260109.mbx

260109.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 9, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 7 Headlines 277 CUMBERLAND LLC: Adams Sues Over Inaccessible Property ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims ASPIRE BAKERIES: Mayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BASF CORP: Violates Equal Pay Act, Boddie Alleges BATON ROUGE, LA: Edwards Sues Over Disability Discrimination BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CERNER CORPORATION: Long Files Suit Over Data Breach CNHI LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pipes Says CNHI LLC: Haste Files Suit Over Data Breach COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Scorpio Files Suit in D. New Jersey COLEMAN POMPANO BEACH: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Koutoufidis Sues Over Wipes' Deceptive Ad FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hensley Says FULLER'S SERVICE: Trustee Taps Commercial Recovery as Advisor FULLER'S SERVICE: Trustee Taps Ravinia Capital as Investment Banker FYNCAP GROUP: Faces Blue Suit Over TCPA Breach HAYASHI HIBACHI: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Olivarez Says HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Levsen Files Suit Over Data Breach HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Quednow Files Suit Over Data Breach HOMESITE GROUP: Court Denies Conditional Certification in "Sigler" KAPITOL BRIDGE: Blue Files Suit Over TCPA Violation KRISTI NOEM: Court Certifies Class Challenging ICE Re-Arrest LAGADA CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Workers, Romero Says MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says MENARD CORRECTIONAL: Loses Bid to Keep Transgender Inmates METROPOLITAN NEW YORK: Citadel of Praise Files Fraud Class Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Delzeit Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Denson Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Egert Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution OMEGA COMPLIANCE: Sued for Human Trafficking, Forced Labor ORACLE CORP: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Vample Says OSHKOSH CORP: Ann Arbor City Sues Over Fire Truck Price-Fixing UNITED AIRLINES: Mismanaged Retirement Acct. Plan, Dolan Says UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Court Consolidates Data Breach Suits WAYNE HALFWAY: Walker Sues Over WARN Act Violation Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $1.56BB to Cancer Victim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stephan Co. Files Ch. 11 to Create Trust Fund ********* 277 CUMBERLAND LLC: Adams Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Adams, and other similarly situated v. 277 Cumberland LLC, and Black Iris Express inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-07111 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the Defendants inaccessible property. On March 2025, and again on November 8, 2025, Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, visited the Subject Premises and personally encountered physical barriers to access. On these occasions, the Plaintiff's ability to fully partake in the services and goods at the Subject Property was constrained, hindered, and thwarted by certain structural barriers, to wit; multiple steps preventing access to the public accommodation. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Property which forms the basisof this lawsuit on multiple occasions, and was denied access to the restaurant by discriminatory barriers and a continued policy of deliberate indifference to such barriers that Defendants are fully aware are unlawful under Title III of the ADA. Therefore, Defendants knowingly and wantonly discriminate against Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in their refusal to remediate (for purposes of nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities) to the minimum guidelines of the law, which are both feasible and readily achievable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility. 277 CUMBERLAND LLC, is a domestic limited liability company which is authorized to and does transact business in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria-Costanza Barducci, Esq. BARDUCCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 5 West 19th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 433-2554 Email: MC@BarducciLaw.com ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as EmblemHealth, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-10985-BEM (D. Mass.), Judge Brian E. Murphy of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed claims based on Walker Process fraud theory but allowed antitrust claims premised on sham litigation theory to proceed. Plaintiff EmblemHealth, Inc. brought this putative class action against Defendants Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Alexion Pharma International Operations Ltd., alleging that Defendant engaged in anti-competitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, as well as violations of various state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws, by enforcing fraudulently obtained patents for its drug, eculizumab, sold under the brand name Soliris. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's conduct caused end payers to overpay for Soliris for years. Defendant moved under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims. Defendant developed the anti-C5 antibody eculizumab by 1995 and obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,355,245 in March 2002, which protected eculizumab from biosimilar competition until March 2019. In March 2007, the FDA approved Defendant's application to market Soliris for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. Soliris costs upwards of $500,000 per patient, per year. As of 2021, Defendant had made over $10 billion from U.S. Soliris sales. Between 2016 and 2020, Defendant sought and obtained five additional patents covering Soliris: the 2017 Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,718,880, 9,725,504, and 9,732,149) and the 2020 Patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,590,189 and 10,703,809), which expire between March 15 and September 8, 2027. Plaintiff alleges the patent examiner initially rejected the claims for each patent but later allowed the applications after additional information from Defendant and its patent attorney, which Plaintiff alleges contained misrepresentations and incomplete disclosures sufficient to constitute fraud. In February 2019, biosimilar manufacturer Amgen challenged the 2017 Patents in inter partes review proceedings. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board instituted review of the patents. On May 28, 2020, Amgen and Defendant announced a settlement resolving the IPRs shortly before the scheduled final oral argument. The settlement required Amgen to delay marketing of its biosimilar eculizumab product until March 1, 2025. Amgen received FDA approval on May 28, 2024, and launched its Soliris biosimilar in March 2025. By November 2018, Samsung Bioepis had begun clinical trials of its own eculizumab biosimilar. In June 2023, Samsung challenged the 2017 Patents and 2020 Patents in IPR proceedings. In December 2023, the Board instituted review of all five challenged patents. Around July 2023, Samsung submitted an abbreviated Biologic License Application to the FDA and received approval on July 19, 2024. On January 3, 2024, Defendant filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung. On August 30, 2024, Samsung and Defendant settled all pending claims. Samsung launched its Soliris biosimilar product in April 2025. Plaintiff is a health insurer that has purchased and continues to purchase Soliris for its members through third-party pharmacies. Plaintiff alleges that it and other end-payor purchasers have been forced to pay higher prices for Soliris because Defendant unlawfully prevented biosimilars from entering the market since at least March 2022. Defendant argued that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to assert claims under the laws of any state where it neither resides nor alleges that it reimbursed patients for Soliris, relying on TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021). Plaintiff contended that TransUnion does not overturn the First Circuit's decision in In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation, 907 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018), arguing that a class representative has standing to pursue claims by proposed class members under state laws materially identical to those under which its own claims arise. The Court noted that until a court of appeals revokes a binding precedent, a district court within the circuit is hard put to ignore that precedent unless it has unmistakably been cast into disrepute by supervening authority. The Court concluded that TransUnion does not bar Plaintiff's standing to assert claims on behalf of a nationwide class, even in states where Plaintiff itself suffered no harm. Later First Circuit cases considering the standing of class representatives asserting nationwide classes have raised no issue of conflict between TransUnion and Asacol. Thus, Plaintiff has standing as class representative to pursue state law claims by proposed class members. To have antitrust standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an injury of the kind antitrust laws were intended to prevent. Defendant argued that Plaintiff's antitrust claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to plead facts that demonstrate antitrust injury. Specifically, Defendant contended that Plaintiff's theory of harm fails to plausibly plead that Defendant caused the delay because Amgen and Samsung could not have entered the market in 2022, since neither competitor had received FDA approval at that time. The Court found that the Complaint clearly alleges that each competitor had received FDA approval to market their biosimilar drug during 2024, but did not enter the market until 2025 due to their respective settlements with Defendant. The Court held that approximately one year of delay after receiving FDA approval due to the settlements with Defendant suffices for antitrust standing. Plaintiff alleges that Amgen obtained FDA approval in May 2024 but did not launch its biosimilar until March 2025, and that Samsung obtained FDA approval in July 2024 but did not launch its biosimilar until April 2025. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff lacks antitrust standing to pursue Walker Process claims. Under Walker Process, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not afford immunity to a party's enforcement of a fraudulently obtained patent. Typically, Walker Process claims are brought as counterclaims in patent infringement lawsuits. The parties dispute whether an indirect purchaser like Plaintiff has antitrust standing to allege Walker Process theories. The Court found persuasive the reasoning that indirect purchasers' injuries are derivative and too remote; there are more efficient alternate enforcers, such as the generics; the theory of indirect injury necessarily involves intermediaries and intervening factors creating an accompanying uncertainty and requiring the court to speculate about how each intermediary would have behaved had none of the patents issued; and the requested relief exacerbates manageability issues without providing any clear benefit. The alleged fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office is too far removed from Plaintiff's injuries, with too many intervening intermediaries. The majority of courts to consider the issue have reached the same conclusion. Accordingly, the Court held that indirect purchasers lack Walker Process standing. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims based on Walker Process fraud theory were dismissed. Independent of Walker Process, Plaintiff separately contends that Defendant's patent infringement suit against Samsung was sham litigation that is not entitled to Noerr-Pennington protection. The protection afforded by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not cover sham activities or lawsuits. To assess whether a lawsuit is a sham, the Court considers whether the lawsuit is (1) objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits, and (2) conceals an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor through the use of the governmental process as an anticompetitive weapon. Defendant emphasized that the settlement constitutes a winning lawsuit and that patents are presumed valid. The Court acknowledged that a settlement on terms favorable to Defendant provides strong evidence that the patent litigation was not objectively baseless. However, the Court found that a settlement alone is not dispositive on the issue of sham litigation at the motion to dismiss stage because objective baselessness is assessed at the time of filing, and there can be reasons for a party to settle aside from the strength of its litigation position. Plaintiff alleged that: (1) Defendant obtained the 2017 Patents and 2020 Patents through material misrepresentations and omissions to the Patent and Trademark Office; (2) Defendant knew it had obtained the patents through those material misrepresentations and omissions; (3) Defendant had a strong financial incentive to prevent generic entry into the market; (4) Defendant's suit against Samsung sought to tie its competitor up in litigation for the purpose of delaying its biosimilar launch; and (5) Defendant's suit and resulting settlement had the actual effect of delaying generic entry. The Court held that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to suggest Defendant knowingly obtained the 2017 Patents and 2020 Patents through material misrepresentations and omissions such that Plaintiff may be able to demonstrate that no reasonable litigant could expect to succeed in a lawsuit to enforce an invalid patent. Given that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is an affirmative defense, nothing on the face of the Complaint forecloses the possibility that Defendant's suit against Samsung falls within the sham exception. Accordingly, Plaintiff may be able to show that the sham exception applies. The Court therefore declined to dismiss Plaintiff's Sherman Act claims premised on a theory of sham liability. The parties agree that the merits of Plaintiff's various state law claims generally all rise and fall with Plaintiff's antitrust claims. Thus, only Plaintiff's claims alleging sham litigation survive. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in part. Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Section 2 of the Sherman Act and analogous state law claims are dismissed to the extent they rely on a Walker Process theory to avoid Noerr-Pennington immunity, but those claims relying on a sham litigation theory survive. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/565rf7aw from PacerMonitor.com ASPIRE BAKERIES: Mayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aspire Bakeries LLC. The case is styled as Marlon Mayo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aspire Bakeries LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0018742 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Aspire Bakeries -- https://www.aspirebakeries.com/ -- is a North American baking company with a leadership position in specialty frozen baked goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com BASF CORP: Violates Equal Pay Act, Boddie Alleges ------------------------------------------------- Tonya Boddie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASF Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15283 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003 due to unlawful labor practices. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant through late November 2025 and was employed as a Regional Business Manager. The Plaintiff requested that unequal pay to her division at BASF be addressed repeatedly, first starting in 2022, with the most recent request on April 25, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees that BASF explicitly represented and promised that it would take the steps necessary to move Plaintiff and others within her division to the standard corporate BASF pay scale, so their pay for the same work done by other similarly skilled and situated employees outside the division, would be on the same pay schedule as those employees working in other divisions. The Plaintiff and others within her division justifiably relied on BASF's representation that their pay was incorrectly low and needed to be adjusted to be in parity with other divisions and its promise to change their pay scale, as the promise was made in writing and announced to Plaintiff's division. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and others within her division's reliance on the promise to increase pay was reasonably justified and BASF's ensuing failure to do so, resulted in damages in the form of lower pay for a longer period of time. BASF Corporation is a German multinational company and the largest chemical producer in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Ruffalo, Esq. Scott Nehls, Esq. Stephen Luehrs, Esq. KRIEG DEVAULT LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 651-2400 E-mail: sruffalo@kdlegal.com snehls@kdlegal.com sluehrs@kdlegal.com BATON ROUGE, LA: Edwards Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Edwards, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Case No. 3:25-cv-01142-SDD-EWD (E.D. La., Dec. 29, 2025), is brought for damages, injunctive, and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("Americans with Disabilities Act" or "ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"). The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by excluding and/or denying him the benefits of its services, programs, and activities. the Plaintiff' visits to the Property show that the Property, when viewed in its entirety, is not accessible. These physical barriers to access include but are not limited to: Both parking garages that serve the River Center lack designated-accessible parking spaces with a 98" clearance. The Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him full access to the services, programs, and/or activities by failing to make its facilities readily accessible as required by the ADA. the Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by excluding and/or denying the Plaintiff the full and equal benefits of its services, programs, and/or activities by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities. the Plaintiff has personally and continuously experienced the accessibility barriers when he visited the Property, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and other class members are wheelchair users. CITY OF BATON ROUGE constitutes the political entity which owns and operates the River Center Theatre for Performing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Bizer, Esq. Garret S. Dereus, Esq. Eva M. Kalikoff, Esq. BIZER & DEREUS, LLC 3319 St. Claude Ave. New Orleans, LA 70117 Phone: 504-619-9999 Fax: 504-948-9996 Email: andrew@bizerlaw.com gdereus@bizerlaw.com eva@bizerlaw.com BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04706-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., December 18, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to ensure its website, www.bloomingdales.com, is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to the Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is a blind and low-vision individual and is reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. Defendant Bloomingdales.com, LLC owns, operates, and/or controls its Website that offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, shoes, handbags, jewelry, beauty supplies, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CERNER CORPORATION: Long Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- HALEY LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC., and CGH MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-50518 (N.D. Ill., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to use reasonable measures to protect the Sensitive Information entrusted to them. The complaint relates that as a condition of treatment with CGH, Plaintiff Long provided her Sensitive Information. CGH used that Sensitive Information to facilitate its treatment of Plaintiff and required Plaintiff to provide that Sensitive Information to obtain treatment and care. CGH provided Cerner with Plaintiff's Sensitive Information. In collecting and maintaining the Sensitive Information, Defendants implicitly agree that they will safeguard the data using reasonable means according to their internal policies and federal law. According to the complaint, Cerner informed CGH that their current and former patients may have been affected by the a data breach, which occurred as early as January 22, 2025. Cerner itself has not sent Data Breach notices to Plaintiff and Class Members. Furthermore, Defendants have not disclosed to the public that on September 21, 2024, a threat actor claimed to have leaked 4,002 rows of employee information from Cerner. As a result of Defendants' failure to prevent the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including monetary losses, lost time, anxiety, and emotional distress, says the suit. Plaintiff Haley Long is a CGH patient. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health Inc. is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations. CGH Medical Center a private not-for-profit community-based hospital and is a trusted acute care hospital in Northern Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com CNHI LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pipes Says ------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY PIPES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01002 (M.D. Ala., December 19, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The complaint relates that as part of its business, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' names, Social Security number, driver's license number and/or financial account number ("Personal Information"), Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. According to regulatory filings and mailed consumer notices, CNHI discovered an unauthorized actor gained access to its computer network between April 27, 2025, and May 17, 2025, during which certain files were removed from the system. Following a detailed review completed on November 19, 2025, CNHI determined that the compromised files contained the information of multiple individuals, including names in combination with Social Security numbers, and/or other personal information, depending on the individual. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages and restitution. She also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. Plaintiff Kimberly Pipes is a citizen and resident of Ottumwa, Iowa. CNHI, LLC is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, and owns and operates local news, information, and advertising solutions businesses across the United States, including newspaper and media operations in Iowa and other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PTTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com E-mail: austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com CNHI LLC: Haste Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- LAURA HASTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01008 (M.D. Ala., December 19, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The complaint relates that as part of its business, Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members such as names, Social Security number, driver's license number and/or financial account number that Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. According to regulatory filings and mailed consumer notices, CNHI discovered an unauthorized actor gained access to its computer network between April 27, 2025, and May 17, 2025, during which certain files were removed from the system. Following a detailed review completed on November 19, 2025, CNHI determined that the compromised files contained the information of multiple individuals, including names in combination with Social Security numbers, and/or other personal information, depending on the individual. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class members have already lost time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the Data Breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Laura Haste is a citizen and resident of Somerset, Kentucky. Defendant CNHI, LLC is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, and owns and operates local news, information, and advertising solutions businesses across the United States, including newspaper and media operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PTTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 110 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com E-mail: austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Scorpio Files Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Lisa Scorpio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Trizetto Provider Solutions, Case No. 2:25-cv-19027 (D.N.J., Dec. 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com COLEMAN POMPANO BEACH: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Owen Harty, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. COLEMAN POMPANO BEACH, LLC and WING IT TWO, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-62683-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WING IT TWO, INC., owned and/or operated a commercial restaurant business within the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Koutoufidis Sues Over Wipes' Deceptive Ad ------------------------------------------------------------ CHERIE KOUTOUFIDIS on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03692-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal., December 19, 2025) is a class action seeking redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and sale of its Wet Ones Antibacterial Hand Wipes ("Products" or "Wipes"). According to the complaint, the Defendant sells Wet One Wipes which prominently claim to be "hypoallergenic." The materiality of the representation is evident by its prominent placement on the principal display panel and its repetition elsewhere on the Product packaging. The Product does not list any known allergen by name. It does, however, include "fragrance" among its inactive ingredients. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff commissioned independent analytical testing of Defendant's Products and discovered that they contain d-Limonene and Linalool, both widely recognized fragrance allergens. Defendant's inclusion of known fragrance allergens directly contradicts Defendant's voluntary claim that its Product is "hypoallergenic" thereby rendering it false and misleading. Consumers, like Plaintiff, who purchased the Products have been deceived by Defendant's false and misleading claims that the Products are hypoallergenic. As a result of their reliance on Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered an ascertainable loss of money, including, but not limited to, out of pocket costs incurred in purchasing the Products or having paid a price premium for the Products as compared to other wipes that do not make the same false and deceptive claims, asserts the complaint. Throughout the applicable Class Period, Defendant has falsely represented the true nature of its Products, and as a result of this false and misleading labeling, was able to sell these Products to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California and the United States. The Defendant's conduct is in breach of warranty, violates California's Business and Professions Code, California Civil Code, and is otherwise grounds for restitution on the basis of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hensley Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK F. HENSLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELDTEX PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06799 (W.D.N.Y., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal protected health information ("Private Information") that was entrusted to Fieldtex. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the rest of the Class members received Fieldtex's medical products and services, and, in so doing, entrusted Fieldtex with their extremely sensitive and highly valuable Private Information, expecting that Fieldtex would safeguard their highly sensitive and valuable information and would make only authorized disclosures of the Private Information. On August 19, 2025, Fieldtex became aware of a cyberattack of its computer network. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and at least roughly 275,000 other individuals, including but not necessarily limited to names; addresses; dates of birth; insurance member identification numbers, plan names, and effective dates; and gender. Due to Fieldtex's flawed security measures and Fieldtex's incompetent response to the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members now face a present, substantial, and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft and must deal with that threat forever, says the suit. Plaintiff Frank F. Hensley is a resident of the state of Kentucky and received health-related supplies from Fieldtex. Defendant Fieldtex Products, Inc. is a medical supply fulfillment business that also provides over the counter healthcare related products to members through their health plans. Fieldtex serves customers nationwide. It has provided healthcare products and services to many hundreds of thousands of customers, including Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Harris, Esq. Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: adam.harris@davidllc.com israel.david@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com FULLER'S SERVICE: Trustee Taps Commercial Recovery as Advisor ------------------------------------------------------------- N. Neville Reid, the Trustee for Fuller's Service Center Inc seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois to employ Commercial Recovery Associates, LLC as financial advisor. The firm's services include: (a) evaluating the Debtor's financial and operational condition; (b) providing financial advice on cash collateral and debtor-in-possession financing; (c) assisting the Trustee with the Debtor's cash collateral budgets, monthly operating reports, and projections for any potential plan of reorganization and/or disposition of assets that the Trustee may pursue; (d) monitoring the on-site operations of the Debtor on behalf of the Trustee and the Estate and making such adjustments to operations as necessary to protect the interests of the Estate; and (e) generally providing such additional management, financial analysis and related services as the Trustee may request from time to time in administering the Estate. The firm will be paid at these rates: a. Robert P. Handler $500 per hour b. Adrian Goetz $400 per hour The firm will be paid a retainer in the amount of $25,000. The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Robert P. Handler, a partner at Commercial Recovery Associates, LLC, disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Robert P. Handler 805 Greenwood St, Evanston, IL 60201 Tel: (312) 845-5001 Fax: (312) 610-5744 About Fuller's Service Center, Inc. Fuller's Service Center, Inc. is engaged in the business of car washing, auto repair and automotive maintenance from the leased premises located at 102 West Chicago Avenue, Hinsdale, Illinois and 101-109 West Chicago Avenue, Hinsdale, Illinois ("Leased Premises"). The Debtor sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 25-01345) on January 29, 2025. In the petition signed by Douglas A. Fuller Jr., president, the Debtor disclosed up to $1 million in assets and up to $10 million in liabilities. David K. Welch, Esq., at Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., is the Debtor's legal counsel. FULLER'S SERVICE: Trustee Taps Ravinia Capital as Investment Banker ------------------------------------------------------------------- N. Neville Reid, the Trustee for Fuller's Service Center Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois to employ Ravinia Capital LLC as investment banker. The firm will serve as the Trustee's exclusive investment banker in connection with any potential sale, reorganization, or restructuring of the Debtor involving all or part of the Debtor's business and assets in one or more transactions. The firm will be paid at these rates: Tom Goldblatt, Managing Partner $850 per hour Richard Taveras, Director(investment banking) $550 per hour Alan Kravets, Senior Real Estate Expert $650 per hour Nandhini Ganesan, Director (investment banking) $450 per hour Dustin Pittman, Industry Specialist $350 per hour Jake Hyland, Analyst $250 per hour The firm will be paid a retainer in the amount of $10,000. The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Thomas C. Goldblatt, a partner at Ravinia Capital LLC, disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Thomas C. Goldblatt Ravinia Capital LLC 501 N. Clinton St, Suite 1206, Chicago, IL 60654 About Fuller's Service Center, Inc. Fuller's Service Center, Inc. is engaged in the business of car washing, auto repair and automotive maintenance from the leased premises located at 102 West Chicago Avenue, Hinsdale, Illinois and 101-109 West Chicago Avenue, Hinsdale, Illinois ("Leased Premises"). The Debtor sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 25-01345) on January 29, 2025. In the petition signed by Douglas A. Fuller Jr., president, the Debtor disclosed up to $1 million in assets and up to $10 million in liabilities. David K. Welch, Esq., at Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., is the Debtor's legal counsel. FYNCAP GROUP: Faces Blue Suit Over TCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------- MARLON BLUE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. FYNCAP GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03693-GPC-DEB (S.D. Cal., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placing unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and the putative class on their respective cellular phones which are registered with the National Do-Not Call Registry ("DNC"), all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and related regulations, including but not limited to the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). The complaint relates that the Defendant's officers, directors, vice-principals, agents, servants, or employees sent numerous unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff, this was done with the full authorization, ratification or approval of Defendant or was done in the routine normal course and scope of their employment. The complaint alleges that Defendant's telephonic communications forced Plaintiff to be deprived of the privacy and utility of his cellular phone by forcing Plaintiff to ignore or reject Defendant's disruptive messages, dismiss alerts, and/or silence his cellular phone as a result of Defendant's incessant telephone solicitations. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messages to numbers on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory damages and treble damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Class per violation, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Marlon Blue is a resident of the State of California, and the County of San Diego. Fyncap Group, LLC Defendant is a commercial finance company that offers revenue based financing and other forms of alternative funding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. 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 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com HAYASHI HIBACHI: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Olivarez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE-DAY OLIVAREZ, BREANNA CORCINO, AND WEUSI RUBY JEFFERSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs vs. HAYASHI HIBACHI OF LUBBOCK LLC d/b/a HAYASHI HIBACHI, HIBACHI OF LUBBOCK, INC., AND LINDA CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00278-H (N.D. Tex., December 20, 2025) is a collective action against the Defendants for their illegal pattern and/or practice of failing to pay hourly wages, overtime compensation, and the correct share of their tips with respect to Plaintiffs and Collective Action Members, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). According to the complaint, the Defendants acted as the agent or employee of each other, and carried out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy, and that each of them exercised control over the wage payments and duties of the servers (i.e. waitresses, waiters and the like). The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA in seven ways: a) by failing to compensate their servers, including Collective Action Members, the federally mandated minimum wage rate, b) by keeping and diverting employees' tips and failing to remit the full amount of tips earned, c) by paying their servers' tips to managers and/or other non-tip eligible employees, d) failing to pay overtime wages for hours worked over forty per week; e) assigning substantial non-tipped duties while paying a tipped sub-minimum rate; f) retaliating against employees who complained about FLSA violations; and g) imposing illegal kickbacks and fees. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages and other penalties under the Act. Plaintiffs Jasmine Day Olivarez, Breanna Corcino, and Weusi Ruby Jefferson are non-exempt employees who work/worked as servers at one restaurant owned and/or operated by Defendants. Defendant Hayashi Hibachi of Lubbock LLC d/b/a Hayashi Hibachi is a Texas limited liability company that owns and operates the restaurant located in Lubbock, Texas. Defendant Hibachi of Lubbock, Inc. is a Texas corporation that owns and operates the restaurant located in Lubbock, Texas. Defendant Linda Chen is the manager of Hayashi Hibachi.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean Greenwood, Esq. THE GREENWOOD LAW FIRM PLLC 1415 North Loop West, Suite 1250 Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (832) 356-1588 Facsimile: (832) 356-1589 E-mail: sean@gwoodlaw.com - and - Robert S. Hogan, Esq. HOGAN LAW FIRM, PC 6215 98th Street Lubbock, TX 79424 Telephone: (806) 771-7900 Facsimile: (806) 771-7925 E-mail: rob@hoganlaw.com HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Levsen Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- JACOB LEVSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., d/b/a HCIactive, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04210 (D. Md., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard approximately 87,565 individuals' (including Plaintiff's) personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"), including names, dates of birth; email addresses; phone numbers; mailing addresses; Social Security numbers; blood results and/or biometric data; health insurance enrollment data (such as health plans/policies, insurance companies, and member/group ID numbers); medical data (such as medical record numbers, doctors, diagnoses, care, prescription information, and treatment); and health insurance claims data (such as claim numbers, account numbers, explanation of benefits, and billing codes). The complaint relates that in connection with providing services to its clients, HCIactive stored and maintained Plaintiff's PII/PHI on its systems, including the system involved in the Data Breach. Between July 8, 2025, and July 12, 2025, an unauthorized individual or individuals gained access to HCIactive's computer network and copied the PII/PHI of Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"). HCIactive had a duty to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. The complaint alleges that HCIactive breached those duties by, inter alia, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of HCIactive's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Jacob Levsen is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania. Defendant HCIactive is a software company that provides artificial intelligence solutions for health insurance companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Pacheco, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-421-7782 E-mail: tpacheco@leesegui.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-621-2000 Facsimile: 312-641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Quednow Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS QUEDNOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-4171 (D. Md., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for benefits administration. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff provided Defendant with his sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") to receive healthcare services from Defendant's client. On July 22, 2025, Defendant identified it was subject to a cyberattack (the "Data Breach"). In its report to the Maine Attorney General's office, Defendant reported that the personal information of 87,565 individuals was affected in the data breach. On December 9, 2025, Defendant mailed Plaintiff a letter advising him that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of Defendant's clients' patients, including Plaintiff. This Private Information included but is not limited to names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses, health insurance enrollment data, medical data and health insurance claims data. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, adds the complaint. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Nicholas Quednow is a citizen of Indiana, residing in the city of Lafayette. Defendant Healthcare Interactive, Inc. is a digital insurance and wellness technology company that provides AI-driven healthcare administration platforms for insurers and employers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com HOMESITE GROUP: Court Denies Conditional Certification in "Sigler" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Shana Sigler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Homesite Group Inc., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-12477-DJC (D. Mass.), Chief Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded that Sigler had not met her burden of demonstrating that there are similarly situated employees and declined to grant conditional certification to the proposed collective action under the FLSA. The Court denied Sigler's motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Sigler filed this putative collective action lawsuit against Homesite, alleging violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the Arizona Wage Statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 23-350 et seq., and unjust enrichment. From February 13, 2023 to October 26, 2023, Sigler was employed by Homesite in Phoenix, Arizona as a remote Customer Solutions Agent (CSA). She alleged that during the class period of September 27, 2021 through the present, Homesite failed to compensate her and members of the putative collective action for time spent completing tasks before their shift starting times and after their shift ending times, and failed to compensate them for working overtime in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 207. Sigler sought to include in the collective action group all current and former CSA employees and all other workers with similar job titles and positions of Homesite during the period of three years preceding the commencement of this action through the present. She contended that remote CSAs answer inbound telephone calls from customers regarding their Homesite insurance policies and perform other related job duties, such as sales of Homesite products, primarily on the computer and telephone from home. Sigler alleged that prior to clocking in, she and other members of the putative collective action needed to boot up their computer, start and log into Homesite's computer systems, software applications, programs and phone system. She spent approximately twenty to thirty minutes prior to the start of her shift on most days performing these tasks. Sigler asserted that CSAs were told by supervisors to perform this work before they were on the clock so they could be ready to take phone calls as soon as they were logged into the phone and the shift began, and that it was emphasized that high productivity numbers were important for their jobs. Sigler alleged that supervisors told her, and many others, only to punch in shortly before taking the first call and that booting up the computer, starting and logging into Homesite's computer systems, numerous software applications and programs, and phone system, and ensuring that each program/system is running correctly, before clocking in increased productivity stats. She further alleged that CSAs were also required to perform unpaid work after the end of their shifts each day including completing job duties after the last call, documenting calls, sending emails, corresponding with supervisors and closing and logging out of Homesite's computer systems, software applications and programs and phone system. Sigler spent approximately five minutes or more to complete these activities after the end of her shift on a regular basis. Homesite opposed conditional certification, arguing that Sigler had not met her burden of presenting sufficient evidence of an unlawful common policy, plan or practice that violated the FLSA, that the putative collective is factually similar, or that putative collective members are interested in joining the lawsuit. The Court applied the Lusardi standard, noting that although the determination that a putative collective is similarly situated is made using a fairly lenient standard at the initial notice stage of the two-step approach, the standard is not invisible. The Court found that Sigler was required to put forth some evidence that the legal claims and factual characteristics of the collective in this case are similar. The Court concluded that Sigler had not satisfied the modest factual showing required at step one of the FLSA certification procedure to warrant certification of the collective. Although Sigler submitted her own declaration, the declaration of Angela Troche, a former Homesite CSA employee from January 2018 through March 2025, and an email from a redacted source, the Court found these insufficient. The Court noted that Sigler and Troche are similarly situated in some cursory ways but not as to Homesite's alleged de facto policy of supervisors instructing CSAs to clock in shortly before taking their first call and to boot up their computer systems, software and programs before being on the clock. Notably, Troche's declaration did not include any allegations of supervisors instructing or pressuring her not to clock in early or record her time spent working outside her shift hours to support Homesite's alleged de facto policy. The Court emphasized that Sigler had not put forth any information to support her assertions that other putative collective members were also told by supervisors to boot up and perform other job duties before they were on the clock. The Court found there was no factual showing or any allegations that Sigler and Troche, or other putative collective members, shared the same supervisors or managers or that such instructed them all not to clock in earlier than a few minutes prior to the start of their shifts. A copy of the Court's decision Dated 12th December is available athttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVqqw5 from PacerMonitor.com KAPITOL BRIDGE: Blue Files Suit Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- MARLON BLUE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. KAPITOL BRIDGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03694-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placing unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and the putative class on their respective cellular phones which are registered with the National Do-Not Call Registry ("DNC"), all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and related regulations, including but not limited to the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff while Plaintiff's telephone number was registered with the DNC. The Defendant has violated the TCPA and CFR by bombarding consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's telephonic communications forced Plaintiff to be deprived of the privacy and utility of his cellular phone by forcing Plaintiff to ignore or reject Defendant's disruptive messages, dismiss alerts, and/or silence his cellular phone as a result of Defendant's incessant telephone solicitations. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messages to numbers on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory damages and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations) for Plaintiff and each member of the Class per violation, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Marlon Blue is a resident of the State of California, and the County of San Diego. Kapitol Bridge, LLC secures funding for business loans, SBA loans, equipment financing, lines of credit, and other business capital solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. 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 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com KRISTI NOEM: Court Certifies Class Challenging ICE Re-Arrest ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as FRESCIA GARRO PINCHI, JUANY GALO SANTOS, and JOSE TELETOR SENTE, Plaintiffs, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-05632-PCP (N.D. Cal.), Judge P. Casey Pitt of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California provisionally certified a class and subclass,thereby provisionally certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class and subclass and ordered a stay of the Department of Homeland Security's re-detention policy under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, According to the Court, Plaintiffs are noncitizens who entered the United States without lawful admission, were apprehended near the border, placed in removal proceedings, and released into the interior after DHS found they were unlikely to abscond or endanger the public. Until this year, DHS’s longstanding practice was not to re-detain a noncitizen whom it had previously released without first making an individualized determination that the individual’s material circumstances had changed, such that the individual posed a flight or security risk. In May 2025, DHS began re-arresting large numbers of noncitizens without making such individualized determinations, often at immigration courthouses, and Plaintiffs challenge this new “re-detention policy” on behalf of a putative class and subclass of similarly situated noncitizens. Upon careful examination, the Court described a statutory framework in which 8 U.S.C. Sections 1225 and 1226 govern civil detention of noncitizens pending removal proceedings, with Section 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) authorizing detention of applicants for admission and Section 1226 providing discretionary detention and release authority over noncitizens already in the country. The Court explained that, although Section 1226(b) permits DHS to revoke bond or parole “at any time,” the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Sugay and DHS’s own longstanding practice recognized an important implicit limitation that DHS generally only re-arrested a noncitizen after a material change in circumstances. The Court found that this practice changed in May 2025, when DHS officers began re-arresting and re-detaining noncitizens previously released under Section 1226(a) without first making any individualized determination of changed circumstances, resulting in a “staggering wave of arrests.” The Court recounted evidence from immigration attorneys, former immigration judges, and noncitizens showing that ICE suddenly began re-detaining noncitizen clients absent any material change in their circumstances, including arrests at immigration courts and ICE field offices. According to the Court, news reports and data suggested that DHS had re-detained hundreds, if not thousands, of noncitizens in ICE’s San Francisco area of responsibility alone, and at least 362 noncitizens had challenged re-detention in about fifty different courts across the United States. The Court observed that while the extraordinary pace and scale of the change to DHS’s re-detention practices were clear, the reasons for it were not, and DHS initially struggled to provide a consistent explanation before an internal July 2025 ICE memorandum adopted the position that all applicants for admission are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) and may not be released except by parole. The Court detailed the severe consequences of the re-detention policy for noncitizens, noting that released noncitizens relied on DHS’s prior policy and ICE’s statements that they would remain out of custody if they complied with conditions of release, and in reliance had obtained work authorization, secured employment and housing, purchased cars, pursued education, and supported families and religious communities. The Court highlighted declarations describing financial losses, disruption to family support, and risks to children, including a family losing about 800 dollars per week and incurring towing fees when ICE arrested a partner while he carried the keys to the couple’s only car, and single parents fearing that re-detention would leave their children without a caregiver. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the new practice upended decades of reliance and imposed significant hardships not only on noncitizens but also on their families, workplaces, and communities. As to the named Plaintiffs, the Court stated that Plaintiff Garro Pinchi is an asylum-seeker from Peru who entered the United States without lawful admission in April 2023, was arrested under Section 1226(a), charged as an alien present without being admitted or paroled, and released on her own recognizance pursuant to Section 1226(a). For more than two years, she lived and developed a community in northern California, worked to support her mother and daughter in Peru, and complied with all conditions of release, with no criminal record. In July 2025, after DHS moved in immigration court to dismiss her standard removal proceedings to pursue expedited removal under Section 1225(b)(1), ICE agents arrested her as she exited the courtroom and detained her without evidence of changed circumstances, prompting this action and a separate habeas case in which the Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring her immediate release and enjoining re-detention absent prior notice and a hearing before an immigration judge. The Court explained that Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to add Plaintiffs Galo Santos and Teletor Sente, asylum-seekers who entered without lawful admission, were charged under Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), placed in standard removal proceedings, and released on recognizance under Section 1226(a). Neither had yet been re-arrested, but each feared re-detention at upcoming removal hearings and ICE check-ins because ICE had in recent months arrested many similarly situated noncitizens at such proceedings, and they sought habeas relief prohibiting re-detention as a violation of their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The amended complaint asserted four Administrative Procedure Act claims on behalf of a putative class and subclass, alleging that DHS’s re-detention policy was arbitrary and capricious, contrary to Fourth Amendment rights, in excess of DHS’s authority under Section 1226(b), and inconsistent with DHS regulations governing revocation of bond or parole. According to the Court, the putative class consisted of all noncitizens in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco ICE Field Office who (1) entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) have been or will be charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 and have been or will be released from DHS custody; (3) are in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a, including certain dismissed but not administratively final proceedings; and (4) are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c). The putative subclass consisted of all class members whose release from DHS custody was or will be on bond, conditional parole, or recognizance under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. Section 236.1(c)(8). The Court severed Plaintiffs’ individual habeas claims into separate actions but retained the class claims in this case and proceeded to consider Plaintiffs’ motions for provisional class certification and a Section 705 stay of the re-detention policy. Upon careful examination, the Court rejected the government’s threshold arguments regarding standing, ripeness, mootness, and jurisdictional bars. The Court held that at least one named Plaintiff had standing to pursue prospective relief because each Plaintiff was subject to the re-detention policy and faced a concrete and imminent threat of arrest at upcoming hearings and check-ins, and the injury was fairly traceable to the policy and likely redressable by vacatur or stay. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ claims were ripe because they presented concrete legal issues in an actual case and not abstractions, and were not moot because the preliminary injunction protecting Plaintiff Garro Pinchi was temporary and DHS had not disavowed an intent to re-detain her after its expiration. The Court further concluded that 8 U.S.C. Sections 1252(b)(9), 1252(g), and 1252(e) did not strip jurisdiction over the APA claims because Plaintiffs were not challenging removal orders or decisions to commence, adjudicate, or execute removal, but rather a collateral re-detention policy, and Section 1252(e) was interpreted as limited to challenges to the expedited removal system under Section 1225(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court determined that no statutory provision barred review of the class-wide APA challenge. Turning to class certification, the Court held that Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements and Rule 23(b)(2)’s standard for injunctive or declaratory relief. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ proposed class and subclass definitions were sufficiently clear, that the class was numerous in light of evidence that DHS had re-detained hundreds or thousands of noncitizens in the San Francisco area of responsibility, and that common questions of law and fact centered on the existence, lawfulness, and effects of the re-detention policy. The Court concluded that the named Plaintiffs’ claims were typical because they alleged the same course of conduct and injury as the class, and that Plaintiffs and their counsel had no conflicts with class members and understood their duty to represent the interests of everyone in the class and remain in contact with counsel, so they would prosecute the action vigorously. Accordingly, the Court provisionally certified the class and subclass for purposes of preliminary relief and appointed Plaintiffs Garro Pinchi, Galo Santos, and Teletor Sente as class representatives. The Court then addressed the Section 705 stay factors and held that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims, at least insofar as DHS’s re-detention policy represented an unexplained departure from longstanding practice and relied on a legal position that Section 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory re-detention of all applicants for admission regardless of changed circumstances. The Court emphasized that DHS’s abrupt shift in practice without a reasoned explanation was inconsistent with the APA’s requirement of non-arbitrary agency action. The Court determined that Plaintiffs and class members were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a stay because deprivation of physical liberty by detention constitutes irreparable harm and many arrests likely violated due process, and it is well established that deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury. The Court concluded that the balance of equities and the public interest favored a stay because the class had a strong interest in avoiding unlawful re-detention, the public interest is served by compliance with the APA and by preventing violations of constitutional rights, and the government’s asserted interest in enforcing its preferred detention policy did not outweigh these considerations where the underlying practice was likely unlawful.[1] Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to provisionally certify the class and subclass and granted the motion to stay DHS’s re-detention policy under Section 705 of the APA. The Court ordered that DHS is stayed from re-arresting and re-detaining class and subclass members under the challenged policy absent individualized determinations consistent with its longstanding practice and applicable statutory and regulatory standards. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VizCah from PacerMonitor.com LAGADA CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Workers, Romero Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOEL ALBERTO PINEDO ROMERO, JESUS PEREZ SALAS, PEDRO PALACIOS ROMERO, JUAN PEREZ MEJIA, DANIEL MELCHOR, LEOPOLDO AVILO SANTIAGO, and ROLANDO CARRASCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAGADA CORP. (d/b/a RITZ DINER), 1079 1ST AVENUE CORP. (d/b/a TRAMWAY RESTAURANT), 1144 RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a GEORGE SOUTHERN GREEK), and GEORGE KALOGERAKOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10559 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor ("Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, dishwasher, and waiter/order taker at the 3 restaurants located at various locations in Manhattan. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs and other employees a Notice of Pay Rate or accurate wage statements with each payment of their wages, Plaintiffs and other employees were prevented from: (i) comparing their rate of pay to their hours worked; (ii) realizing that they were underpaid; and (iii) advocating for themselves and/or taking appropriate action to obtain the payments due to them, says the suit. Plaintiff Joel Alberto Pinedo Romero was employed by Defendants at Ritz Diner and Tramway Restaurant from September 16, 2023 until November 2, 2025. Plaintiff Jesus Marino was employed by Defendants at Ritz Diner from August 23, 2019 until November 2, 2025. Plaintiff Pedro Palacios Romero was employed by Defendants at Ritz Diner from October 2021 until November 2, 2025. Plaintiff Juan Perez Mejia was employed by Defendants at Ritz Diner from April 5, 2020 until November 2, 2025. Plaintiff Daniel Melchor was employed by Defendants at George southern Greek from March 6, 2024 until September 1, 2025. Plaintiff Leopoldo Avilo Santiago was employed by Defendants at George Southern Greek from January 25, 2024 until September 1, 2025 and at Tramway Restaurant from October 1, 2025 until November 1, 2025. Plaintiff Carlos Carrasco was employed by Defendants at Ritz Diner from April 2006 until November 2, 2025. Lagada Corp. (d/b/a Ritz Diner), 1079 1st Avenue Corp. (d/b/a Tramway restaurant), 1144 RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a George Southern Greek), and George Kalogerakos. Defendants own, operate, or control 3 restaurants located at 1133 1st Avenue, New York, New York 10065 (Ritz Diner), 1079 1st Avenue, New York, New York 10022 (Tramway restaurant), and 1144 1st Avenue, New York, New York 10065 (George Southern Greek). Individual Defendant George Kalogerakos, serves or served as owner, manager, principal, or agent of Defendant Corporations and, through these corporate entities, operate or operated the restaurants as a joint or unified enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Men's Wearhouse, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04703-ECT-DJF (D. Minn., December 18, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to ensure its Website, www.menswearhouse.com, is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Julie Dalton is a blind and low-vision individual and is reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. The Men's Wearhouse, LLC owns, operates, and/or controls its Website that offers men's apparel and accessories for sale, including, but not limited to, suits, coats, jackets, shorts, pants, shoes, sweaters, belts, ties, hats, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MENARD CORRECTIONAL: Loses Bid to Keep Transgender Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Janiah Monroe, Marilyn Melendez, Lydia Helena Vision, Sora Kuykendall, and Sasha Reed, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Lamenta Conway, Melvin Hinton, and Latoya Hughes, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00156-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Plaintiffs' motion and ordered preliminary injunctive relief. The December 11, 2025 Memorandum and Order reissued a preliminary injunction prohibiting class members from being housed at Menard Correctional Center. This class action litigation was brought in January 2018 on behalf of all prisoners in the custody of IDOC who have requested evaluation or treatment for gender dysphoria. The named Plaintiffs are transgender women currently incarcerated in Illinois Department of Corrections facilities. The named Defendants are, respectively, the Acting IDOC Medical Director, IDOC Chief of Mental Health, and the IDOC Director, all sued in their official capacity. On September 12, 2025, the Court ordered preliminary injunctive relief, granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting Class Members from Living at Menard Correctional Center. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, that Order expires after 90 days, on December 11, 2025. Plaintiffs moved for reissuance of the Preliminary Injunction, and the Court held an evidentiary hearing on December 8, 2025. At the evidentiary hearing, class member A.R. testified that conditions at Menard remained poor after the May hearing. A.R. missed scheduled hormone doses because the prison nurse failed to make the pills available or because medication was handed out in the middle of the night. A.R.'s body searches were conducted by male officers on every occasion except one between May and September. Class member J.D. reported that conditions at Menard remained difficult after the May hearing. She missed her hormone treatments on at least five occasions. On July 8, 2025, J.D. was assaulted by two male prisoners and sustained injuries to one of her eyes. The guards did not come to her aid; instead, they sprayed her with mace and placed her in restrictive housing. Class member T.S. testified that between May and October 2025, she was strip-searched by male officers two or three times a month despite her I.D. notation and requests to be searched by a female. T.S. experienced many interruptions in hormone medication at Menard between May and October 2025. The lapses in medication caused T.S. to experience stress, depression, self-harm, and loss of appetite. Class member L.J. testified that on September 11, 2025, she was placed in protective custody and celled with inmate Hinkle, who sexually assaulted her during the night. On September 14, 2025, Hinkle pushed L.J. up against the cell bars, wrapped a piece of bed sheet around her neck, and started choking her. Officer McDonald grabbed the bed sheet still wrapped around L.J.'s neck, choked her, and twisted her nipples while yelling homophobic and racial slurs. L.J. suffered a swollen, bruised neck with marks still visible during the hearing and on her IDOC photograph, as well as fractured wrists. Warden Anthony Wills testified that he did not sit down with any of the transgender inmates who testified at the May hearing to learn more about their experiences. He confirmed that no staff have been disciplined in connection with the incidents discussed previously but stated that investigations remain ongoing. Wills testified that he has not mandated any additional trainings or enacted any new policies at the prison since May. Dr. William Puga testified that there were approximately 20 to 22 class members housed in Menard before the Court ordered their transfer to other facilities in September. In the time since, an additional 42 individuals at Menard have requested treatment for gender dysphoria. Dr. Puga admitted that he had not visited Menard since January 2024. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to their medical needs. The Court found that "conditions at Menard remain substantially the same as they were in May." The facility does not allow class members to safely seek treatment for their gender dysphoria as is their right under the Eighth Amendment. Despite IDOC officials being aware of the deficiencies, little, if anything, has been done. The Court ordered that Defendants shall transfer any class member housed at Menard to another facility. In determining where each class member will be transferred, Defendants shall consider the individual's gender dysphoria condition, gender identity, related safety issues, and whether a transfer to a facility matching the individual's gender identity is appropriate. Defendants shall notify each individual class member of their new placement in writing, at least seven days in advance of the physical transfer, stating where the individual will be moved. Going forward, no individual already identified as a member of the Plaintiff class shall be transferred to Menard. If an individual already housed at Menard requests an evaluation for gender dysphoria, IDOC shall conduct the requested evaluation within seven working days and confirm such diagnosis within 14 days of the evaluation. Each person who is confirmed with a gender dysphoria diagnosis shall be transferred to a different facility within 21 days of such confirmation. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 11, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cee5T0 from PacerMonitor.com METROPOLITAN NEW YORK: Citadel of Praise Files Fraud Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Citadel of Praise & Worship, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06962 (E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their fraudulent scheme to purposefully miscalculate interest due and owing on mortgages in order to obtain vastly inflated payouts from court-ordered foreclosure sales which, in turn, deprived Plaintiff and Class members of their legal right to be awarded surplus monies resulting from said sales. The complaint relates that the Defendants facilitate the scheme by submitting deceptive documentation to New York Courts in the hopes that court personnel and court-appointed individuals will blindly approve and sign them as a rubber stamp. With these deceptive filings, the Defendants' unlawfully obtain foreclosure surplus monies from property owners, creditors and others entitled to foreclosure auction surplus monies. Defendant Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (hereinafter the "Metropolitan New York Synod") coordinates with Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP (hereinafter "Capell Barnett") to draft and review these deceptive documents with the intention, understanding or objective to prematurely utilize the final monetary judgment award to the noteholder Metropolitan New York Synod awarded in a court's Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (hereinafter the "JFS") in calculating improper compound interest accrued on a mortgage loan before the JFS was actually entered in violation of CPLR Sections 5001, 5002, 5003 and N.Y. General Obligation Law, asserts the complaint. More specifically, Plaintiff has found that Metropolitan New York Synod and Capell Barnett have purposefully and unlawfully submitted pre-drafted referee's reports of sale in state and/or federal courts that charge unlawful, compound interest that vastly inflates the amounts owed to the foreclosing plaintiffs. The pre-drafted referee's report charges compound interest from the time between Capell Barnett filing a motion for the entry of a JFS and the actual granting and entry of the JFS by the court (the "Motion Determination Period"). Metropolitan New York Synod and Capell Barnett use the already-determined JFS amount as the basis for the calculation of interest in the Motion Determination Window instead of using the legal basis of the mortgage principal. In some instances, the difference in the purported judgment and the proper judgment are well in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. The Defendants have systematically stolen from the Plaintiff and all others that are entitled to surplus monies in this matter and have used the color of law to achieve this goal, adds the complaint. The Citadel of Praise & Worship, Inc. is a religious corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 832 Marcy Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11216. Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a religious corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business at 475 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 10115. Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP conducts business in the state of New York and has been retained by Metropolitan New York Synod to collect on debt that Metropolitan New York Synod claims to own.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Anderson, Esq. Kimberly Wroblewski, Esq. ANDERSON, BOWMAN & WALLSHEIN, PLLC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 600 Kew Gardens, New York 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-6800 Facsimile: (718) 520-9401 E-mail: manderson@abwpllc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Dalton, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-525 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: Davis Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Davis, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-515 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: Delzeit Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Delzeit, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-488 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: Denson Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Guerry Denson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-470 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: Egert Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Egert, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-505 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 OMEGA COMPLIANCE: Sued for Human Trafficking, Forced Labor ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE 1 through JOHN DOE 22, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OMEGA COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC; SOUTH STAR LOGISTICS, INC.; TRIUS TRUCKING, INC.; NEW LEGEND, INC.; B&B TRANSPORT, INC.; A&I TRANSPORT, INC.; DIESEL DIRECT, LLC; HENRY G. GAMINO; RICK GAMINO; ALVARO COBARRUBIAS; KARLA PARRA; PABLO PEREZ; GERARDO RIVAS; and DOES 1 100, Case No. 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB (S.D. Cal., December 16, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Civil Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. This case arises from a coordinated human trafficking and forced labor venture involving Omega Compliance Solutions and multiple U.S. motor carriers that jointly recruited, dispatched, controlled, and profited from Plaintiffs' labor. The Plaintiffs are Mexican nationals, professional commercial drivers, who were recruited in Baja California beginning no later than 2022 and continuing through 2025 by Defendants through a cross-border enterprise premised on fraudulent promises of lawful U.S. work visas, permits, and immigration benefits in exchange for recruitment fees and coerced labor. The Defendants used threats of immigration harm, coercive debts, confiscation of identity documents, and unlawful wage practices to obtain and maintain Plaintiffs' labor in interstate trucking, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually, on behalf of similarly situated workers, and on behalf of proposed Rule 23 classes and an FLSA collective to recover compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution and disgorgement; penalties; attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief necessary to halt ongoing harms and protect Plaintiffs and class members. Omega Compliance Solutions, LLC is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in El Cajon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karla Madrazo Villarreal, Esq. MADRAZO VILLARREAL A.P.C. 910 Hale Place, Suite 207 Chula Vista, CA 91914 Telephone: (619) 591-8059 E-mail: karla@madrazolaw.com ORACLE CORP: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Vample Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LASHA VAMPLE on her own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-2078 (W.D. Tex., December 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of potentially several hundred thousand individuals, including, but not limited to, name, date of birth, federal/state identification numbers, tax identification number, social security number and/or financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address. The complaint relates that on December 1, 2025, the Defendant announced that on October 31, it discovered that a select group of information systems related to its development and alumni activities had been compromised. According to the Breach Notice, the breach occurred in a third-party technology product, Oracle EBS, a financial application used to process supplier payments, reimbursements, general ledger entries, and to conduct other University business. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of (i) identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, and (ii) the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. Plaintiff Lasha Vample is a resident and citizen of Pennsylvania and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Oracle Corporation is multinational computer technology company headquartered in Austin, Texas, with a principal office located at 2300 Oracle Way Austin, Texas, 78741. Defendant University of Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business at 3819 Chestnut Street, Suite 214, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica W. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: 267-685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com OSHKOSH CORP: Ann Arbor City Sues Over Fire Truck Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ANN ARBOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-1973 (E.D. Wis., December 16, 2025) seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act for the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct. From at least January 1, 2016 to the present, herein referred to as the "relevant time period," the Defendants have conspired, colluded, and entered into an agreement to artificially suppress supply and raise the price of fire trucks in the United States. The victims of Defendants' conspiracy are fire departments, municipalities, and entities that purchased fire trucks during the relevant time period which are collectively referred to as "Class Members." As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members paid artificially inflated prices for fire trucks during the relevant time period. Such prices exceeded the amount they would have paid in a competitive market, says the suit. Oshkosh Corporation designs, manufactures, develops and markets an array of engineered specialty vehicles and essential equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Guri Ademi, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI & FRUCHTER LLP 3620 E. Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com - and - Paul F. Novak, Esq. Milena Lai, Esq. Casey Thal Verville, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. Fisher Building 3011 West Grand Blvd., 24th Floor Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 Facsimile: (646) 293-7992 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com mlai@weitzlux.com cverville@weitzlux.com UNITED AIRLINES: Mismanaged Retirement Acct. Plan, Dolan Says ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS M. DOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC., THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE VENDOR SELECTION AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15232 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2025) is a class action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the United Airlines Pilot Retirement Account Plan's fiduciaries, which include United Airlines, the Board of Directors of United during the Class Period and its members, the Plan's Administrative Committee and its members, the Plan's Investment Committee and its members, and the Vendor Selection and Oversight Committee and its members for breaches of their fiduciary duties during the Class Period. The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) maintaining certain funds in the Large Cap Fund in the Plan despite the funds' consistent underperformance when compared to the relevant benchmark; and (2) failing to monitor the Committees to ensure that it was adequately performing its fiduciary obligations. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Dolan participated in the Plan by investing in the Large Cap Fund during his employment. United Airlines, Inc. provides domestic and international airline services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq. Patrick Donovan, Esq. Rourke C. Donahue, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: guiney@whafh.com kaufman@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com donahue@whafh.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. Albert Plawinski, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 708-1450 E-mail: don@donbivens.com albert@donbivens.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Court Consolidates Data Breach Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated cases captioned as Christopher F. Kelly, Mary Sikora, Christian Bersani, Kelli Mackey, Wendy Braund, Johnathan Kim, Rebecca Lundy, Robin Washington Smart, Neil Gade, Jason Rosenbaum, Matthew Lachs, Ryan O'Hara, Jason Hughes Ransom, Sharon Keld, Monique Lukens, Adam Korengold, Thomas Bucks, Ronald Blue, Jr., and Ronell Conner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. University of Pennsylvania and The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Defendant, Master Docket No. 2:25-cv-6234-MKC (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mary Kay Costello of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases and Set Deadlines. On December 18, 2025, the Court consolidated 20 separate class action lawsuits filed against the University of Pennsylvania. The Court ordered that the consolidated matters shall be consolidated under the docket number of the first-filed case, No. 2:25-cv-6234-MKC (Kelly). The Clerk of Court was directed to administratively terminate the remaining 19 cases including Sikora (Civ. No. 25-6262), Bersani (Civ. No. 25-6265), Mackey (Civ. No. 25-6266), Braund (Civ. No. 25-6291), Kim (Civ. No. 25-6320), Lundy (Civ. No. 25-6330), Smart (Civ. No. 25-6333), Gade (Civ. No. 25-6343), Rosenbaum (Civ. No. 25-6357), Lachs (Civ. No. 25-6388), O'Hara (Civ. No. 25-6408), Hughes Ransom (Civ. No. 25-6438), Keld (Civ. No. 25-6799), Lukens (Civ. No. 25-6826), Korengold (Civ. No. 25-6864), Bucks (Civ. No. 25-6902), and Blue (Civ. No. 25-7108). 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 on or around October 31, 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. The Court established specific deadlines for the consolidated proceeding. Any Plaintiffs' counsel seeking to serve as interim class counsel must file a motion by January 19, 2026, with applications limited to 10 pages excluding exhibits. The Defendant's response is due by February 9, 2026. The Plaintiffs must file an operative, consolidated class action complaint within 30 days of the Court's order designating interim lead class counsel. The Court relieved the Defendant from responding to any of the complaints initially filed in the consolidated actions. The Defendant shall answer, move or otherwise respond to the consolidated class action complaint within 60 days of filing. The Court further ordered that any action subsequently filed in, transferred to, or removed to the Court that arises out of the same or similar operative facts shall be consolidated with the consolidated action for pre-trial purposes. A copy of the Court's decision dated 19th December is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=msZwlO from PacerMonitor.com WAYNE HALFWAY: Walker Sues Over WARN Act Violation -------------------------------------------------- Hynryetta Walker, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wayne Halfway House, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01455 (M.D. Tenn., December 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to give timely written notice of a mass layoff, in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"). According to the complaint, Defendant abruptly terminated at least 144 employees, including Plaintiff, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff from a facility in Tampa, Florida. The Defendant did not provide proper WARN Act Notice, 60 days in advance even though it planned to abolish, terminate, and/or layoff at least 50 employees and 33% of the employees employed at the Facilities. The complaint alleges that by failing to provide its affected employees who were temporarily or permanently terminated with proper WARN Act Notices and other benefits, the Defendant acted willfully and cannot establish that they had any reasonable grounds or basis for believing their actions were not in violation of the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act. Plaintiff Hynryetta Walker was employed full time, by Defendant for seven months at the time of termination. Defendant Wayne Halfway House is a Tennessee Corporation that is registered to conduct business at 942 Andrew Jackson Drive, Waynesboro, TN 38485.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615/254-8801 Facsimile: 615/255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Ordered to Pay $1.56BB to Cancer Victim ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay about $1.56 billion to a Maryland woman who blamed the company's talc-based baby powder for causing her asbestos-linked cancer, the largest such jury verdict for an individual in 15 years of litigation. Jurors in state court in Baltimore late Monday concluded that J&J, two of its units and spinoff Kenvue were liable for failing to warn Cherie Craft that its baby powder was tainted with asbestos, which researchers have linked to mesothelioma, a form of cancer. J&J officials say the parent company is responsible for covering the entire verdict since it agreed to indemnify Kenvue for all baby powder liabilities. The verdict comes as J&J has been pummeled by a recent spate of baby powder verdicts after it failed this year to use bankruptcy court to force a settlement of more than 70,000 lawsuits accusing the company of hiding the product's cancer risks. The Maryland verdict eclipses a $966 million damage award in October to the family of a California woman who died of mesothelioma after using J&J’s talc-based baby powder for most of her life. J&J steadfastly maintains talc doesn't cause cancer and there's never been any asbestos in the product. The company also contends it has appropriately marketed its baby powder for more than 100 years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stephan Co. Files Ch. 11 to Create Trust Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- Devin Golden, writing for mesotheliomaguide.com, reports that The Stephan Company has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, hoping to reorganize debt, and likely will need to create an asbestos trust fund to pay victims in the future. The company, which was founded in 1897, is a premier distributor of barber, beauty and personal care items. The grooming and personal care company claims to be the first professional men's hair care company in the United States. The distributor, which is based in Tampa, Florida, is using a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to restructure debt. It plans to continue operating under court supervision. According to the Tampa Bay Business Journal, the bankruptcy is tied to ongoing mesothelioma lawsuits. Filing for bankruptcy can halt lawsuits and protect the company from needing to settle cases individually – or be subject to verdicts. ********* 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 ***