260112.mbx

260112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 12, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 8 Headlines 700CREDIT LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pierce Says AHRC HEALTH: $5.15MM Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval AUSTIN INDUSTRIES: Jones Files Suit Over Invasive Wellness Program BEE'S WRAP: Morris Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BELL COUNTY, KY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 12 BLUE LAGOON: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property BOARDRIDERS IP HOLDINGS: Removes Aronson Suit to W.D. Wash. CAPITAL ONE: Singh Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement CELLULARMART RS: Cortez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CNHI LLC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Dean Alleges CNHI LLC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Sutor Alleges COMPASS INC: Kern Files Suit Over TCPA Breach COMPSOURCE INC: Randolph Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COTTON ON USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES: Huazano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DISNEY DTC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Abdullah Alleges DUDE PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Alleges E BENEFIT: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Monroe Says ESTEE LAUDER: Website Conceals Tracking Software, Elmarouk Alleges EXAMWORKS LLC: Smith Seeks Jan. 12, 2026 Class Cert Bid Filing FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Endorses Denial of Class Cert Bid FARMERS INSURANCE: Plude Files Suit Over Data Breach FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Wollenberg Says FRIED FRANK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Sacks Says GARRETT LEATHER: Wzientek Files Suit Over Data Breach GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action HARGRAVES ONLINE: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HIGH COUNTRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Randolph Alleges JOIN US HK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avino Suit Alleges LEW THOMPSON & SON: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. California LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Lewis Files Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fannin Files Suit Over Data Breach MAYNE PHARMA: Faces N.O. Suit Over Data Privacy Violations MEDCO 23: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Health Info, T.K. Says MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Uses Unlawful Telemarketing Tactics, Caplan Says MGM PROPERTY: Smith Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action MONSANTO COMPANY: Amerine Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Deboer Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Felice Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Ferrell Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Saltz Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MOVE INC: Faucett's Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed NEWPORT HARBOR: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OLD DOMINION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges ORACLE CORPORATION: J.S. Files Suit Over Data Breach PARKING REVENUE: Removes Alexander Suit to E.D.N.C. PEPSICO INC: Emporium Sues Over Soft Drinks Sale Monopoly PREMIER HEALTH: Hill Files Suit Over TCPA Violation PRINCE GEORGE AIRPORT: Class Suit Over Passenger Tax Moves Forward PROENZA SCHOULER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Says REAL BROKER: Schultz Files Suit Over TCPA Violation SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Bingham Says SAN FRANCISCO, CA: ALPR Program Raises Privacy Concerns, Moore Says SAX LLP: Inadequately Safeguards Personal Information, Young Says SAX LLP: Inadequately Safeguards Private Information, Liu Says SAX LLP: Kim Files Suit in D. New Jersey SEB MANAGEMENT: Alvear Sues Over Disability Discrimination SHOP ABBODE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Says SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Says SPORTSBET: Customers Set for Automatic Inclusion in Breach Suit STEVEN SINGER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges STITCH FIX: Abdullah Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy THS GROUP LLC: Kirshner Suit Removed to N.D. California TRANS UNION LLC: Louis Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Lytle Says TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Noble Files Suit Over Data Breach UGMONK INC: Randolph Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Davis Sues Over Data Breach USG CEILINGS: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Harris Bid for Class Certification Tossed WHEAT DURKO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hay Suit Alleges WINNCO INVESTMENTS: Newman Files Suit Over TCPA Violation WITH JEAN: Calcano Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* 700CREDIT LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Pierce Says ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES PIERCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 700CREDIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-14120-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The complaint relates that 700Credit was entrusted with, and was expected to secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and the Class' personally identifiable information ("PII") such as name, address, e-mail address, user ID, credit card number, and social security number. By obtaining, using, disclosing, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, 700Credit assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from disclosure. On October 25, 2025, hackers launched a sustained velocity attack that continued for more than two weeks. Although 700Credit shut down the exposed API, attackers still managed to obtain about 20% of consumer data from May to October 2025. 700Credit waited until early December 2025 to begin notifying affected dealerships and consumers of the Data Breach—months after the breach occurred. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members are at substantially increased risk of future identity theft, both currently and for the indefinite future. Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, including their Social Security numbers, that were compromised by cybercriminals in the Data Breach, is highly valuable because it is readily useable to commit fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring 700Credit to adopt reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the PII in 700Credit's custody and control to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from recurring in the future. Plaintiff Charles Pierce is a citizen and resident of the State of Indiana. Defendant 700Credit, LLC is the largest provider of credit reports, soft pull credit data, identity verification, fraud detection and compliance solutions in Automotive, RV, Powersports and Marine dealerships across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com E-mail: afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com AHRC HEALTH: $5.15MM Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- McLaughlin and Stern LLP announced on January 3, 2026 that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted final approval of a landmark settlement totaling $5.15 million in the class action lawsuit captioned Onate v. AHRC Health Care, Inc. The settlement represents one of the largest wage and hour class action recoveries in the district in recent years and delivers meaningful relief to a class of approximately 8,800 current and former employees of AHRC. In a detailed order issued on December 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis approved the settlement in its entirety, finding the agreement "procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate." The Court also noted that the settlement was achieved after extensive discovery, multiple mediations, review of more than 80,000 pages of documents, and dozens of depositions. "This is an important day for thousands of hardworking people who performed essential services and were long denied the wages and protections they were entitled to under the law," said Brett Gallaway, Partner at McLaughlin and Stern and Class Counsel. "We are proud to have represented this class, to have secured this excellent result, and to have helped deliver long overdue accountability. This outcome reflects years of persistence, detailed investigation, and the extraordinary courage of our clients who stepped forward on behalf of so many others." The certified class included both hourly and salaried overtime eligible employees who alleged that AHRC failed to pay them for work performed prior to an after their scheduled shifts and automatically deducted meal breaks even when employees worked through them. After more than four and a half years of litigation, the settlement provides substantial financial relief and avoids the risks of a lengthy trial. The Court also approved McLaughlin and Stern's request for attorneys' fees, recognizing that the firm worked diligently and effectively on behalf of the class since inception. Settlement payments will be administered by Analytics LLC in accordance with the Court's judgment. [GN] AUSTIN INDUSTRIES: Jones Files Suit Over Invasive Wellness Program ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAWN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUSTIN INDUSTRIES, INC., AUSTIN MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., and AUSTIN INDUSTRIAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-2337 (C.D. Ill., December 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for requiring him to participate in an invasive, unlawful and discriminatory "Wellness Program" or pay a penalty in the form of a fine of $2,400 annually for him and his spouse. The complaint relates that Austin's plan, which required the disclosure of medical and genetic information by Mr. Jones and his wife, was not voluntary and thus violates the ADA, GINA and ILGIPA. Mr. Jones refused to participate in this Plan and thus incurred the fines, which Austin did not disclose to him when he accepted the position. The financial hardship caused by these unlawful charges forced him to resign. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the same Wellness Program policy and course of conduct by Austin and his claims are based on the same legal and remedial theories as those of the proposed Class and involve similar factual circumstances. Further the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs are similar to the injuries suffered by the class and Plaintiff seeks common forms of relief for himself and the class, including but not limited to injunctive and declaratory relief, lost wages paid in the form of a penalty, and non-economic damages. Plaintiff Shawn Jones was hired by Austin on or about January 26, 2021 for the position of Millwright. His job involved maintaining and repairing heavy machinery. He was forced to resign on or about April 26, 2023, and his last day of work was on approximately May 5, 2023. Defendant AUSTIN MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant AUSTIN INDUSTRIAL, INC. which is a wholly owned subsidiary of AUSTIN INDUSTRIES, INC. (collectively, "Austin"). Austin provides industrial construction and maintenance services to clients in petrochemical, refining, food and beverage, pulp and paper, power/energy, manufacturing and other industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq. Patrick J. Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 224-2423 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com pcowlin@hq-law.com BEE'S WRAP: Morris Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEE'S WRAP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-2031 (E.D. Wis., December 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.beeswraps.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that on September 23, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase his desired Bee's Wrap Bread Wrap. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff ZACHARY MORRIS is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant BEE'S WRAP, LLC is a company that owns and operates the website that offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BELL COUNTY, KY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 12 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN HALE, v. BELL COUNTY FISCAL COURT, et al., Case No. 6:24-CV-86-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Ingram entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to extend their deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by ten days. The Scheduling Order is amended as follows: No later than Jan. 12, 2026, the Defendants shall file any response in opposition to class certification. No later than Jan. 26, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file their reply in support of class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fZXp0r at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE LAGOON: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BLUE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and JM BLUE LAGOON LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-26119-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. BLUE LAGOON DEVELOPMENT, LLC., owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - 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 BOARDRIDERS IP HOLDINGS: Removes Aronson Suit to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of KENNETH ARONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOARDRIDERS IP HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a BILLABONG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 25-2-34692-7 SEA) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 24, 2025. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02691. The case is assigned to James L. Robart. Billabong International Limited manufactures and distributes surfwear and extreme sports apparel throughout the world. Billabong designs board shirts, swimwear, T-shirts, fleece tops, jumpers, shirts, walk shorts, trousers, jeans, back packs and accessories under its brand name. The Company also sponsors professional surfing, skateboarding and snowboarding events. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Bryan Taylor, Esq. Joshua Peck, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com bryantaylor@dwt.com joshpeck@dwt.com CAPITAL ONE: Singh Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE SINGH, GWEN DEJESUS, JOSHUA ALLEN, RAUL MORALES, ADRIAN BARRERA, JR., CLAIRE MOORE, PATRICE JOHNSON, NIJA WINTER, and MICHAEL SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:24-cv-08538-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, -- Preliminary certifying class for settlement purposes, -- Approving form and manner of settlement notice, -- Preliminary approving plan of allocation, and -- Scheduling a date for a fairness hearing. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4rk3NV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 242-1802 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com CELLULARMART RS: Cortez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cellularmart RS, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rachel Cortez, and others similarly situated v. Cellularmart RS, Inc., Cellularmart DHS Inc., Case No. 25STCV37192 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cellular Mart is a leading provider of innovative and stylish cases and accessories for mobile devices and tablets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CNHI LLC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Dean Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDY DEAN, JOHN BUGYI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CNHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01018 (M.D. Ala., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, Social Security number, driver's license number and/or financial account number (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information, CNHI has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite CNHI's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's computer network and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein between April 27, 2025 and May 17, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). While Defendant claims to have reviewed the files involved in the breach as early as November 19, 2025, the Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until on or about December 8, 2025. Indeed, Plaintiffs and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach for months until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiffs and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, adds the complaint. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Brandy Dean is an adult, who at all relevant times, was a resident and citizen of the State of Georgia. Plaintiff John Bugyi is an adult, who at all relevant times, was a resident and citizen of the State of New York. CNHI, LLC is a company that owns and runs newspapers and other news media outlets in various regions across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond J. Hawthorne, Esq. HAWTHORNE | ATCHISON | RIDDLE 12 West Jefferson Street, Suite 200 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 676-3696 Facsimile: (334) 676-3697 E-mail: Ray@HARlegal.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com CNHI LLC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Sutor Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SUTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01019 (M.D. Ala., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and other government issued identification numbers, and financial account information (the "Private Information") from hackers (the "Data Breach"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access and to provide timely notice of any security breaches. On December 8, 2025, Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other Data Breach victims correspondence informing them of the Data Breach ("Notice Letters"), wherein Defendant stated that they had experienced unauthorized access to its computer systems between April 27, 2025 and May 17, 2025. The complaint alleges that the delay between the breach (April-May 2025) and determination of PII involvement (November 19, 2025) and notices (beginning December 8, 2025) was unreasonable. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff David J. Sutor is a citizen and a resident of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and a former employee of CNHI (North of Boston Media Group and related newspaper operations). 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 in Pennsylvania 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 - Grayson Wells, Esq. Darrius D. Dixon, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com ddixon@stranchlaw.com COMPASS INC: Kern Files Suit Over TCPA Breach --------------------------------------------- STEVEN KERN, Plaintiff v. COMPASS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10692 (S.D.N.Y., December 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for making unauthorized solicitation telephone calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint relates that Compass' business model depends on agent productivity, from which it derives direct revenue through commission splits, monthly fees, and other transaction-related income. To drive this productivity, Compass mandates and institutionalizes cold calling as a central sales tactic. This is not a decentralized or rogue practice; rather, Compass has implemented a corporate infrastructure that trains, equips, and incentivizes its agents to engage in outbound cold calling to consumers, including those who have not consented to be contacted. Compass' own website and agent profiles promote successful cold callers and teams who operate call centers or boast about lead generation through unsolicited outreach. Training videos and scripts provided by Compass and its affiliate teams teach agents how to extract contact data using tools like Mojo and Cole Realty and then launch outbound call campaigns. These tools include pre-recorded voicemail technology, and agents are trained on how to deploy it. This coordinated system resulted in calls like the one received by Plaintiff Kern: a pre-recorded solicitation from a Compass-affiliated agent with no prior relationship or consent. The complaint alleges that the unauthorized solicitation telephone call that Plaintiff Kern received from or on behalf of Compass have harmed him in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, occupied his phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone. He, therefore, seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff Steven Kern is the subscriber and sole user of the cell phone number ending with 4002. Defendant Compass, Inc. is a real estate brokerage that operates throughout the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman COLEMAN PLLC Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com COMPSOURCE INC: Randolph Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CompSource, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15645 (N.D. Ill., December 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://compsource.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff made an attempt to complete a purchase on Compsource.com. Specifically, she intended to purchase new headphones to ensure clear and reliable audio quality. On February 26, 2025, she searched online for reputable electronics and computer hardware retailers. Among the top results was Compsource.com, which offers a wide selection of computer hardware, software, and consumer electronics. She also came across positive reviews from Illinois customers highlighting the accuracy of product descriptions and reliability of the products. These reviews, written by like-minded Illinois residents who were highly satisfied with their purchases from Compsource.com, influenced her decision to explore the site further. However, while navigating the website and attempting to purchase headphones, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly impeded her ability to complete the transaction. The complaint alleges that the barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Compsource.com. As a result of direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered interference with daily activities, as well as emotional distress, including, without limitation, emotional and mental anguish, loss of sleep, violation of privacy, humiliation, stress, anger, frustration, shock, embarrassment, and anxiety. Plaintiff Erika Randolph is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CompSource, Inc. controls and operates Compsource.com which provides consumers an extensive range of electronic products, including computers, laptops, tablets, UPSs, printers, multimedia speakers, phones, software, gaming devices, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com COTTON ON USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cotton On USA, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-04781-JRT-DTS (D. Minn., Dec. 29, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.cottonon.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, sweaters, hoodies, jackets, pants, shorts, sleepwear, swimwear, bags, jewelry, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES: Huazano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scovercraft Industries LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Huazano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Scovercraft Industries LLC, Case No. 25STCV37664 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Covercraft Industries, LLC -- https://www.covercraft.com/ -- is a leading branded manufacturer of Automotive, Marine and Recreational Vehicle protection products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com DISNEY DTC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Abdullah Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SALEHA ABDULLAH, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. DISNEY DTC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10996 (N.D. Cal., December 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for installing and using trackers without prior consent and without a court order, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The complaint relates that the Defendant deploys trackers to build a behavioral profiling and targeted advertising system. Several of these trackers are dynamically injected into the Website through tag management systems, initiating the collection of user behavior such as pageviews, navigation patterns, and session metadata. Others are directly embedded into the Website's code, firing automatically upon page load. Together, these technologies associate user behavior with device identifiers, cookies, and pseudonymous advertising IDs, facilitating the construction of persistent user profiles for advertising and marketing purposes. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has additionally implemented third-party audience-measurement and behavioral-tracking technologies operated by Nielsen (including Nielsen's digital measurement and tagging infrastructure). These technologies function as third-party listeners that activate upon user interaction with the Website and receive users' signaling, routing, addressing, device, and behavioral information. Through the Trackers, the Third Parties collect detailed user information including IP addresses, browser and device type, screen resolution, operating system, pages visited, session duration, scroll depth, mouse movements, click behavior, referring URLs, unique identifiers (such as cookies and ad IDs), and geolocation based on IP. This information is used for behavioral profiling, ad targeting, cross-device tracking, and participation in real-time advertising auctions (collectively, "User Information"). Plaintiff SALEHA ABDULLAH is a California citizen residing in Contra Costa County and was in California when she visited the Website. DISNEY DTC LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website (www.espn.com), which serves as the primary consumer-facing digital platform for ESPN, a leading global sports media and entertainment brand, in the United States. Through the Website, DISNEY provides millions of users with live and archived sports content, breaking news, scores, standings, statistics, fantasy-sports tools, streaming integrations, and advertising-supported digital media experiences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com DUDE PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. DUDE PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv- 10665 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://withjean.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 8, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Dude Wipes - XL Wipes from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, it denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase Dude Wipes - XL Wipes, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's hygienic products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MARCOS CALCANO is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant DUDE PRODUCTS, LLC, operates the Dude Wipes online retail store, as well as the Dude Wipes interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal E BENEFIT: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Monroe Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PARKER MONROE and JULIETTE UGARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. E BENEFIT SOLUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-019588 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") including Social Security numbers (collectively, "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and Class Members are current and former who, in order to obtain employment from Defendant's clients, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. Businesses like the Defendant's that handle Private Information owe the individuals to whom that data relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect such information from disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. However, the Defendant breached these duties by failing to safeguard the Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal Private Information from Defendant's care. Specifically, per Defendant's notice of the Data Breach, it "recently became aware of unauthorized access to our network environment" on January 13, 2025. The ensuing investigation revealed that during the event an unknown, unidentified hacker accessed and copied files containing Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information from Defendant's network. Although the Data Breach took place before December 10, 2024, Defendant failed to notify affected individuals that their Private Information was compromised until approximately January 13, 2025--diminishing Plaintiffs' and Class Members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased, imminent risk of identity theft and other harms the Data Breach caused. Defendant has yet to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members when the Data Breach actually occurred. The Plaintiffs and Class Members seek damages and equitable relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose the full nature of the Data Breach and types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches; and (c) provide, at Defendant's expense, all Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Plaintiff Parker Monroe is a resident and citizen of Santa Ana, California. Plaintiff Juliette Ugarte is a resident and citizen of Hicksville, New York. Defendant E Benefit Solution, Inc. provides employee benefits to its clients' employees. It assists with HR, Compliance, and Claims.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 786-206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com ESTEE LAUDER: Website Conceals Tracking Software, Elmarouk Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAAJUDIN ELMAROUK, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ESTEE LAUDER INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10938 (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for privacy intrusion by installing Trackers on Plaintiff's and the Class Members' devices. According to the complaint, the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website, www.esteelauder.com, without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's Website is further equipped with additional third-party tracking technologies operated by Amazon Ads, Microsoft (Bing Ads), Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, Bizrate/Connexity, Optimizely, and Tealium. These third-party technologies are loaded and integrated into the Website's code and browser environment and are associated with advertising, measurement, experimentation, or analytics functions. Such technologies receive user browser data, including device and browser identifiers and related signaling information, as part of their ordinary operation. Defendant deploys these technologies without prior user consent and without any court authorization. Through the Trackers, Third Parties collect a wide range of routing, addressing, and signaling information from users' browsers and devices without their knowledge or consent. This includes IP addresses; browser and device type; operating system; screen resolution; timezone; unique identifiers (such as cookies and advertising IDs); device fingerprinting attributes (such as installed fonts and plugins, color depth, graphics and audio rendering characteristics, CPU and memory capacity, and battery or network state); and behavioral telemetry (such as navigation paths, referrer URLs, session duration, scroll depth, mouse movements, clicks, taps, and video interactions). Trackers also derive approximate geolocation from users' IP addresses. Collectively, this data ("User Information") is used for behavioral profiling, location tracking, ad targeting, cross-device tracking, and participation in real-time advertising auctions. The Defendant then exploits the User Information collected by the Trackers--acting jointly with the Third Parties operating them--for targeted marketing and advertising that monetize the Website. In doing so, Defendant and the Third Parties benefit from the unconsented--to collection and commercial use of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information. The conduct alleged herein constitutes a violation of a legally protected privacy interest that is both concrete and particularized. Invasions of privacy have long been actionable under common law, asserts the suit. Plaintiff TAAJUDIN ELMAROUK is a California resident who accessed Defendant's Website from within California. Defendant ESTEE LAUDER INC. is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website which is an online platform that offers goods and services to consumers. It is a global manufacturer and marketer of prestige beauty and personal care products and is incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com EXAMWORKS LLC: Smith Seeks Jan. 12, 2026 Class Cert Bid Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. EXAMWORKS, LLC, and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02746-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 14 day extension of the briefing schedule on class certification. The Defendants have confirmed that they do not oppose this motion. Due to unforeseen holiday obligations, the Plaintiff's counsel needs additional time to file the motion and requests a fourteen (14) day extension of the schedule as follows: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Jan.12, 2026 Responses Due: March 2, 2026 Reply Due: March 23, 2026 On Nov.21, 2025, the parties filed a status report proposing a briefing schedule on class certification. On Nov.24, 2025, the Court adopted the proposed briefing schedule. ExamWorks provides medical claim management services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xLo2Vy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Keith James Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com tsostrin@keoghlaw.com - and - Peter A. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 914 Bay Ridge Road, Ste. 230 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com - and - Christopher P. Martineau, Esq. Rosedale Towers 1700 Highway 36 West, Suite 620 Roseville, MN 55113 Telephone: (612) 767-7790 Facsimile: (612) 379-0480 E-mail: cmartineau@jmlegal.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Endorses Denial of Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK GRAHAM, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-00053-BMM-KLD (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen DeSoto entered an order: -- Recommending that Graham's motion to certify class be denied. -- Recommending that Graham's motion for attorney fees be denied. -- denying in part and granting in part Graham's motion to compel and for sanctions. The Plaintiff Mark Graham brings this putative class action against the Defendants, alleging claims for breach of contract and violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), and seeking a declaration that Farmers' subrogation practices violate Montana law. Graham's motion for class certification alleges the existence of a uniform "corporate scheme" that violates Montana law and to which Graham, and the other proposed class members were subjected. Graham therefore proposes a class of similarly situated individuals who were affected by the same payment and subrogation practices described in the amended complaint. Graham's motion and briefing offer several generally consistent definitions for the proposed class: "The class of 882 plus similarly situated Farmers Insurance (TM) Montana insureds who had his/her insurer subrogate before a determination that he/she was made whole." "A Class of 882 Farmers Insurance' [sic] insureds who suffered a covered property loss (criteria 1), the insurer tendered a sum minus the insured's deductible (criteria 2) then demanded subrogation from the at-fault driver's insurance carrier (criteria 3)." "All Farmers insureds whose Montana claims were adjusted by Farmers Insurance Exchange, and the insurer asserted a right of subrogation for property damage claims payments before making a determination that the insured was made whole." The Defendant offers home, life, business, and car insurance to American customers. A copy of the Court's recommendation and order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hNnFbF at no extra charge.[CC] FARMERS INSURANCE: Plude Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- ROLAND PLUDE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., and FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12174 (C.D. Cal., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to adequately secure and safeguard over one million individuals' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and/or the last four digits of Social Security numbers. The complaint relates that on May 30, 2025, one of Farmers' third-party vendors alerted Farmers to suspicious activity involving an unauthorized actor accessing one of the vendor's databases containing Farmers customer information. The Data Breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendants' failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect their systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack, asserts the complaint. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their PII is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered or will suffer fraud or identity theft or face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity theft and fraud. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, herein alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks: (i) actual damages, economic damages, statutory damages, and nominal damages; (ii) punitive damages; (iii) fees and costs of litigation; (iv) injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard PII in Defendants' custody, care, and control in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from recurring in the future and for Defendants to provide long-term identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members; and (v) such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Roland Plude is a Data Breach victim and received a notification of the Data Breach from Farmers on or around August 22, 2025. Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange is an unincorporated association with its headquarters and principal place of business at 6301 Owensmouth Avenue, Woodland Hills, California 91367. Defendant Farmers Group, Inc. is an insurance management and holding company organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada. It is the parent company of Farmers New World Life Insurance Company. Defendant Farmers New World Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of Farmers Group, Inc. and operates the life insurance aspect of Farmers Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Wollenberg Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA WOLLENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELDTEX PRODUCTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06817 (W.D.N.Y., December 23, 2025) arises out of Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. Fieldtex Products Inc. is a New York based company that, among other services and products, works with Health Plans and other organizations to offer Supplemental Over The Counter ("OTC") Benefit Programs to members of Medicare Advantage Health Plans. In order to deliver these services, Fieldtex receives certain protected health information from the members' health plans. However, the Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed in a Data Breach, the complaint alleges. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included, but is not limited to: patient names, addresses, dates of birth, insurance member identification numbers, plan names, effective terms, and gender. The complaint contends that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. Pamela Wollenberg is an Illinois resident citizen, residing in Oak Park, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave STE 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com FRIED FRANK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Sacks Says --------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW SACKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-10693 (S.D.N.Y., December 24, 2025) arises out of Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") provided to it by Goldman that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The complaint alleges that the Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on its computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. According to the notice letters sent by Goldman, Fried Frank confirmed a security incident occurred and PII of the Plaintiff and the Class may have been exposed: names, contact and demographic information, government identification numbers, such as Social Security or driver's license numbers, financial account information, and/or dates of birth. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. 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, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Andrew Sacks maintained investment accounts including investments in the Petershill Private Equity Seeding II Offshore Fund ("Peterhill PES II") which are managed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P., "Goldman"), a client of the Defendant. Defendant Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP is a foreign limited liability legal partnership incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware that maintains its principal office at 1 FDR Plaza, New York, NY 10004.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier L. Merino, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DannLaw 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (201) 355-3440 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com GARRETT LEATHER: Wzientek Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH WZIENTEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARRETT LEATHER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01470 (W.D.N.Y., December 26, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant that compromised Plaintiff and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of receiving employment from Defendant. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employee relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The complaint alleges that between October 7, 2025, and October 9, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendant's inadequately secured systems and obtained files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information (the "Data Breach"). The notorious ransomware cybercriminal group Akira claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names and Social Security numbers. On November, 13, 2025, Defendant sent letters to Plaintiff and Class Members, notifying them about the Data Breach. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statute. Plaintiff Joseph Wzientek is a natural resident and citizen of Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant Garrett Leather Corporation designs, creates, and supplies premium leathers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, DOYLE CAWTHON, JR., DEUAL STARR, and DARRON GRAY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00581-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims; (2) appointing Named Plaintiff Tameka Ferges and Darrick Paylor as class representatives; (3) appointing The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel; (4) approving the proposed notice of this action and attached forms; (5) directing production of names, job titles, dates of employment with the Defendant, locations of employment with the Defendant, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of their SSNs of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and (6) directing distribution of the Notice and forms via first class mail, email, text message, and Notice posting at Defendant's operating plants in Alamance, Sanford, and Roxboro to all members of the certified class, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ww2WtB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Matthew Marlowe, Esq. Briahna B. Koegel, Esq. Samuel Byron Frazelle, Esq. Laura Fisher, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 S. Academy St. Cary, NC 27511 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com sbfrazelle@gildahernandlaw.com lfisher@gildahernandlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul DeCamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. Christopher Coyne, Esq. Eduardo J. Quiroga, Esq. Alexandria K. Adkins, Esq. Christopher Dyess, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 296-2882 E-mail: pdecamp@ebglaw.com akosovych@ebglaw.com ccoyne@ebglaw.com equiroga@ebglaw.com aadkins@ebglaw.com cdyess@ebglaw.com - and - Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Vanessa.garrido@ogletree.com GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARSON and RANDALL STARK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00583-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims; (2) appointing Named Plaintiff Tameka Ferges and Darrick Paylor as class representatives; (3) appointing The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel; (4) approving the proposed notice of this action and attached forms; (5) directing production of names, job titles, dates of employment with the Defendant, locations of employment with the Defendant, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of their SSNs of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and (6) directing distribution of the Notice and forms via first class mail, email, text message, and Notice posting at Defendant's operating plants in Alamance, Sanford, and Roxboro to all members of the certified class, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9usSlo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Matthew Marlowe, Esq. Briahna B. Koegel, Esq. Samuel Byron Frazelle, Esq. Laura Fisher, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 S. Academy St. Cary, NC 27511 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com sbfrazelle@gildahernandlaw.com lfisher@gildahernandlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul DeCamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. Christopher Coyne, Esq. Eduardo J. Quiroga, Esq. Alexandria K. Adkins, Esq. Christopher Dyess, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 296-2882 E-mail: pdecamp@ebglaw.com akosovych@ebglaw.com ccoyne@ebglaw.com equiroga@ebglaw.com aadkins@ebglaw.com cdyess@ebglaw.com - and - Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Vanessa.garrido@ogletree.com GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMEKA FERGES and DARRICK PAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00585-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims; (2) appointing Named Plaintiff Tameka Ferges and Darrick Paylor as class representatives; (3) appointing The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel; (4) approving the proposed notice of this action and attached forms; (5) directing production of names, job titles, dates of employment with the Defendant, locations of employment with the Defendant, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of their SSNs of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and (6) directing distribution of the Notice and forms via first class mail, email, text message, and Notice posting at Defendant's operating plants in Alamance, Sanford, and Roxboro to all members of the certified class, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ARdvXI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Matthew Marlowe, Esq. Briahna B. Koegel, Esq. Samuel Byron Frazelle, Esq. Laura Fisher, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 S. Academy St. Cary, NC 27511 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com sbfrazelle@gildahernandlaw.com lfisher@gildahernandlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul DeCamp, Esq. Adriana S. Kosovych, Esq. Christopher Coyne, Esq. Eduardo J. Quiroga, Esq. Alexandria K. Adkins, Esq. Christopher Dyess, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 Facsimile: (202) 296-2882 E-mail: pdecamp@ebglaw.com akosovych@ebglaw.com ccoyne@ebglaw.com equiroga@ebglaw.com aadkins@ebglaw.com cdyess@ebglaw.com - and - Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. Vanessa N. Garrido, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road, Suite 600 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 Facsimile: (919) 783-9412 E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Vanessa.garrido@ogletree.com HARGRAVES ONLINE: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hargraves Online Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15643 (N.D. Ill., December 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://hargravesotc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on hargravesotc.com. Specifically, she intended to purchase a bottle of "Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc plus D3 90 Tablets" to supplement her daily health regimen. On March 24, 2025, she searched online for reputable retailers offering vitamins and dietary supplements. She came across hargravesotc.com, which offers an extensive range of OTC medicines, vitamins, supplements, and personal-care products. She also came across positive reviews from Illinois customers highlighting the product quality and timely delivery. These reviews, written by like-minded Illinois residents who were highly satisfied with their purchases from hargravesotc.com, influenced her decision to explore the site further. However, while navigating the website and attempting to purchase the "Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc plus D3 tablets", she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly impeded her ability to complete the transaction. The complaint alleges that the barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of hargravesotc.com. As a result of direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffers interference with daily activities, as well as emotional distress, including, without limitation, emotional and mental anguish, loss of sleep, violation of privacy, humiliation, stress, anger, frustration, shock, embarrassment, and anxiety. Plaintiff Erika Randolph is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Hargraves Online Pharmaceuticals, Inc. controls and operates hargravesotc.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view an extensive range of over-the-counter medications, vitamins, dietary supplements, personal-care items, and basic medical supplies from well-known and trusted health-care brands, as well as other wellness products available for convenient delivery to customers' homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Interactive Inc. The case is styled as Jason Walker, Ann Shelnutt, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Interactive Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2025-0019404 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair Business Practice." HealthCare Interactive, Inc. (HCI) -- https://hcinteractive.com/ -- is a specialized EdTech company focused on improving dementia care through award-winning, research-backed online training and certification programs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com HIGH COUNTRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Randolph Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HIGH COUNTRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15644 (N.D. Ill., December 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on highcountryoutfitters.com. Plaintiff was searching for outdoor apparel for an upcoming trip. On March 12, 2025, while searching online for such items, she discovered Defendant's website, highcountryoutfitters.com. After reviewing positive feedback from Illinois customers regarding product quality and shipping reliability, she decided to explore the Website with the intention of making a purchase. While browsing the Website, she became particularly interested in a pair of ripstop pants. However, she encountered accessibility barriers while navigating the website. The complaint alleges that the barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of highcountryoutfitters.com. As a result of direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffers interference with daily activities, as well as emotional distress, including, without limitation, emotional and mental anguish, loss of sleep, violation of privacy, humiliation, stress, anger, frustration, shock, embarrassment, and anxiety. Plaintiff ERIKA RANDOLPH is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant HIGH COUNTRY, INC. provides to the public a website known as highcountryoutfitters.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range of outdoor apparel, footwear, accessories and gear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com JOIN US HK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avino Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY AVINO; TROY SAVIC; CHARLIE STEINER; RACHEL SUMNER; and BRITTANY VILLALONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOIN US HK LLC D/B/A HOLD FAST; RICHARD JASON CLARK SHANEHATHAWAY; ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10703 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2025) The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders. Join US HK LLC d/b/a Hold Fast operates as a restaurant located in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD David Harrison, Esq. 110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (888) 239-4410 Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com - and - Laura M. LoGiudice, Esq. GREEN SAVITS, LLC 25B Vreeland Road Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 695-7777 Email: llogiudice@greensavits.com LEW THOMPSON & SON: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Esteban Garcia, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. LEW THOMPSON & SON TRUCKING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CV-25-011324 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03747-DAD-CSK. The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to overtime under Labor Code; meal period liability under Labor Code; rest break liability under Labor Code; wages not timely paid during employment in violations of Labor Code; violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); untimely final wages in violation of Labor Code; failure to reimburse necessary expenditures under Labor Code; violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James E. Hart, Esq. Alejandra Gallegos, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: jhart@littler.com agallegos@littler.com LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Lewis Files Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-019711 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., December 26, 2025) is a class action seeking for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). The complaint relates that many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted L'AGENCE ("L' AGENCE Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages for each violation. He further seeks injunctive relief to ensure Defendant complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes L'AGENCE Text Message Sales Calls. Plaintiff Adam Lewis is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls ("Plaintiffs Cell Phone"), and he resides in Florida. Defendant Los Angeles Collective, LLC is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Social Justice Law Collective, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fannin Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- CHERYL FANNIN and EVEE MALONE, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. and WESBANCO BANK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01439-ALM (E.D. Tex., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiffs' and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). The complaints relates that as a condition of receiving WesBanco services, Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide WesBanco with their sensitive and non-public Private Information, which WesBanco shared with Marquis. On August 14, 2025, cybercriminals hacked into the network systems of WesBanco service provider and third-party vendor, Marquis Software Solutions, and stole Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive PII stored therein, including their full names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and dates of birth ("Private Information"), causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members ("Data Breach" or "Breach"). Despite discovering the Breach on August 14, 2025, WesBanco has delayed alerting victims of the Data Breach and has yet to finish sending notice of the Breach to affected individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, WesBanco's customers, including Plaintiffs, were impacted by the Breach. Now, Plaintiffs and the Class will face an imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for the rest of their lives, says the suit. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems proper. Plaintiffs Cheryl Fannin, of New London, Ohio, and Evee Malon, of East Liverpool, Ohio, are customers of WesBanco. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a software firm that provides "marketing and compliance solutions" to "700+ banks and credit unions. Defendant WesBanco Bank Inc. is a bank in Ohio and West Virginia that provides personal and business loans, investment services, and other financial services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 MAYNE PHARMA: Faces N.O. Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- N.O. and H.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAYNE PHARMA COMMERCIAL LLC; THERAPEUTICSMD, INC.; DPT LABORATORIES, LTD.; and MITHRA PHARMACEUTICALS SA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02593 (D. Nev., Dec. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other visitors to the Pharmaceutical Websites, the Defendants do not keep their patients' private personal and health information confidential. Instead, through the Pharmaceutical Websites, Defendants collected and transmitted personally identifiable and sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiffs' medical conditions, prescriptions and medical expenses (collectively, the "Sensitive Health Information") to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google") and Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook," and together with Google, the "Tracking Tool Providers"), through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools without Plaintiffs' or Class Members' consent. Mayne Pharma Commercial LLC develops and manufactures pharmaceutical products. The Company offers validation, formulation, microbiology, analytical laboratories, stability storage, analytical testing, and clinical trial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6940 S. Cimarron Road, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mona@kazlg.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com MEDCO 23: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Health Info, T.K. Says ------------------------------------------------------------- T.K. and P.M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDCO 23 LLC AND AFFILIATES d/b/a RUGIET, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-10886 (N.D. Cal., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to keep sensitive health information belonging to Plaintiffs and Class Members free from unauthorized disclosure. The complaint relates that Rugiet markets itself as providing prescription medications for men's health delivered via online consultation and prescription fulfillment. Through Rugiet's Website, www.rugiet.com and its subdomains (collectively the "Website"), potential patients can learn about Rugiet healthcare services, specialties, and treatment plans. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class Members used Rugiet's Website to research and access sexual health treatments and services. While visiting Rugiet's Website, Plaintiffs and Class Members each took Rugiet's "Qualify Now" questionnaire. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant intentionally configured the Tracking Tools installed on the Website to capture and transmit the Sensitive Health Information that they communicated to Defendant through the Website to third parties, including Google. Accordingly, Defendant's disclosure of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Sensitive Health Information constitutes a violation of HIPAA. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of medical privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Sensitive Health Information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the Sensitive Health Information; (vi) statutory damages; and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their Sensitive Health Information, adds the complaint. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: (i) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); (ii) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (iii) Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion upon Seclusion; (iv) Negligence; and (v) Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff T.K. is a citizen of the State of California, residing in Contra Costa County. Plaintiff P.M. is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in DuPage County. MedCo 23 LLC and Affiliates own and operate rugiet.com, rugietmen.com, and related software/apps. Rugiet is a telehealth platform operated by MedCo 23 LLC and its affiliates, which markets and sells compounded prescription medications for men's health conditions such as erectile dysfunction ("ED") and premature ejaculation through its Websites, including Rugiet.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (314) 669-3600 E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com MEDICAL GUARDIAN: Uses Unlawful Telemarketing Tactics, Caplan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE CAPLAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL GUARDIAN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13959 (D. Mass., December 23, 2025) arises from Defendant’s persistent disregard for federal law--specifically, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint relates that the Defendant (or its third-party agents) engages in telemarketing campaigns to sell its medical alert devices and services. The Plaintiff is not a current or former customer of Defendant and has never provided his telephone number to Defendant. He has never consented to receive the alleged telephone solicitations from Defendant. He was not interested in purchasing Defendant's products or services. The telephone calls in question used a prerecorded or artificial voice. The complaint alleges that the Defendant uses unlawful and invasive telemarketing tactics to drum up business. And Defendant flooded Plaintiff with invasive telemarketing solicitations in clear violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. Now, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harassed by Defendant and its unlawful telemarketing tactics. Plaintiff George Caplan is a citizen of Massachusetts. Defendant Medical Guardian, LLC is a company that provides “remote patient monitoring and healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com MGM PROPERTY: Smith Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerry A. Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MGM Property Management LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00531-GSL-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class of, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), "All current and former tenants, contractors, vendors, and employees of MGM Property Management, LLC and its affiliated entities in Lake County, Indiana, from Nov. 18 2022 to present, who experienced one or more of the following: (a) non-payment or delayed payment for services rendered; (b) unsafe of uninhabitable living or working conditions; (c) fraudulent work orders marked 'completed' without actual repairs; (d) work performed by unlicensed workers; (e) retaliation for complaints of legal action; (f) interference with housing rights; (g) exposure to blood, mold, or biohazards without proper training or equipment." Excluded from the class: All Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, and employees; any judicial officers assigned to this case, and any immediate family members of such persons; and -- Appointing the Plaintiff Jerry A. Smith as class representative. MGM is a full service property management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VXXuvv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Jerry A. Smith 2601 West 61st Place Merrillville, IN 46410 Telephone: (219) 777-6560 E-mail: Savinglives2Xprogram@gmail.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Amerine Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Arthur Amerine, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-524 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: Deboer Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Deboer, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-501 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: Felice Sues Over Negligent Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Felice, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-490 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: Ferrell Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Ferrell, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-517 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: Saltz Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Saltz, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-521 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 MOVE INC: Faucett's Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIESTLEY FAUCETT, v. MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Case No. 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order denying Faucett's renewed motion for class certification. The Court finds that Faucett does not meet Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites of commonality, adequacy, and typicality. Moreover, Faucett also fails to meet the standards prescribed under Rules 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court finds that, although Faucett may satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement, he does not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement, thus precluding class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the Defendant, asserting claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Faucett moves to certify one Class and one Subclass (together, the "Classes"): Prerecorded Voice Class: "All persons within the United States who, (1) between Sept. 12, 2018, and an Order granting class certification, (2) received a call or voicemail using an artificial or prerecorded voice, (3) from the Defendant or anyone acting on the Defendant's behalf, (4) to said person's cellular telephone number, (5) without emergency purpose, and (5) without their prior express written consent to receive prerecorded calls from the Defendant, (6) where the Defendant obtained such person's telephone number from REI Network, RealtyStore, or Yardi." National DNC Subclass: "All members of the Prerecorded Voice Class who, between Sept. 12, 2018, and an Order granting class certification, (1) received two or more calls or voicemails (2) within any 12-month period (3) by or on behalf of the Defendant; (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services; (4) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry [("NDNCR")] for at least thirty days. Move is a real estate listing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ruSgfO at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT HARBOR: Faldonie Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Faldonie, and all others similarly situated v. NEWPORT HARBOR CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-14000 (D. Mass., Dec. 29, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, www.barcino.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). This case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of denying the blind access to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant through the Website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to the restaurant, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website Because Defendant's website is not and has never been fully accessible, and because upon information and belief Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its website to become and remain accessible, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs her vision and limits her ability to see. The Defendant specializes in Italian-inspired cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law OLD DOMINION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- NORBERTO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12220 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dockworker. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. is an inter-regional and multi-regional motor carrier. The Company primarily transports less-than-truckload shipments of general commodities, such as consumer goods, textiles, and capital goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Jeff Geraci, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 Email: msinger@ckslaw.com jgeraci@ckslaw.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 400 N. Brand Blvd., 7th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 Email: emil@d.law ORACLE CORPORATION: J.S. Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- J.S., J.P., and T.S., by their parent and natural guardian, TONIQUE PROCTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORACLE CORPORATION and CERNER CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04467 (D.D.C., December 22, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to safeguard the highly sensitive personal and medical information entrusted to their systems. The complaint relates that the Defendants store large volumes of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") for patients and families served by Children's National Hospital. On July 10, 2025, Defendants were hacked which compromised the data of their enterprise consumers. In particular, the notorious cybercriminal syndicate "CL0P" gained access to the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members. This includes the names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, diagnoses, treatment information, laboratory results, images, medications, and other confidential medical data. But this highly sensitive information was inadequately protected and was thereby exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown precisely how long cybercriminals had access to Defendants' systems before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants lacked effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate unauthorized access to their systems--allowing cybercriminals prolonged and unrestricted access to Plaintiffs' and the Class's Private Information. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs suffered actual injuries, including the violation of their right to privacy and exposure of his sensitive identity and medical data. The Plaintiffs face ongoing and substantial risk of identity theft, financial fraud, medical identity misuse, and other harm for years to come, particularly because minors' identities can be used undetected over long windows of time. Plaintiffs J.S., J.P., and T.S. are natural persons and citizens of the District of Columbia. As minors, they bring this action through their parent and natural guardian, Tonique Proctor, who is domiciled in the District of Columbia. Each Plaintiff received a notice of breach dated October 29, 2025. Defendant Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software company headquartered in Austin, Texas. It provides electronic health record ("EHR") hosting, data-storage, and related information-technology services to healthcare institutions throughout the United States, including Children's National Hospital. Defendant Cerner Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designed, operated, maintained, and supported the Cerner EHR systems and related infrastructure used by Children's National Hospital.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. David Lawler, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com dlawler@tzlegal.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com PARKING REVENUE: Removes Alexander Suit to E.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of HAYWOOD G. ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the State Court of the State of North Calorina, County of Wake County (Case No. 25cv041382-910) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Dec. 24, 2025. The clerk of court assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00234-BO. The case is assigned to Judge Terrence W. Boyle and referred to Magistrate Brian S. Meyers. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. provides parking enforcement and collection services to the parking industry. The Company serves parking operators, municipalities, universities, private property owners, multi-family housing, and hospitals in the United States. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph S. Dowdy, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 5000 Centregreen Way Suite 500 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (984) 375-3050 Facsimile: (984) 375-3040 Email: joe.dowdy@foley.com - and - Michael D. Leffel, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 E Gilman St Suite 5000 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 258-4258 Facsimile: (608) 257-5035 Email: mleffel@foley.com - and - Kelsey Boehm, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 437-2013 Facsimile: (720) 437-2200 Email: kboehm@foley.com PEPSICO INC: Emporium Sues Over Soft Drinks Sale Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------- EMPORIUM FOOD STORE LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC.; and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-10698 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Pepsi agreed to raise its wholesale prices for Pepsi Soft Drinks above competitive levels for wholesale customers other than Walmart. These wholesale customers purchase Pepsi Soft Drinks directly from Pepsi and compete with Walmart at the retail level. The inflated wholesale prices enabled Walmart to increase its retail prices above competitive levels and forced Walmart's competitors to raise their own retail prices. Pepsi required its wholesale customers to maintain retail prices for Pepsi Soft Drinks that exceeded Walmart's retail prices -- even when Walmart's prices were substantially higher than Pepsi's wholesale prices. To enforce this aspect of the Scheme, Pepsi monitored and policed its wholesale customers' retail pricing and penalized customers who undercut Walmart by imposing additional wholesale price increases. The Scheme reduced competition at the wholesale level and disadvantaged Pepsi's direct purchasers other than Walmart, including grocery stores, local convenience stores, mid-tier grocers, and independent retailers. As a result, these purchasers, including Plaintiff, were forced to pay inflated prices for Pepsi Soft Drinks, alleges the suit. PepsiCo, Inc. operates foods and beverages businesses. The Company manufactures markets and sells a variety of grain-based snacks, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, and foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 Ext 214 Email: cercone@RuppPfalzgraf.com PREMIER HEALTH: Hill Files Suit Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- ADEAN HILL, JR., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01448 (E.D. Tex., December 29, 2025) is a class action seeking to stop their illegal practices of placing unauthorized calls that play artificial or prerecorded voice messages to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by the conduct. The complaint relates that to increase their sales and avoid paying for legitimate forms of advertising, Premier Health hired John Doe to market their company using artificial or prerecorded voice messages. John Doe called and played artificial or prerecorded voice messages to thousands of cellular and residential phones. On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff received phone calls from John Doe on Plaintiff's cell phone number ending in 8539. When Plaintiff answered the phone, Plaintiff heard an artificial or prerecorded voice message advertising health insurance. Next, Plaintiff was solicited for health insurance by a live representative named Tim Allen. Plaintiff received an email from Tim Allen with Premier Health Solutions, LLC. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from Defendants. Plaintiff had no relationship with Defendants and had never requested that Defendants contact Plaintiff in any manner, let alone by robocall. In addition to causing statutory damages, these illegal call(s) caused annoyance, intrusion on privacy and seclusion, and wasted Plaintiff's time. Since the Defendants did not obtain prior express written consent from Plaintiff and the Class, these are, therefore, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), adds the complaint. Plaintiff ADEAN HILL is a citizen of the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant PREMIER HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC is a limited liability company that sells health insurance. Defendant JOHN DOE is an unknown business entity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 300-0343 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com PRINCE GEORGE AIRPORT: Class Suit Over Passenger Tax Moves Forward ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bob Mackin, writing for ckpgtoday.ca, reports that Prince George Airport Authority Inc. and two others in BC have failed in their appeal of a retired Nova Scotia pilot's proposed class-action lawsuit. Brian Roy filed his original notice of civil claim on March 25, 2019. He alleges 20 airports are wrongly charging the "passenger tax" on airline employees and their family members who use an employee travel pass. Roy also accused the airports of concealing their governing agreements. Last March, a BC Supreme Court judge allowed Roy to add BC resident Benjamin Scott as a plaintiff to satisfy rules requiring a BC plaintiff. Prince George, Vancouver Airport Authority and Victoria Airport Authority unsuccessfully sought to have the claim thrown out. The decision by the appeal court, from Justices Susan Griffin, Janet Winteringham and Andrew Mayer, said the three airports' interpretation of the Class Proceedings Act "is not supported by the words of the section, the context of the legislation, nor the objectives of the legislation." They also ruled that the lower court judge, Lisa Warren, did not err. "The BC plaintiff, Mr. Scott, is not precluded from seeking certification of the action as a class action by the mere fact that there was an earlier plaintiff who filed the claim," said the appeal decision. The tribunal said the law permits non-BC residents to be included in class actions. "There is nothing to be gained by punishing all class members and requiring abandonment of a class action, just because the action happens to be started by someone who does not meet the requirements for bringing a certification application but this deficiency is subsequently corrected," the decision said. [GN] PROENZA SCHOULER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. PROENZA SCHOULER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10593 (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.proenzaschouler.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on November 29, 2025 and the last occurring on December 8, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Khai Coat in Faux Fur from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, it denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Khai Coat in Faux Fur, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's clothing and accessories, as well as other types of goods, locations and hours of operation of their physical retail stores and directions thereto, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MARCOS CALCANO is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant PROENZA SCHOULER, LLC, operates the Proenza Schouler online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal REAL BROKER: Schultz Files Suit Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- KELLY SCHULTZ, Plaintiff v. REAL BROKER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10634-VSB (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2025) is a class action that addresses a disturbing trend whereby real estate brokerages train real estate agents to cold call consumers without consent violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint relates that Real Broker maintains a formal training platform known as 'Real Academy,' which offers courses, workshops, and mastermind groups focused on agent productivity. Real Academy includes courses such as "Circle Prospecting," "Mastering Circle Prospecting," and "Conversations that Convert" that train agents to place unsolicited calls to consumers. Circle prospecting entails placing cold calls to consumers in a geographic area where a property has recently been sold or listed. The complaint alleges that Real Broker has ratified this conduct by: promoting cold calling through official training channels; providing tools and scripts for unsolicited outreach; failing to enforce any compliance mechanism to curb unlawful calls; and continuing to receive and retain profits generated through cold-calling-based commissions. This coordinated system resulted in messages like those received by Plaintiff Schultz: unsolicited text message solicitations from Real Broker agents with no prior relationship or consent. The facts show that Real Broker does not merely tolerate illegal cold calling by its agents. It trains them to do it, provides the tools and scripts, and profits directly from their unlawful outreach. When Real Broker agents send unsolicited texts, they identify themselves as working "with Real Broker," as "Real agents," or "from Real," as in the text message Plaintiff received. Real Broker is liable for its agents' conduct under principles of apparent authority, actual authority, and ratification. In response to these text messages, Plaintiff Schultz brings forward this case seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the TCPA, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes and costs. Plaintiff Kelly Schultz is a resident of Zimmerman, Minnesota and is the sole owner and exclusive user of her cell phone number ending in 0357. Defendant Real Broker is a publicly-traded real estate brokerage with over 24,000 agents and locations located throughout the US and parts of Canada. It advertises itself under the brand name Real.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com SALESFORCE INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Bingham Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN BINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-11040 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2025) is a class action arising out of a data breach involving systems Salesforce operated and controlled that compromised the personal information of millions of consumers. The complaint relates that Salesforce, through its cloud services, hosts, stores, and processes large volumes of sensitive consumer personal information on behalf of its customers, including TransUnion. Salesforce designed, operated, and controlled the cloud-based environment at issue here, including the security architecture governing how customer data was stored and accessed. Salesforce was responsible for implementing reasonable safeguards to protect consumer data entrusted to its platform. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received notice of the data breach from TransUnion because TransUnion was Salesforce's customer and the entity that maintained the consumer relationship with Plaintiff. However, the breach itself occurred within Salesforce's cloud-based systems, which Salesforce operated and controlled. Salesforce--not TransUnion--was responsible for securing the environment in which Plaintiff's personal information was stored and accessed, and Salesforce's failures were the proximate cause of the compromise of Plaintiff's data. The breach did not result from an isolated or idiosyncratic lapse within Salesforce's internal systems, but instead stemmed from known and foreseeable vulnerabilities in Salesforce's cloud platform through which Salesforce stored, accessed, and processed sensitive consumer personal information, adds the complaint. As a result of Salesforce's inadequate security and breach of its duties, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was disclosed to unauthorized criminal actors. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries directly and proximately caused by Salesforce's conduct, including: (i) out-of-pocket expenses to prevent, detect, and remediate identity theft, fraud, and other misuse of their Private Information; (ii) lost time and opportunity costs spent mitigating the consequences of the Data Breach; (iii) the ongoing and heightened risk that their Private Information will be misused in the future; (iv) the risk that the Private Information still held by Salesforce remains vulnerable to further unauthorized disclosure; (v) invasion of privacy and increased risk of fraud and identity theft; and (vi) theft of their Private Information and the resulting loss of control over and privacy in that information, says the suit. Plaintiff Brian Bingham is a citizen and resident of Windsor, California. Salesforce, Inc. is a global cloud-based software company that provides customer relationship management and data-processing platforms to enterprise customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-680 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: ALPR Program Raises Privacy Concerns, Moore Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MOORE, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and PAUL YEP, in his official capacity as the San Francisco Police Department Interim Chief of Police, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-11011 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2025) is a civil rights action seeking to curtail Defendants' unconstitutional automated license plate reader ("ALPR") surveillance program. The complaints relates that the Defendants have contracted with Flock to blanket San Francisco with approximately 494 advanced Flock Cameras, which photograph every car that passes them. Defendants' surveillance dragnet establishes a detailed record of where every driver in San Francisco has travelled and, any person or entity with access to the Flock database can discover routes which any vehicle has travelled across San Francisco 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. This level of surveillance not only enables those granted access to Flock with a detailed map of the driver's travel patterns, but also their personal associations. According to the complaint, nearly every day, the Plaintiff travels past Defendants' Flock Cameras as he drives to the store, his sons' schools or to meet friends and family. Plaintiff tries to maintain a reasonable amount of privacy and is troubled that the City's Flock Cameras track him almost everywhere he goes, storing his movements in a government database for any officer or third-party to potentially exploit. Accordingly, the Defendants' camera surveillance system violates Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment privacy rights, asserts the Plaintiff. Tracking the whole of a person's public movements over (at least) 30 days is a search. The Defendants are gathering information about everyone who drives past any of its approximately 494 cameras to purportedly facilitate investigating crimes. In doing so, Defendants are violating the longstanding societal expectation that people's movements and associations over an extended period are private, adds the complaint. Plaintiff asserts claims under: (i) California Senate Bill 34, which prohibits the sharing of ALPR information with out-of-state law enforcement agencies; and (ii) the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, alleging that Defendants deprived him and all similarly situated class members of their privacy rights. Plaintiff Michel Moore is a retired public-school teacher, homeowner and U.S. citizen who lives and drives in San Francisco. Defendant the City and County of San Francisco was responsible for the policies, practices and supervision of the City's Flock Cameras. Defendant SFPD is the police department for San Francisco that is responsible for the administration and management of Defendants' contract with Flock and San Francisco's ALPR systems and Flock Cameras. Defendant Paul Yep is sued in his official capacity as the SFPD's former interim Chief of Police. He was head of the SFPD and was responsible for its administration, with immediate direction and control of the SFPD and its Flock Cameras.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RAMZI ABADOU 79 Woodland Ave. San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 231-4313 E-mail: rabadou@gmail.com SAX LLP: Inadequately Safeguards Personal Information, Young Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAX LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-18996 (D.N.J., December 26, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in a preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The complaint relates that as part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. However, 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. On August 7, 2024, Sax LLP became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Sax determined that cybercriminals infiltrated this inadequately secured network and gained access to its files. The personally identifiable information ("PII") accessed by cybercriminals included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license information, and government issued ID numbers (collectively, "Personal Information"). Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come, says the suit. Plaintiff Alan Young is a citizen and resident of Florida. Defendant Sax LLP is an accounting firm that provides accounting, tax, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com SAX LLP: Inadequately Safeguards Private Information, Liu Says -------------------------------------------------------------- WEIQIAN LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAX, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-18997 (D.N.J., December 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers (collectively defined herein as "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information in order to provide its tax and advisory services. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. In addition to injunctive relief, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class members, also seek compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Weiqian Liu is a natural resident and citizen of New York. Defendant Sax, LLP is a company that provides tax and advisory services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov. Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: Lloginov@shamisgentile.com SAX LLP: Kim Files Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAX LLP. The case is styled as Larry Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAX LLP, Case No. 2:25-cv-19021 (D.N.J., Dec. 29, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sax LLP -- https://saxadvisorygroup.com/ -- is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients.[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 SEB MANAGEMENT: Alvear Sues Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Alvear, on behalf of others similarly situated v. FABLETICS, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-02495 (N.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.fabletics.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been diagnosed as having retinal detachment to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of over 100 retail stores selling clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com SHOP ABBODE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SHOP ABBODE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10668 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://abbode.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on November 29, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Signature Waffle Pouch from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, it denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Signature Waffle Pouch, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's embroidery, home goods, apparel, and accessories, as well as other types of goods, locations and hours of operation of their physical retail stores and directions thereto, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MARCOS CALCANO is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant SHOP ABBODE LLC operates the Abbode online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the Abbode interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SIMPLEHUMAN LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SIMPLEHUMAN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10707 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.simplehuman.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 8, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Slim Step Can from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, it denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Slim Step Can, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's innovative home and personal care products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MARCOS CALCANO is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant SIMPLEHUMAN, LLC operates the Simplehuman online retail store, as well as the Simplehuman interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: innovative home and personal care products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SPORTSBET: Customers Set for Automatic Inclusion in Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bren O'Brien, writing for The Straight, reports that Australia's largest online bookmaker, Sportsbet, has been directed to send out messages to thousands of customers, letting them know they may be a party to a class action against the wagering giant involving accusations of a breach of Australian law regarding in-play betting. Any customer who used the "fast codes system" to place an in-play bet between December 24, 2018 and December 24, 2024, is being contacted to advise them they may be a group member in the class action being spearheaded by Maurice Blackburn in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court ordered in October that Sportsbet contact all customers who utilised the service to inform them that they will be considered part of the class action unless they opt out by February 13. Because of the opt-out approach, the original case, brought by plaintiff Jeremy Bergman in 2024, could now involve thousands of people. "Unless a group member opts out, they are automatically covered by the class action even if they did not take any active steps to join it," the Court notice says. Sportsbet customers began reporting that they had received correspondence from the bookmaker regarding the class action. The Sportsbet Class Action alleges that Sportsbet's use of fast codes for the placing of live bets on sporting events is a breach of the federal Interactive Gambling Act (IGA). Sportsbet denies the allegations and is defending the claim. The class action seeks a refund of all live bets on sporting events placed using a fast code over the six-year period. It has not been revealed what the volume of money involved would be, or what a potentially adverse ruling would cost Sportsbet. Under the IGA, placing a wager on a sporting event after it has commenced is unlawful in Australia, unless the bet is made by telephone. It is alleged that Sportsbet has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing that the product was legal, breaching its fast code service terms and conditions. Those conditions stated that Sportsbet complies with the IGA in not accepting live betting via the internet, but may do so via telephone. Sportsbet denies that its conduct was spurious and will defend that in the Supreme Court. The court notice states that customers who opt out are free to pursue their own legal action, while those who are part of the class action will not incur any out-of-pocket costs. Under a group costs order, any legal fees payable to Maurice Blackburn will be 33 per cent of the amount of monetary compensation recovered for the group members through any successful settlement or judgment. The class action does not seek compensation for other losses a person may have suffered because of in-play betting or gambling with Sportsbet more generally. Part of Sportsbet's counterclaim is that if the lawsuit succeeds, any participants in the class action would have to repay any winnings they had from using the fast codes service. In the initial claim lodged by Maurice Blackburn in December 2024, lead plaintiff Jeremy Bergman has claimed he lost $2307 using the fast codes service between August 2019 and December 2021. [GN] STEVEN SINGER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Steven Singer Jewelers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04777 (D. Minn., December 26, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's Website, www.ihatestevensinger.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and its implementing regulations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota because of the 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). 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. Plaintiff Julie Dalton, a resident of Minnesota, has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. Defendant Steven Singer Jewelers, Inc. is a Pennsylvania Company and owns, operates, and/or controls its Website that offers jewelry and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, engagement rings, wedding rings, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com STITCH FIX: Abdullah Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------- SALEHA ABDULLAH, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. STITCH FIX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-11029 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for employing tracking and measurement technologies to monitor page loads, navigation activity, and engagement metrics for purposes including analytics, advertising attribution, retargeting, and digital performance evaluation, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was in California when she visited the Website to view STITCHFIX offerings, which occurred on December 8, 2025. When a user visits the Website, the Website's code as programmed by Defendant installs the Trackers onto the user's browser. This allows the Third Parties through their respective Trackers to collect Plaintiff's and Class Members' IP addresses, Device Metadata, and User Information, and pervasively track them across the Internet. As a result of Defendant's tracking practices and through the deployment of identity-resolution and cookie-synchronization technologies, Defendant caused Plaintiff's website visit to be deanonymized to third parties by enabling the correlation of Plaintiff's browsing activity with persistent identifiers used across the advertising ecosystem. The Defendant did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the Class Members before using pen registers or trap and trace devices to locate or identify users of its Website and has thus violated CIPA, the complaint contends. Plaintiff SALEHA ABDULLAH is a California citizen residing in Contra Costa County. STITCH FIX, INC. is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website, www.stitchfix.com, which is an online platform offering apparel and styling services to consumers. It maintains its principal executive offices in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com THS GROUP LLC: Kirshner Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edward Kirshner, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. THS GROUP LLC doing business as: SERVICEPLUS HOME WARRANTY, Case No. 25CV153542 was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-11046 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. ServicePlus Home Warranty -- https://www.serviceplus.com/ -- offers monthly and annual plans to fit any household budget.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Email: dssilverman@venable.com TRANS UNION LLC: Louis Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Soranda Louis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05188 was removed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15392 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Milz, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Phone: (610) 668-0018 Email: amilz@consumerslaw.com - and - Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. Michael W. McTigue, Jr., Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 735-3534 Fax: (917) 777-3534 Email: meredith.slawe@skadden.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Lytle Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LIAM LYTLE, MARICRUZ JIMENEZ, and CARSON NOEL, Plaintiffs v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Missouri Corporation, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18938 (D.N.J., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their reckless disregard for patient privacy, failure to timely notify affected individuals, and failure to take adequate steps to mitigate ongoing harm resulting from a data breach, all of which injured and continues to injure Plaintiffs and Class members. The complaint states that as part of providing its services, TriZetto receives extremely sensitive personal and medical information entrusted to it by patients and their physicians, hospitals and insurers. Among the information it obtains are names of patients, information about their health, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, health insurance member numbers, health insurer names, information on primary insured persons and their dependents, and other personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI" and collectively with PII, "Private Information"). As a healthcare-related information services provider and given the sensitivity of the extremely private information with which it was entrusted, TriZetto had a non-delegable duty to protect patients' Private Information and to promptly notify patients in the event that Private Information was exposed or lost. According to the complaint, TriZetto failed to meet its duty, leading to a massive data breach, lasting between approximately November 2024 to at least October 2, 2025, that compromised the extremely sensitive Private Information entrusted to it by patients and their healthcare providers. After engaging an external vendor for assistance, TriZetto determined that a data breach had occurred that compromised patients and insured persons' Private Information. TriZetto has reported that the data breach lasted from November 2024 to October 2, 2025. The insurers and healthcare providers who utilized TriZetto have a non-delegable duty to protect their patients' Private Information and to promptly notify patients if a breach occurs, asserts the complaint. Yet even after they received notice of the Data Breach from TriZetto, TriZetto's healthcare provider clients delayed patient notifications. As a result of the Data Breach and Defendants' failure to provide proper notification, Plaintiffs and Class members face an imminent and substantial risk of fraud, identity heft, and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosures of their Private Information--a risk that may last for the rest of their lives. Plaintiffs and Class members must devote time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these harms, adds the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, statutory damages, equitable relief including improved data security practices, identity protection and credit monitoring services, and all other relief this Court deems just and appropriate to redress Defendants' unlawful conduct and to prevent such harm from recurring. Plaintiff Liam Lytle is a Rhode Island Resident and a member of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island, one of TriZetto's health insurance provider clients. Plaintiff Maricruz Jimenez is a California resident and is insured through San Francisco Health Plan, one of TriZetto's health insurance provider clients. Plaintiff Carson Noel is an Arizona resident and received health care from Tucson Orthopaedic Institute, one of TriZetto's health provider clients. Defendant TriZetto Provider Solutions is a Cognizant company offering comprehensive Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) tools for healthcare providers, automating everything from patient eligibility checks and claims submission to denial management and patient payments. Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is a New Jersey corporation that owns TriZetto.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Shauna B. Itri, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sitri@seegerweiss.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MC CARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Noble Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH NOBLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC and GENESIS HEALTHCARE HOLDING COMPANY INC. d/b/a GENESIS HEALTHCARE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18967 (D.N.J., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that TriZetto stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former employees and/or consumers of Defendant Genesis. But such PII/PHI was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). According to the complaint, it is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendant failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendants' invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendants, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble is a Data Breach victim in Zanesville, Ohio. Defendant TriZetto Provider Solutions LLC is a provider of revenue management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems, based in Earth City, Missouri. Defendant Genesis Healthcare Holding Company, Inc., an enterprise client of TriZetto, is a nonprofit healthcare provider offering a broad continuum of short- and long-term medical, rehabilitative, and senior living services across nearly 200 centers in 17 states, with a focus on improving overall vitality and well-being.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road, Suite 500 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19904 Telephone: 954.525.4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com UGMONK INC: Randolph Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ugmonk Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15646 (N.D. Ill., December 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://ugmonk.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase on ugmonk.com. Specifically, she intended to purchase a Valet Tray as part of her effort to organize her workspace. On March 7, 2025, she searched online for reputable retailers offering household and office goods. During her search, she found ugmonk.com, a brand known for its minimalist aesthetic and craftsmanship. She also came across positive reviews from Illinois customers highlighting the durability of their products and the company's consistently reliable shipping. These reviews, written by like-minded Illinois residents who were highly satisfied with their purchases from ugmonk.com, influenced her decision to explore the site further. However, while navigating the website and attempting to purchase the "Round Valet Tray", she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly impeded her ability to complete the purchase. The complaint alleges that the barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of ugmonk.com. As a result of direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffers interference with daily activities, as well as emotional distress, including, without limitation, emotional and mental anguish, loss of sleep, violation of privacy, humiliation, stress, anger, frustration, shock, embarrassment, and anxiety. Plaintiff Erika Randolph is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Ugmonk Inc. is a Pennsylvania Corporation that operates a website known as ugmonk.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view an extensive selection of desk organization tools, analog productivity systems, stationery, accessories, and other lifestyle goods, all crafted with a focus on simplicity and functionality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Davis Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- RANDI B. DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07281 (E.D. Pa., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members have provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant uses a third-party software called Oracle E-Business Suite ("Oracle EBS") run by third-party Oracle, to process supplier payments, reimbursements, gender ledger entries, and to conduct other business. On October 31, 2025, Defendant became aware of a security incident on its internal computer networks. Defendant determined that the intrusion into its computer network by way of Oracle EBS occurred over the course of a three-day period in August. Defendant was not aware of the attack until after members of the notorious ransomware group, Clop, sent an extorsion email to Defendant in late September. Defendant failed to come to an agreement to pay Clop a ransom in order to have Clop destroy and/or return the PII that it exfiltrated from Defendant's computer systems. On November 1, Clop published thousands of internal University files on a public forum after sending mass emails to the Defendant's community members. The attackers claimed to have exfiltrated data belonging to approximately 1.2 million students, alumni, and donors, including personal and demographic data. The unauthorize third-party claimed to have breached the Defendant's systems on October 30, 2025, and completed data downloads by October 31, 2025. The following types of sensitive personal information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: names, demographic information (such as addresses, city, state, and zip code), and Social Security numbers. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information has been exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Randi B. Davis is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Defendant Defendant University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League research university renowned for its academic programs, research output, and extensive alumni network. Defendant is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara J. Watkins, Esq. D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-281-7229 E-mail: swatkins@peircelaw.com arihn@peircelaw.com USG CEILINGS: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Diaz and Nathalie Ortiz, individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USG CEILINGS PLUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV37647 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 19, 2025), is brought seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, failure to indemnify work-related expenses and, other such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants knew or should have known Plaintiffs and Class Members were entitled to receive wages for all time worked, including regular, overtime, and double time wages. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages owed for work required to be performed in violation of California state wage and hour laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs was employed as non-exempt employees. The Defendants are a limited liability company organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: jason@tomorrowlaw.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Harris Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE HARRIS et al., v. COUNTY OF WAYNE and TERRI GRAHAM, Case No. 2:23-cv-10986-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie Michelson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court denies Plaintiffs' same request for class certification here. And because there are genuine issues of material fact as to qualified immunity and Monell liability, the Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, because individual issues predominate over any common issues, certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is not appropriate. And because Plaintiffs have not met the standards for class certification under Rules 23(a) or 23(b), class certification is denied. The Plaintiffs -- 95 women who were formerly incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail -- filed this putative class action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that they were subjected to unconstitutional strip searches by officer Terri Graham between 2016 and 2022. The Plaintiffs propose the certification of four classes -- "all females who were housed and/or detained by the Wayne County Sheriff at the Wayne County Jail on or after April 27, 2020, until the date of judgment or settlement of this case, who were": (1) "strip searched in a group with other detainees;" (2) "strip searched in view of members of the opposite sex;" (3) "subject to derogatory comments by Defendant Graham during strip searches;" and/or (4) "strip searched under unsanitary and/or unhygienic conditions, including being exposed to the bodily fluids of other detainees." They seek to certify these classes as to "the core legal question of whether or not Wayne County maintained a custom, practice, or policy that violated the Constitution," not as to damages. Wayne is situated in the heart of the Great Lakes region along the Detroit River. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PUsyzY at no extra charge.[CC] WHEAT DURKO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hay Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- RAICO HAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHEAT DURKO & RICHTER, LLC d/b/a FOUNTAIN POOLS & WATER FEATURES; and STEVE DURKO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01212 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Hay was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. Wheat Durko & Richter, LLC d/b/a Fountain Pools & Water Features offers pool and spa installation, pool equipment upgrades, custom pool features, and pool renovation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fabian A. Ruiz, Esq. RUIZ TRIAL LAW, PLLC 9100 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (866) 784-9247 Facsimile: (866) 487-2599 Email: fabian@ruiztriallaw.com WINNCO INVESTMENTS: Newman Files Suit Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD G. NEWMAN JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINNCO INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Texas company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-2116 (W.D. Tex., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for placing unsolicited pre-recorded calls without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). According to the complaint, Defendant WinnCo Investments places calls to consumers to generate business for its property investments. It places unsolicited pre-recorded calls, often times to cellular phone numbers, as per Plaintiff's experience. Other consumers have posted complaints about unsolicited calls they received from WinnCo Investments, reporting that they received what appears to be an identical voicemail. On June 19, 2024 at 3:20 PM, Plaintiff Newman received an unsolicited call to his cell phone from 830-283-5583. This call was not answered but left a pre-recorded voicemail. Plaintiff Newman believes this voicemail was pre-recorded because it is generic and sounds scripted. Plaintiff Newman has never provided his cell phone number to Defendant WinnCo Investments in any context. The pre-recorded voicemail that he received was unsolicited. In response to these calls, Plaintiff Newman brings this case seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the TCPA, and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs. Plaintiff Newman is a resident of Devine, Texas. He is the subscriber and the sole user of the cell phone number ending with 3102. Defendant WinnCo Investments is a real estate firm that purchases land from consumers. It is a Texas company headquartered in New Braunfels and conducts business throughout this District, Texas, and the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED 539 W. Commerce St. Ste 1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: 972-767-9099 E-mail: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com WITH JEAN: Calcano Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. WITH JEAN USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10592 (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://withjean.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 8, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Hazel Top Grey from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, it denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Hazel Top Grey, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's clothing and accessories, as well as other types of goods, locations and hours of operation of their physical retail stores and directions thereto, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MARCOS CALCANO is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant WITH JEAN USA, LLC operates the With Jean online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the With Jean interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ********* 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 ***