUP: Wright Sues Over Race and Sex Discrimination NEW YORK, NY: Tolston Files Suit in S.D. New York ONSET FINANCIAL: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Keeton Says OPTUMRX INC: Fruth Sues Over Improper Medical Reimbursements ORANGE BEACH: Walborn Sues Over Wrongful Expulsion of Children P.M. RESTAURANT: Quintanilla Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Cooks PBT BANCORP: Faces Svare Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls RESTAURANT BRANDS: Spying Users Through Website Tools, Hugi Alleges RISE BAKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burnaine Alleges ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Young Files Suit in S.D. New York SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 17, 2026 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Wins Motion to Compel Arbitration in "Koelbl" SUN LIFE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 15, 2026 SVETLANA ROBAR: Alonzo Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania SYNGENTA CROP: Willis Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Penn Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. TECHNIFAB INC: Underpays Processing Specialists, Medina Says TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Rossi Sues Over Failure to Protect Data TRUIST BANK: Edwards Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend 2023 Securities Class Suit in N.Y. UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend 2024 Securities Class Suit in N.Y. UNITED AIRLINES: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California UNITED AUTO: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20, 2026 UNITED HEALTHCARE: Thomas-Cole Suit Removed to E.D. California UNITED PARCEL: Myers Seeks to Recover Warehouse Workers' Unpaid OT UNIVERSAL SERVICES: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Fellows Alleges UPP GLOBAL: Unlawfully Obtains Drivers' Personal Info, Mendes Says VAZ BROTHERS INC: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VILLAGE PRACTICE: Anisimova Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ********* 700CREDIT LLC: Neal Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- ELTON NEAL AND RICHARD NAGELDINGER, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. 700CREDIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-14071-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich., December 17, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other individuals, who had their sensitive personally identifying information disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach experienced by 700Credit on October 25, 2025. Despite knowing how valuable customer information is and the damage that would result from its release, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. This PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct and the resulting data breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their personal information is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered fraud or identity theft or face the substantial and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud. 700Credit is a credit report provider in North America offering soft pull credit data, identify verification, fraud detection and compliance solutions for vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com A. RADFORD MACFARLANE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hogan Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELSEY HOGAN, on behalf of herself, her minor children A.H., K.L., and M.K., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A. RADFORD MACFARLANE, M.D., P.A. d/b/a MILLCREEK PEDIATRICS, Defendant, Case No. N25C-12-380 SSA (Del. Super., December 17, 2025) is a class action arising from 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 Plaintiff and other current and former patients (and their parents and/or guardians). But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The 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' PII/PHI, says the suit. Radford MacFarlane, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Millcreek Pediatrics is a pediatric healthcare provider in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com AMBRIT LLC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Newman Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Newman and Michael Enclard, on behalf of themselves on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs V. AMBRIT, LLC d/b/a GASKET GUY OF LOUISIANA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02515 (E.D. La., December 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs manufacturing, installation, and/or maintenance technicians, paying them on an hourly basis for a maximum of 40 hours per pay period regardless of how many hours them work. However, the Defendant fails to pay the regular rate of pay and overtime wages of one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in any given work week. Plaintiff Newman was employed by Gasket Guy as a manufacturing, installation, and/or maintenance technician for approximately six years prior to being terminated December of 2025. Plaintiff Enclard was also employed as a manufacturing, installation, and/or maintenance technician from July 2023 to December 2025. Ambrit, LLC, d/b/a Gasket Guy of Louisiana, is a company that supplies and installs commercial refrigeration parts, particularly gaskets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zachary R. Smith, Esq. ZRS LAW 204 West 21st Avenue, Suite A Covington, LA 70433 Telephone: (985) 705-1143 E-mail: zach@zrsmithlaw.com - and - John S. Alford, Esq. BROUSSARD, DAVID & MOROUX 557 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 3524 Lafayette, LA 70502-3524 Telephone: (337) 233-2323 Facsimile: (337) 233-2353 E-mail: john@bdm.law AT&T CORP: BHS Law Balks at Illegal Telephone Monthly Service Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ BHS LAW LLP, a California limited liability partnership, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T CORP.; AT&T SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-10712 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2025) arises from the Defendants' uniform and systemic practice of billing business customers for telephone services that Defendants had suspended, disconnected, or terminated, and of retaining payments for services Defendants could not and did not provide. Plaintiff BHS Law brings this action on behalf of itself and similarly situated business customers nationwide who were charged monthly service fees during periods of non-service and, in many cases, were induced to pay purported "past-due" balances based on representations that service would be restored -- even though restoration was impossible or never occurred. The Plaintiff's claims arise in the context of Defendants' wide-location (likely nationwide) retirement of analog copper telephone infrastructure and forced migration of customers to digital or IP based alternatives, a process initiated and controlled by Defendants. As part of this migration, the Defendants created new or modified billing accounts, altered service conditions, and imposed new payment obligations without adequate notice or express, written assent, while continuing to bill customers automatically, alleges the suit. The Defendants' practices constitute unjust and unreasonable conduct under federal telecommunications law, breaches of contractual and equitable obligations, and unfair and unlawful business practices under California law, asserts the complaint. AT&T Corp. is a telecommunications provider headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Song, Esq. BHS LAW CORPORATION 2559 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone: (408) 628-4257 Facsimile: (408) 628-4258 E-mail: Briansong@SongLeeLaw.com BAYSIDE SERVICES: Gapour Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- RAHEEM FERNANDO GAPOUR and JEVAUN C. BAULD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAYSIDE SERVICES INC., and GANSHAM G. SAINCHAND and NARESH BRIDGLALL, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06918 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2025) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide written wage notice, failure to furnish wage statements, as well as discriminatory conduct on the basis of Plaintiff Gapour's disability. Plaintiff Gapour was employed by the Defendants at Bayside Services Inc. as a repair man while performing related miscellaneous duties, from October 2023 until May 2024. Bayside Services Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 BEDROCK SANDALS: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bedrock Sandals, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15224 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against Bedrock Sandals for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://bedrocksandals.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On August 12, 2025, the Plaintiff searched online for hiking sandals for outdoor activities and came across Defendant's website. While attempting to make this purchase using a screen reader and keyboard-only navigation, he encountered multiple accessibility issues. An automatic pop-up appeared during navigation and interrupted the keyboard focus, making it difficult to continue moving through the page. When he selected the Size Guide, a dialog opened, but keyboard focus did not move into the dialog and instead remained on the triggering control in the background, preventing effective interaction with the dialog content. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Bedrocksandals.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Bedrock Sandals' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Bedrock Sandals, LLC operates the website that offers different types of footwear, including sandals and clogs, and accessories, such as socks and hats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BEE'S WRAP: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BEE'S WRAP, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02031-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying the proposed classes; -- Appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and -- Appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed. Mr. Zachary moves the court to certify the class described in the complaint, and further requests that this Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. Civil L.R. 7(a), 7(d). Bee's Wrap offers reusable beeswax wraps. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QzDfUW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BLUSKY RESTORATION: Maclin Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MACLIN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUSKY RESTORATION CONTRACTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01559 (M.D. Fla., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of the Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to the Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that the Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing the Plaintiff and other consumers. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. BlueSky Restoration Contractors, LLC is a home improvement company in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Wallace, Esq. Jayson Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 W. Dixie Highway, Ste. 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (509) 822-2463 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: jwallace@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com BOHEMIAN BENEVOLENT: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOHEMIAN BENEVOLENT AND LITERARY ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10664 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.bohemianbenevolent.org, 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. Bohemian Benevolent and Literary Association of the City of New York is a non-profit organization preserving Czech and Slovak in culture in New York City. [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 BYTEDANCE INC: Ted Sues Over Unlawful Use of Copyrighted Videos --------------------------------------------------------------- TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; MATT FISHER; and GOLFHOLICS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYTEDANCE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10933 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2025) alleges that the Defendant unlawfully circumvent technological measures to access and scrape millions of copyrighted videos from the online video viewing platform, YouTube, in order to feed, train, improve, and commercialize Defendant's large-scale generative artificial intelligence model, "MagicVideo." The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant intentionally violated the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' intent and rights to their content by accessing the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' video content to train the Defendant's generative AI model. Bytedance Inc. provides information technology services. The Company offers fundamental creation and interaction platforms solutions with high ethical standards as well as provides consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rom Bar-Nissim, Esq. Rom@HeahBarNissim.com HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 432-2836 - and - Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Esq. Tom Kherkher, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Natischa Volpe, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY LLP 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Email: JEllzey@EKSM.com TKherkher@EKSM.com LMontgomery@EKSM.com NVolpe@EKSM.com CELTIC TILE: Faces Deleg Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO MEDARDO SAQUINAULA DELEG and GILBERTO POMAQUIZA ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CELTIC TILE AND MARBLE LLC, and RICHARD J. MAHER, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-10410 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements. Plaintiffs Deleg and Zamora were employed by the Defendants as construction workers while performing related miscellaneous duties from September 2016 until August 2025 and from May 2016 until August 2025, respectively. Celtic Tile and Marble LLC is a New City, NY-based construction firm focusing in tile, granite, and marble installation and materials.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Brewer Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DWAYNE BREWER; MARCIA FRANCOIS; KATHLEEN DOYLESTARK; and WENDY POINDEXTER, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, Plaintiffs v. CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15578 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as a result of the Defendants' failure to exercise reasonable diligence in the administration of the Plan, including by failing to monitor, negotiate, and ensure prudent and reasonable carrier selection, broker commissions, and loss ratios for the Voluntary Benefits Insurance, the Plaintiffs as participants of the Plan paid excessive and unreasonable premiums. CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. operates as a hospital. The Hospital offers developing and operating healthcare delivery systems in markets. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ruben R. Chapa, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1170 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (630) 919-9301 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: rchapa@uselaws.com - and - Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. Kaitlin Minkler, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com kminkler@uselaws.com CIGNA GROUP: Lopez Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- KARINA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE CIGNA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02113 (D. Conn., December 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their private information in connection with the services Defendant provides. On or about November 20, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a cyber security incident occurring between October 21, 2024 and January 13, 2025 where an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's vendor's network and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the personal lives of thousands of individuals including Plaintiff, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Defendant's data security policies and practices. The Cigna Group, Inc. is a global health service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com COMPASS GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated CA Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 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. Between May 9, 2025, and June 25, 2025, three putative class actions were commenced against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (collectively, the "CA Securities Class Actions"). On August 22, 2025, such CA Securities Class Actions were consolidated under the caption In re: Compass Securities Litigation, and the Court appointed the Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Benefit Funds ("EAS Carpenters") as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC ("Cohen Milstein") as lead counsel. The foregoing matters are in the early stages and the Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. At this time, management has determined that a loss is reasonably possible but cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss. The Company believes it has strong defenses available to it and intends to vigorously defend itself. Headquartered in Westport, CT, Compass Group Diversified Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CODI", and its three classes of preferred stock trade on the NYSE as "CODI-PB", "CODI-PA", and "CODI-PC."[BN] COMPASS GROUP: Continues to Defend Moreno Class Suit in Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Moreno class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On May 12, 2025, a separate putative class action was commenced against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned Moreno v. Compass Diversified Holdings LLC, et al. (the "Moreno Action"). The plaintiff in the Moreno Action is asserting the same claims as asserted by the plaintiffs in the CA Securities Class Actions. By order dated July 21, 2025, EAS Carpenters was appointed lead plaintiff and Cohen Milstein was appointed lead counsel for the Moreno Action. The foregoing matters are in the early stages and the Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. At this time, management has determined that a loss is reasonably possible but cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss. The Company believes it has strong defenses available to it and intends to vigorously defend itself. Headquartered in Westport, CT, Compass Group Diversified Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CODI", and its three classes of preferred stock trade on the NYSE as "CODI-PB", "CODI-PA", and "CODI-PC."[BN] CONDUENT STATE: Bluemel Sues Over Improper Junk Fees ---------------------------------------------------- LISA BLUEMEL; HUDSON COCKROFT; WES KING; KATHY STEARNS; and JEFFREY KLEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10924 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2025) is action against the Defendant for forcing Californians to pay Ticketmaster-style Junk Fees to access state parks and other public lands. According to the complaint, the booking interface of the Defendants failed to include all mandatory reservation processing fees in the initial price displayed to consumers and failed to add the mandatory reservation processing fees until the final check-out screens. Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. provides technology-driven business process services and digital platforms for U.S. state and local governments in areas like transportation, health, human services, and public safety. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 426, Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (530) 490-3178 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - John Roussas, Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Ave. Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 Facsimile: (916) 588-9330 Email: jroussas@cutterlaw.com - and - David A. McGee, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC 3133 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20008 Telephone: (202) 913-5681 E-mail: dmcgee@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Loc G. Ho, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC 157 Columbus Ave, 4th Fl. New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (347) 808-6485 E-mail: loc@almeidalawgroup.com CONSONUS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Kaushik Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- GAURAV KAUSHIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSONUS HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02397-AN (D. Or., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' ("Class Members") personally identifiable information ("PII") from hackers. According to the complaint, as a condition of employment with Consonus, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from its employees' Private Information, Consonus assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration. On November 21, 2025, Consonus sent out data breach letters (the "Notice") to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. Based on the Notice, Consonus detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on August 17, 2025. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files on or around August 9, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Consonus' negligent conduct as the Private Information that Consonus collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Gaurav Kaushik is a citizen of the State of California. Defendant Consonus Healthcare Services, based in Oregon, provides rehabilitation, pharmacy, and consulting services to post-acute and senior care facilities serving thousands of seniors across eight states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul B. Barton, Esq. OLSEN BARTON LLC 4035 Douglas Way, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 468-5573 Facsimile: (503) 820-2933 E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com COUPANG INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Barry Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BARRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUPANG, INC., BOM KIM, and GAURAV ANAND, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-10795 (N.D. Cal., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's business in order to trade Coupang securities at artificially inflated prices between August 6, 2025 and December 16, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Coupang had inadequate cybersecurity protocols that allowed a former employee to access sensitive customer information for nearly six months without being detected; (2) this subjected Coupang to a materially heightened risk of regulatory and legal scrutiny; (3) when the Defendants became aware that Coupang had been subjected to this data breach, they did not report it in a current report filing (to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC)) in compliance with applicable reporting rules; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Coupang stock fell $1.51 per share, or 5.36 percent, to close at $26.65 on December 1, 2025. The company's stock continuously fell $0.47 per share, or 2.02 percent, to close at $22.72 on December 17, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common shares, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Coupang, Inc. is a technology and commerce company, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CURATIVE DIGESTIVE: Faces Patel Suit Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- NISHA PATEL and JONATHAN REYES, individually and for others similarly situated v. CURATIVE DIGESTIVE DISEASE CENTER PLLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-06110 (S.D. Tex., December 17, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policy in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and the hourly workers worked for Curative Digestive as Certified Medical Assistants, Histology Techs, and other patient-facing care workers. The Plaintiffs and the hourly workers regularly worked for Curative Digestive in excess of 40 hours each week. But Curative Digestive did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, asserts the complaint. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Curative Digestive improperly paid Patel and the hourly workers straight time for overtime. This practice violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA, asserts the suit. Curative Digestive Disease Center PLLC is a medical clinic focusing in gastrointestinal and liver care. It operates multiple facilities throughout Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal DIAMOND CELLAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Battle Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diamond Cellar Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15225 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.diamondcellar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Diamond Cellar Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Diamond Cellar Holdings, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of watches, engagement rings, necklaces, bracelets, earrings and jewelry for men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DL DELI: Faces Fernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- ROQUE ESTEVEZ FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DL DELI GROCERY CORP and CARLOS MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06965 (E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer, cook, and cleaner from in or around November 2020 until in or around September 2025. DL Deli Grocery Corp is a restaurant owner and operator, located in East Elmhurst, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 DONALD TRUMP: Bid to Expedite Hearing on Class Cert Bid Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Global Nurse Force, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-08454 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to expedite the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and the motion to certify class. The hearing on the two motions is currently set for Feb. 19, 2026. The Plaintiffs argue that the motions must be heard by the end of January because USCIS will open registration and hold the lottery for H-1B visas in March. However, the Plaintiffs waited over two months before filing their motions. The Court will aim to resolve the motions expeditiously but will not move the current hearing date given this lack of prior urgency. The Court further notes that in their opposition, the Defendants have requested that the Court stay this case, or in the alternative, extend the briefing schedule on the pending motions. This is improper. The Defendants should meet and confer with Plaintiffs, and to the extent there is a dispute, they should file a noticed motion for the Court's consideration. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: More Time to File Class Response Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Global Nurse Force, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-08454 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction and the motion to certify class. Accordingly, the Court resets the briefing schedule as follows: Defendants' oppositions to the motion for preliminary injunction and motion to certify class are due Jan. 16, 2026. The Plaintiffs' replies are due Jan. 23, 2026. The Court further advances the hearing on Dkt. No. 86 the motion to stay to February 19, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., to be heard at the same time as the motion for preliminary injunction and motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States.[CC] ELECOM USA: Douglass Seeks Prelim OK of Agreement ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ELECOM USA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01788-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class for settlement purposes, -- preliminarily approving the Agreement, -- approving the proposed notice and notice plan, and -- setting aside dates for the submission of objections and a fairness hearing. In September 2024, Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant’s online store, located at https://elecomusa.com/ and https://nestout.com. The Plaintiff was unable to do so because the Website was not compatible with screen reader technology. On Nov. 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint, alleging that Defendant lacks -- and has always lacked -- policies and practices necessary to make the Website accessible to blind shoppers, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Elecom is a Japanese electronics company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=81WnET at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Helen Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com EVERYDAY DOSE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Calcano Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERYDAY DOSE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10666 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://everydaydose.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. Everyday Dose Inc. produces alternatives to normal coffee and stimulants intended to promote focus, energy, immunity, and gut health. [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 F10 FINANCIAL: Beamon Sues Over Deceptive Credit Repair Program --------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP BEAMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. F10 FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, D/B/A OPTIMAL DEBT SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03444 (C.D. Cal., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Fair Debt Settlement Practices Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and misleading advertising of its credit repair program. According to the complaint, the Defendant led consumers to believe that its program would reduce their debts and improve long-term credit scores, credit reports, or credit ratings. However, the Defendant does not inform clients what sort of participation is required, fails to maintain contact with clients, and fails to take any action on a client's behalf. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated debtors suffered damages. F10 Financial Group, LLC, doing business as Optimal Debt Solutions, is a credit repair organization based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Cruz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATELIN CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIREFLIES.AI CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03399-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's collection, possession, and retention of the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric data, including voiceprints, without the notice, written consent, and statutory safeguards required by BIPA. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies' Terms of Service, and never executed any written release authorizing Fireflies to collect or store her biometric data. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Fireflies.AI Corp. is an artificial intelligence company, with its principal place of business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. John J. Frawley, Esq. WERMAN SALAS PC 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com jfrawley@flsalaw.com GAONAS CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ CASTILLO; ALEX CESA RIQUELME CHAVARRIA; and GUILLERMO CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GAONAS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC.; TWO BROTHERS CONCRETE INC.; LEANDRO GAONA RODRIGUEZ ALVES; LIMBER VASQUEZ; and LEO FERREYRA, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18954 (D.N.J., Dec. 23, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. Gaonas Concrete Construction Inc. operates as a construction company serving commercial and residential establishments. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 HOME DEPOT: Panizo Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as AARON PANIZO, LUIS DELGADO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. S-CV-0056355, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Placer, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03639-JDP to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 10 total causes of action, nine of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. John D. Hayashi, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. Zachary Princi, Esq. Raina Sharma, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: (714) 830-0600 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com john.hayashi@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com zachary.princi@morganlewis.com raina.sharma@morganlewis.com JEREMY BACON: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.N.N. and V.R.G, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JEREMY BACON, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01613-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and preliminary injunction. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8PYxGI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome A Murphy, Esq. Jared A. Levine, Esq. Daniella Schmidt, Esq. Luke Taeschler, Esq. Emily Werkmann, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2895 E-mail: JMurphy@crowell.com JLevine@crowell.com DSchmidt@crowell.com LTaeschler@crowell.com Ewerkmann@crowell.com - and - Ian Austin Rose, Esq. Amelia Dagen, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 788-2509 E-mail: Austin.rose@amicacenter.org Amelia@amicacenter.org - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. Yulie Landan, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Rd. NW Suite 175 #896645 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 656-4788 E-mail: sirine@nipnlg.org yulie@nipnlg.org JONATHAN ADLER: Isbell Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KELLY ISBELL, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JONATHAN ADLER ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-34128-3, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on December 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02596 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on November 14, 2025 against the Defendant for claims of, inter alia, violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act. Jonathan Adler Enterprises, LLC designs, manufactures, and markets home accessories.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Todd J. Cook, Esq. BERESFORD BOOTH PLLC 145 Third Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: (425) 776-4100 E-mail: toddc@beresfordlaw.com - and - Catherine M. Towne, Esq. BOCHNER PLLC 1040 Avenue of the Americas 15th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 971-0685 LABORATORY CORP: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Braham Says -------------------------------------------------------- DENISE BRAHAM; KARLA PUCKETT; DEVONNA HOBBIE; and KIMBERLY LAWTON, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS GROUP BENEFITS PLAN, Plaintiffs v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS; WILLIS TOWERS WATSON US LLC; and JOHN DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15583 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, as a result of Labcorp's failure to exercise reasonable diligence in the administration of the Plan, including by failing to monitor, negotiate, and ensure prudent and reasonable carrier selection, broker commissions, and loss ratios for the Voluntary Benefits Insurance, Plaintiffs as participants of the Plan paid excessive and unreasonable premiums. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries provides clinical laboratory. The Company develops specialty testing operations, such as oncology testing, HIV genotyping, and phenotyping, diagnostic genetics, and clinical trials. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ruben R. Chapa, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1170 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (630) 919-9301 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: rchapa@uselaws.com - and - Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. Kaitlin Minkler, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com kminkler@uselaws.com LIFE CARE: Latham Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- KIYAH A. LATHAM, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. and RED BANK OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00377-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn., December 17, 2025) is brought against the Defendants as a Fair Labor Standards Act complaint to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt nursing-related employees. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than 80 hours for Defendants within bi weekly pay periods during all times pertinent without being paid for all such overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay, asserts the complaint. The Defendants automatically deducted 30 minutes per shift from the work time (and pay) of Plaintiff and those similarly situated within bi-weekly pay periods. However, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and those similarly situated with bona fide meal breaks, says the suit. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., is the largest privately held long-term elderly care company in the United States with 254 facilities in 27 states, with 32,966 beds in such facilities.[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 LOS ANGELES, CA: Lee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a California municipality; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-07032-CBM-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Jan. 20, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for Orders: 1. Certifying a class action as to the First and Third Causes of Action contained in the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. . 2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) as common issues of law and fact predominate over any individual issues and the class action method is superior to individual cases. 3. Certifying the following Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of City of Los Angeles covered by the MOU – Regarding the Plant Equipment Operation and Repair Representation Unit (MOU #9) between the City of Los Angeles and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 501, AFLCIO, who worked at the Bureau of Sanitation, during the period of July 2, 2020, through the date of class certification (the "Class"). 4. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative of the class members and certifying her as the class representative. 5. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel, namely David P. Myers, Jason Hatcher, Cassandra A. Castro, and Andriana N. Bravo, of The Myers Law Group, A.P.C., as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel herein. 6. Authorizing the Plaintiff's Counsel to send Class Notice pursuant to Rule 23 (in a form to be approved by the Court after a conference with counsel for the Defendant) The Plaintiff alleges that the City promises contractual CTO pay at a rate of 1.5 the employee's regular straight time hourly rate and that the City knowingly breached its promise in failing and refusing to pay this contractual CTO compensation rate to Plaintiff and the Class. The City pays CTO pay at 1 times the employee's regular straight time hourly rate rather than 1.5 times the employee's regular straight time hourly rate. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation’s film and television industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dy4RXk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Myers, Esq. Jason Hatcher, Esq. Cassandra A. Castro, Esq. Andriana N. Bravo, Esq. THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 919-2027 Facsimile: (888) 375-2102 E-mail: dmyers@myerslawgroup.com jhatcher@myerslawgroup.com ccastro@myerslawgroup.com abravo@myerslawgroup.com LUME DEODORANT: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUME DEODORANT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10438 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.shopmando.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on December 3, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Mando Whole Body Deodorant Stick from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Lume Deodorant, LLC operates the website that offers whole body deodorant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Loses Bid to Reconsider "Melendres" Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Gerard A. Sheridan, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al., Defendants, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.), Judge G. Murray Snow of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Defendant Gerard A. Sheridan's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's November 7, 2025 Order and Motion for In Camera Inspection by a Magistrate Judge.The United States' request that the Court order the Independent Investigator to provide the parties with the confidential memorandum prepared by the Monitor that details all facts pertinent to IA 2025-0185 was also denied. The dispute involves a situation where the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has, in essence, asserted the attorney-client privilege against itself. The Sheriff does not contest that MCSO's Professional Standards Bureau serves an integral function within the MCSO. Nor does he contest that the appointment of a special investigator by the PSB is limited to those circumstances in which the alleged misconduct has occurred by a member or members of MCSO's Command Staff to whom the PSB reports. The documents at issue have been requested by a functional member of the PSB -- the Independent Investigator, Shaneeda Jaffer -- as she conducts an MCSO internal affairs investigation. The question thus tasked to this Court was to ascertain whether disclosure to the Independent Investigator of each of the specific documents withheld by MCSO would constitute waiver of any attorney-client privilege contained within those documents. The Court stated that motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are rarely granted. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in highly unusual circumstances. Such a motion should ordinarily be denied, absent (1) a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the Court's attention earlier with reasonable diligence or (2) a showing of manifest error. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have defined a manifest error as one that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record. Manifest error is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. The Court determined that MCSO has not presented new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the Court's attention earlier with reasonable diligence, nor has it made a showing of manifest error. Instead, MCSO largely raises its disagreement and disappointment with the Court's November 7, 2025 Order and asks the Court to rethink what it has already thought through. These are not appropriate grounds for reconsideration. MCSO points to legal authority and facts that could have, and should have, been brought to the Court's attention when the Court first invited briefing on the privilege issues. The Court afforded MCSO ample opportunity to include such authority and facts in its initial briefing. The Court ordered MCSO to provide a privilege log to the Independent Investigator. MCSO did not follow the Court's instructions in its briefing, declining to deal with the specific documents that it has withheld from the Independent Investigator. MCSO did not even make a prima facie case of privilege for the asserted documents when afforded the opportunity by the Court. The party asserting the privilege must make a prima facie showing that the privilege protects the information the party intends to withhold. It was not premature to brief whether the specific communications were privileged or protected. More than ten years ago, this Court, in this case, previously relied on the need-to-know standard for the relevant legal test in outlining the standard to determine whether something has been kept confidential within a government agency. The Court reiterated this standard in its November 7, 2025 Order. Thus, the need-to-know standard constitutes the law of the case, and, as such, that standard should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case. The need-to-know standard requires MCSO to demonstrate that when already-made communications, protected by the attorney-client privilege, are later disseminated to employees within the organization, such communications were sent to persons who had a need to know the information in the scope of their duties, or who were otherwise essential to such transmittal - else, MCSO has waived the privilege through dissemination. MCSO argues that the need-to-know standard conflicts with binding Ninth Circuit authority. The Court disagreed, finding that neither Admiral Insurance nor Greer address whether dissemination of otherwise privileged communications within an organization can constitute waiver. The Ninth Circuit has not addressed this precise issue. Accordingly, the Court ordered that MCSO's request for leave to file a reply in support of its Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for In Camera Inspection is denied. MCSO's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. MCSO's Motion for In Camera Inspection by a Magistrate Judge is denied. MCSO shall file written notice with this Court, in two pages or less, by December 23, 2025, informing the Court as to whether it has provided the Independent Investigator with the withheld documents. A copy of the Court's decision Dated 16th December is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MYRiAe from PacerMonitor.com MARIO BADESCU: Baker Sues Over Facial Spray's Rosewater Labeling ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARIO BADESCU SKIN CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10510 (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business Law, fraud, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Mario Badescu Skincare Facial Spray with Aloe, Herbs and Rosewater. According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing that the product is made with rosewater. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the product does not contain rosewater. Rather, it contains Rosa canina bud extract. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it, says the suit. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. is a manufacturer of skincare products based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey Ann Van Malden, Esq. GOLDBERGER & DUBIN, PC 401 Broadway, Ste. 306 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 431-9380 Facsimile: (212) 966-0588 Email: staceyl11@optonline.net - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary St., Ste. 650 No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: brittany@skclassactions.com MIXPANEL INC: Faces Doe Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIXPANEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10772 (S.D. Cal., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in November 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Mixpanel, Inc. is an event analytics service company based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com MONROE ENTERPRISES: Sparmak Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as William Sparmak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monroe Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02021-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal., Dec. 24, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Monroe Enterprises Inc was founded in 2008. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of motor vehicle supplies, accessories, tools, and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Sibilia, Esq. OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER P.O. Box 861 Oceanside, CA 92049 Phone: (760) 666-1151 Fax: (818) 698-0300 Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com MONSANTO CO: Gaffney Suit Alleges Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES GAFFNEY, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-404 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues Over Wrongful Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Ben Anderson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-506 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Barry Sues Over Negligent and Wrongful Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Barry, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-535 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Betker Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD BETKER, on behalf of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-361 MON (Del. Super., December 15, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Black Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE BLACK, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-369 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Brozan Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela Brozan, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-514 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bunkers Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------------- DALE BUNKERS, on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-376 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Chies Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Chies, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-502 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Childs Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Childs, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-526 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Christensen Sues Over Negligent Distribution -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Christensen, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-477 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 17, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Cowan Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE COWAN, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-370 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: D'Agostino Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL D'AGOSTINO, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-371 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DAVIS, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-378 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Brown Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACKSON BROWN, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-373 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Carstens Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- OLEVIA CARSTENS, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-395 MON (Del. Super., December 16, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Thomas Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY THOMAS, on behalf of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-366 MON (Del. Super., December 15, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of his use of, and exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing him to suffer from cancer, specifically Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Miller Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN MILLER, on behalf of the estate of RANDALL MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-560 MON (Del. Super., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes, and wrongful death. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Product Causes Cancer, Spicer Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE SPICER, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-359 MON (Del. Super., December 15, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of his use of, and exposure to, Roundup which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing him to suffer from cancer, specifically Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN L. SMITH, on behalf of the estate of EMMA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-543 MON (Del. Super., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes, and wrongful death. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Steffey Balks at Defective Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN STEFFEY, on behalf of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-363 MON (Del. Super., December 15, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The defective condition of Roundup was due in part to the fact that it was not accompanied by proper warnings regarding its carcinogenic qualities and possible side effects, including, but not limited to, developing Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a result of exposure and use, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com NEIMAN-MARCUS GROUP: Wright Sues Over Race and Sex Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- NAKYRA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEIMAN-MARCUS GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07253-SDG-CCB (N.D. Ga., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for race and sex discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and another African American female bartender were terminated for participating in a shared tip pool using CashApp. Non-African American bartenders also participated in the same CashApp tip pool, but they were not terminated or disciplined for it. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated African American female bartenders have been injured, alleges the suit. The Neiman-Marcus Group LLC is a company that operates a chain of department stores, with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Medoff, Esq. CONWAY EADER LLLP 50 Hurt Plz. SE, Suite 1142 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (470) 764-7164 Email: jake@conwayeader.com NEW YORK, NY: Tolston Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. The case is styled as Justin Thomas Tolston, individually; and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. CITY OF NEW YORK; COMMISSIONER MOLLY WASOW PARK; MAYOR ERIC ADAMS; Coalition for the Homeless, Inc.; FJC SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES; NYC Human Resource Administration; BOWERY RESIDENTS SERVICES, INC.; NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Case No. 1:25-cv-10741-UA (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. ONSET FINANCIAL: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Keeton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDON KEETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONSET FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01152-HCN (D. Utah, December 22, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that on May 2, 2025, Defendant learned of unusual activity within its network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Defendant learned that Private Information contained in its network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party on November 24, 2025. According to the complaint, the following types of Private Information that were exposed as a result of the Data Breach are: name, Social Security Number, driver's license, state identification number, passport number, financial account number and/or access information, and payment card number. On December 12, 2025, over seven months after Defendant was made aware of the Data Breach, Defendant began sending notice letters ("Notice") to impacted individuals. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and adequate security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. Defendant's conduct amounts to at least negligence and violates federal and state statutes. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. 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. Plaintiff Brandon Keeton is a citizen and resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas. Defendant Onset Financial, Inc. is an equipment leasing and financing company based in Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Sykes, Esq. PEARSON BUTLER 1802 S. Jordan Parkway, Suite 200 South Jordan, UT 84095 Telephone: (801) 495-4104 E-mail: rachel@pearsonbutler.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com OPTUMRX INC: Fruth Sues Over Improper Medical Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------ FRUTH, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTUMRX, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; and CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00751 (S.D.W. Va., Dec. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the West Virginia Pharmacy Audit Integrity Act, and West Virginia Code. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants reimbursed the Plaintiff for prescription drugs and pharmacy services without including a professional dispensing fee. Additionally, the Defendants reimbursed the Plaintiff for prescription drugs and pharmacy services in amounts less than the amounts the Defendants reimbursed themselves or affiliated pharmacies for the same prescription drugs and pharmacy services, says the suit. Optumrx, Inc. operates as a pharmacy management company. The Company manages prescription drug benefits of commercial, government health plans, and employers and unions. Optumrx serves health professionals and physician practices, hospitals and facilities, state and federal government agencies, health plans, life sciences companies, and consumers in the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen B. Farmer, Esq. Matthew H. Nelson, Esq. Christian A. Huffman, Esq. FARMER CLINE & CAMPBELL, PLLC 746 Myrtle Road Post Office Box 3842 Charleston, WV 25338 Tel: (304) 346-5990 ORANGE BEACH: Walborn Sues Over Wrongful Expulsion of Children -------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN WALBORN, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor children B.W. and I.W.; MELISSA WALBORN, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor children B.W. and I.W., Plaintiffs v. ORANGE BEACH CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; ORANGE BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; WILLIAM R. WILKES, in his individual and official capacities; MARY CATHERINE LAW, in her individual and official capacities; JOHN/JANE DOES 1 through 10, inclusive and ABC BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00531 (S.D. Ala., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of due process rights, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contractual relations, arbitrary and capricious decision making, failure to provide equal protection, defamation, and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and their minor children for injuries and damages arising out of the wrongful and illegal expulsion of their children's from Orange Beach City Schools in Baldwin County, Alabama. Moreover, the Defendants delayed returning tuition funds and transferring student records until pressured by counsel, further disrupting the children's education. The Defendants' actions were arbitrary, retaliatory, and procedurally improper, causing severe educational, emotional, and reputational harm to the Plaintiffs and Class members. Orange Beach City Board of Education is a public educational board in Alabama. Orange Beach City School District is a public school district and local education agency in Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Fisher, Esq. P.O. Box 364 Fairhope, AL 36533 Telephone: (205) 782-6200 Email: Johnfisher@tuscaloosalawyers.com P.M. RESTAURANT: Quintanilla Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Cooks -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.M. RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PHIL'S RESTAURANT and PHILIP MARCARIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06976 (E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from in or about 1999 until on or about November 20, 2025. P.M. Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Phil's Restaurant, is a restaurant owner and operator, located at 1856 Wading River Manor Road, Wading River, New York. [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 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com PBT BANCORP: Faces Svare Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SVARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PBT BANCORP f/k/a "People's Bank & Trust of Hazard," Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-229-KKC (E.D. Ky., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cell phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm. PBT Bancorp, formerly known as People's Bank & Trust of Hazard, is a nationally chartered bank located in Hazard, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele Henry, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELE HENRY 517 W. Ormsby Ave. Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 536-0085 Email: Mhenry@michelehenrylaw.com - and - Joseph A. Arabbo, Esq. ARABBO LAW, PLLC 4501 Woodward Ave., Ste. 101B #168 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (248) 379-5972 Email: joseph@arabbolaw.com RESTAURANT BRANDS: Spying Users Through Website Tools, Hugi Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE HUGI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL US SERVICES LLC and RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-26046-XXXX (S.D. Fla., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for falsely informing users that they could opt out of the Website's use of cookies. The complaint relates that the Defendants own and operate the website, https://www.firehousesubs.com/, which allows users to browse Firehouse Subs' menu offerings, locate restaurants, explore promotions, and place orders for pickup or delivery. Defendants chose to integrate the Website with third-party resources that employ cookies and similar Tracking Tools. As a result, when users interact with the Website by navigating pages, clicking links, entering data, or customizing orders, they transmit Sensitive Information directly to Defendants. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Website on March 4, 2025, his personal information, including browsing activity and device identifiers, was intercepted and recorded by certain Tracking Tools and Tracking Entities as soon as he visited the Website, despite the presence of a cookie banner that assured people that tracking would not continue. Plaintiff more recently visited the website and attempted to disable the Tracking Tools on the Website by using the cookie banner to decline all non-essential cookies. The complaint alleges that Despite Defendants' assertations, choosing to decline all non-essential cookies did not disable the Tracking Tools. The Website continued to track Plaintiff after he chose to reject the cookies. As a result of Defendants' implementation of third-party Tracking Tools on the Website, and their fraudulent statements in the Cookie Banner, Plaintiff's personal information, including browsing activity and device identifiers, was intercepted and recorded. In short, the Website's cookie banner and preferences interface materially mislead users about the use and sale of users' data. Defendants lull users into a false sense of privacy and control while simultaneously enabling third parties to monitor users' online behavior in real time. Such conduct deprives users of control over their personal information and violates fundamental privacy protections, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Steve Hugi is a resident and citizen of California who used the Website for its intended purpose. Defendant Restaurant Brands International US Services LLC is in the business of providing administrative, operational, technological, and support services to restaurant brands operating fast-food and quick-service restaurants, including but not limited to Firehouse Subs, Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons, and of supporting the marketing and commercial operations of those brands to users throughout the United States, including through commercial websites and digital platforms. Defendant Restaurant Brands International Inc. is a global restaurant holding company that owns, controls, and operates, directly and through its subsidiaries, multiple fast-food and quick-service restaurant brands, including but not limited to Firehouse Subs, Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons, and is engaged in the marketing and commercialization of those brands' goods and services to users throughout the United States, including through commercial websites and digital platforms. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Maland, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Miami Tower, Suite 2900 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-4177 E-mail: servicedanielmaland@rvmrlaw.com dmaland@rvmrlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com RISE BAKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burnaine Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER BURNAINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RISE BAKING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04763 (D. Minn., Dec. 23, 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 Burnaine was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Rise Baking Company, LLC produces bakery products. The Company offers products such as cookies, cakes, bars, breads, brownies, rolls, muffins, pies, crispy bars, and toppings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Ste. 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Young Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockrose Development, LLC. The case is styled as Richelle Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rockrose Development, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10712 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Rockrose -- https://rockrose.com/ -- is a luxury residential and commercial developer specializing in no-fee apartment rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Litke, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th St. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 946-9306 Email: tlitke@milberg.com - and - Mark Samuel Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 17, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeSimone, et al., v. Select Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03837 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 20, 2020), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order that the deadline to initiate class certification motion practice is April 17, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Select is a mortgage servicer.[CC] SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Wins Motion to Compel Arbitration in "Koelbl" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Shannon L. Koelbl, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02043 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and stayed the matter pending arbitration. The Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and this matter was stayed. Between 2021 and 2023, Sherwin-Williams employed Mr. Koelbl as a mechanic in Elkhart, Indiana. Sherwin-Williams also employed Ms. Koelbl as a production operator from 2022 through 2023. Mr. Koelbl and Ms. Koelbl signed offer letters dated November 12, 2021, and October 6, 2022, respectively. The letters attached Sherwin-Williams' Employment Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agreement. The Agreement requires employees to resolve any Covered Disputes in arbitration. The Agreement covers all disputes of any kind between employees and the Company that would support a legal cause of action, including disputes relating to wages, hours, compensation, or other terms or conditions of employment and claims arising under any federal, state, and local laws applicable to employees or the employment relationship. Excluded from Covered Disputes are claims for benefits under a Company benefit plan or program that provides its own process for dispute resolution and/or arbitration of disputes. The Agreement requires individual arbitration for any Covered Dispute, and prohibits class, collective, and representative actions. The parties agree that they will bring claims for Covered Disputes against one another only in an individual capacity and will not bring such claims or participate in such claims as a class representative, or as a member of any purported class, collective, representative, or aggregate proceeding. Plaintiffs participated in Sherwin-Williams' group health plan, known as the Group Health and Welfare Benefits Plan for The Sherwin-Williams Company. Participating employees and eligible dependents must declare tobacco use. If an employee or eligible dependent is a tobacco user, they pay an additional $600 per year to maintain coverage. Mr. Koelbl declared himself a tobacco user and paid the surcharge to participate in the Plan. Plaintiffs allege the Plan adopted and implemented by Sherwin-Williams does not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiffs allege the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amended ERISA to prohibit plans from discriminating against any participant in providing coverage or charging premiums based on a health status-related factor. Tobacco use is a health status-related factor. Plaintiffs bring their claims as a class action seeking certification under Rules 23(b)(3), 23(b)(1)(B), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(c)(4). Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all persons within the United States who paid Sherwin-Williams' tobacco surcharge at any time during the relevant limitations period. Alternatively, Ms. Koelbl brings the claims on behalf of herself, and others similarly situated, seeking certification of a subclass consisting of all persons within the United States who paid Sherwin-Williams' tobacco surcharge at any time during the relevant limitations period and who are not bound by a contract requiring them to arbitrate their claims against Sherwin-Williams. The First Amended Complaint asserts six claims. Count One asserts a violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1182(b), for failing to provide a reasonable alternative standard. Count Two asserts a violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1182(b), for the failure to provide required notice. Count Three asserts a violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1109, for breach of fiduciary duty. Count Four asserts a violation of ERISA, Section 502(a)(3), for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks individual relief. Count Five asserts a violation of ERISA, Section 502(a)(3), for violating the Plan terms. Count Six allegedly asserts a claim for benefits under ERISA, Section 502(a)(1)(B). The Court applied the two-step review under the Federal Arbitration Act. The parties did not dispute a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. Sherwin-Williams submitted evidence Plaintiffs were presented with the Agreement and signed the Agreement electronically. Accordingly, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. The Agreement contains a clear and unmistakable delegation provision which requires the arbitrator to decide questions of arbitrability and interpretation. The Agreement states: Any dispute concerning this Agreement - including concerning the way it was formed; the arbitrability of any claim; enforceability, meaning, interpretation, or validity; any dispute about rescission or waiver of the right or obligation to arbitrate; or any claim that all or part of this Agreement is void or voidable - is subject to arbitration under this Agreement and will be decided by the arbitrator. The Court found that the parties dispute the meaning of the phrase such resulting action and whether that phrase requires Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Six be arbitrated. That dispute is undoubtedly a dispute regarding the arbitrability of any claim or the meaning and interpretation of the Agreement. The Court ordered Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Six must be compelled to arbitration. The arbitrator, in the first instance, should consider the arbitrability of the claims considering the Agreement's language. A discretionary stay is warranted in this case while Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Six are arbitrated. Plaintiffs have ten business days from the date of the arbitrator's final decision to notify the Court the stay should be lifted. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 12, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S35oVv from PacerMonitor.com SUN LIFE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesett Corporation v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Case No. 1:23-cv-12276 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 3, 2023), the Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Completion of Fact Discovery: Feb. 27, 2026 -- All non-expert depositions and fact April 24, 2026 discovery must be completed by: -- Deadline to complete mediation: May 1, 2026 -- Class certification motion and May 15, 2026 Plaintiffs opening expert reports: -- Sun Life's class certification June 15, 2026 opposition, rebuttal expert reports, and opening expert reports on issues on which Sun Life bears the burden of proof: -- Plaintiff's class certification reply July 6, 2026 and Plaintiffs rebuttal and reply expert reports: -- Sun Life's reply expert reports on July 20, 2026 issues on which Sun Life bears the burden of proof: -- Completion of expert depositions and Aug. 3, 2026 expert discovery: The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Sun Life is a Canadian financial services company.[CC] SVETLANA ROBAR: Alonzo Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SVETLANA ROBAR, et al. The case is styled as Ronald E. Alonzo, on behalf of others similarly situated similarly inmates at S.C.I. Chester v. SVETLANA ROBAR, KHALED ASHRAF, KEITH MILLER, Case No. 2:25-cv-07319-CFK (E.D. Pa., Dec. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions for Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. SYNGENTA CROP: Willis Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, Defendant, Case No. N25C-12-389 PQT (Del. Super., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. As a result of being exposed to Paraquat, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals developed Parkinson's disease. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a manufacturer of crop protection products, doing business in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Penn Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as DEREK PENN, individually, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV26875, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11927 to the proceeding. The complaint seeks penalties under Private Attorney General Act for California Labor Code violations including 1) failure to pay minimum wages; 2) failure to pay proper overtime wages; 3) failure to provide meal periods; 4) failure to pay compliant meal break premiums; 5) failure to provide rest periods; 6) failure to pay rest break premiums; 7) failure to timely pay wages during employment; 8) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; 9) failure to provide compliant wage statements; 10) failure to keep requisite payroll records; and 11) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses. Team Industrial Services, Inc. provides services related to maintenance, inspection, and construction.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jamie L. Gross, Esq. Jeffrey M. Nellis, Esq. Tess R. O'Hanrahan, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 E-mail: jgross@fisherphillips.com jnellis@fisherphillips.com tohanrahan@fisherphillips.com TECHNIFAB INC: Underpays Processing Specialists, Medina Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUOIYA MEDINA, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECHNIFAB INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02735-PAG (N.D. Ohio, December 17, 2025) is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of failing to include bonuses, commissions, and/or other remuneration earned by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between February 2019 and December 2025 as a processing specialist. Technifab Inc. manufactures various products for its customer in the medical, aerospace, packaging, leisure, and automotive industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Rossi Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Rossi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC AND BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF RHODE ISLAND, Case No. 4:25-cv-01862 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. TriZetto stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former employees and/or consumers of Defendant BCBS. But such PII/PHI was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its consumers' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendant failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. TriZetto is a provider of revenue management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems, based in Earth City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. Darrius D. Dixon, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com ddixon@stranchlaw.com - and - John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com TRUIST BANK: Edwards Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rossie Ernest Lee Edwards, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUIST BANK, Case No. 251102320 was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, County of King to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07280. The Plaintiff asserts a claim against Truist in its role as "an auto lender to redress alleged systemic violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC")." The Plaintiff asserts that "the UCC requires secured parties who utilize self-help repossession to provide consumers with proper notices when repossessing a financed vehicle."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Karla Johnsonc, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Tower Two-Sixty 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 667-7988 Facsimile: (412) 667-7976 Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend 2023 Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UiPath Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a 2023 securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was initiated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, then Co-Chief Executive Officer ("Co-CEO") Daniel Dines, and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Ashim Gupta (the "2023 Securities Action"). The complaint, captioned In re UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation, has been amended multiple times. The substance of the allegations is that, in 2021 and 2022, defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's competitive position and its financial results, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath common stock between April 21, 2021 and September 27, 2022 and seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate. On April 23, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the 2023 Securities Action, and on November 4, 2024, the Court dismissed all claims under the Securities Act, but allowed the case to proceed with respect to two statements relating to competition that the plaintiffs allege violated the Exchange Act. On June 9, 2025, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint to include two additional statements made by defendants during the same 2021 and 2022 period, which plaintiff alleges were materially misleading. On June 26, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint in its entirety, and on October 2, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2025, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the dismissal. The Company has not recorded any accrual related to the aforementioned litigation matters as of October 31, 2025, as it believes a loss in these matters is neither probable nor estimable at this time. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend 2024 Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UiPath Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a 2024 securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 20, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath and select executives asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or acquired UiPath common stock, and purchasers of UiPath call options and sellers of put options, between December 1, 2023 and May 29, 2024 (the "2024 Securities Action"). Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's AI-powered Business Automation Platform and UiPath's strategy for, the success of, and customer demand for the platform, and sought unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. On January 21, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and on July 23, 2025, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. On September 12, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging that former CEO Robert Enslin and CFO Ashim Gupta made material misstatements and omissions during the earnings calls and in company disclosures during a class period of December 1, 2023 to May 29, 2024 in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 27, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. The Company has not recorded any accrual related to the aforementioned litigation matters as of October 31, 2025, as it believes a loss in these matters is neither probable nor estimable at this time. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. UNITED AIRLINES: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Johnson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV30341 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12007. The Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, recovery for unlawful business practices, recovery for underpaid wages, overtime wages, recovery for time worked during meal and rest periods, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, failure to keep requisite pay records, unpaid meal period penalties, unpaid rest period penalties, wage statement penalties, indemnification for employment-related business expenses, waiting time penalties, and attorneys' fees during the applicable statutory periods on behalf of herself and the Proposed Putative Members.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam P. Kohsweeney, Esq. Kristin M. MacDonnell, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Phone: 415-984-8912 Facsimile: 415-984-8701 Email: akohsweeney@omm.com kmacdonnell@omm.com UNITED AUTO: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferrara, et al., v. United Auto Supply of Syracuse, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00337 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting insofar as and to the extent that the schedules and deadlines are extended as follows: (1) The Defendants expert disclosure deadline is Feb. 13. 2026. (2) The deadline for Defendants to file any opposition to Plaintiffs motion for class certification is Feb. 20, 2026. (3) Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is March 5, 2026. (4) The deadline for Plaintiffs to file any reply in further support of their motion for class certification is March 18, 2026. (5) Deadline for completion of all discovery, including merits, class, all depositions, is March 6, 2026. (6) Dispositive motions shall be filed by May 6, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a wholesale distributor of equipment, aftermarket automotive parts, and accessories.[CC] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Thomas-Cole Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aaliyah Thomas-Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV028088 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01820. In this action, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum, Regular, and Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Periods; Improper Deductions from Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due During Employment and Upon Separation of Employment; and Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Paley, Esq. Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: apaley@seyfarth.com jbrophy@seyfarth.com - and - Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: bbifoss@seyfarth.com - and - Gina Gi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: ggi@seyfarth.com UNITED PARCEL: Myers Seeks to Recover Warehouse Workers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ RHONDA R. MYERS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50515 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2025) seeks all available relief under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff statutory overtime on hours exceeding 40 hours per week. The complaint asserts that the Defendant has violated the IMWL by failing to pay Plaintiffs and other class members statutory overtime compensation for time associated with the security screen process in weeks when they worked 40 or more hours per week. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an Illinois Warehouse Worker since approximately March of 1997. United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American package delivery company. The Company does business in the industry of personal delivery services and the supply chain industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Dr., Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 UNIVERSAL SERVICES: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Fellows Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA FELLOWS; EDMUND LYNN III; DONNA PATTON; WESLEY HALL; and NINA BUSTAMANTE-VICARIO, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the ALLIED UNIVERSAL HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, LP d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL; ALLIED UNIVERAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; MERCER HEALTH AND BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, LLC; LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10659 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2025) alleges Defendants' violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as a result of the Defendants' failure to exercise reasonable diligence in the administration of the Plan, including by failing to monitor, negotiate, and ensure prudent and reasonable carrier selection, broker commissions, and loss ratios for the Voluntary Benefits Insurance, the Plaintiffs as participants of the Plan paid excessive and unreasonable premiums. The Plaintiffs further allege that Allied Universal, Mercer, and Lockton, all fiduciaries of the Plan, engaged in self-dealing regarding the Plan, and that each was a knowing participant in the self-dealing of the others. Universal Services of America, LP d/b/a Allied Universal provides security products and services. The Company offers access control, intrusion, alarm detection, and IP-based video systems, as well as renders janitorial, transition planning, green cleaning, and staffing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. Kaitlin Minkler, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com kminkler@uselaws.com - and - Ruben R. Chapa, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1170 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (630) 919-9301 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: rchapa@uselaws.com UPP GLOBAL: Unlawfully Obtains Drivers' Personal Info, Mendes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRYAN MENDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPP GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a FL PARKING CO., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-03472 (M.D. Fla., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of obtaining, disclosing, and/or using personal information from a motor vehicle record without consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered concrete harm, including but not limited to a statutory invasion of privacy, loss of control over sensitive personal information, and time and effort spent reviewing the mailings, researching the Defendant and its operations, identifying how the data was obtained, and gathering and preserving records, as well as emotional distress. UPP Global, LLC, doing business as FL Parking Co., is a private parking monitoring and enforcement company, with its principal place of business in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M. Garabedian, Esq. Victor Sanabria, Esq. MARK FERRER & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 Email: victor@mfh.law charles@mfh.law VAZ BROTHERS INC: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VAZ Brothers Inc., et al. The case is styled as Octavio Sandoval, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VAZ Brothers Inc., VAZ Mobile Bottling; Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0019120 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Vaz Brothers is a family-owned business that specializes in transportation and warehousing services for the wine industry in Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com VILLAGE PRACTICE: Anisimova Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sofiya Anisimova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Village Practice Management Company, LLC doing business as: CITYMD, Case No. 1:24-cv-07615 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Dec. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-18881 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wiretapping. Village Practice Management Company, LLC doing business as CityMD -- https://www.citymd.com/ -- is the largest provider of urgent cares in New York and New Jersey, with numerous locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mayling C. Blanco, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3340 Fax: (212) 318-3400 Email: mayling.blanco@nortonrosefulbright.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. 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 ***