260113.mbx

260113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 13, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 9 Headlines 700 CREDIT: Denmark Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info 700 CREDIT: Fails to Properly Secure Private Info, Johnson Says 700CREDIT LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Redmond Says A. RADFORD MACFARLANE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lawes Says AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over Sales Tax Overcharges APPLE INC: Bid to Continue Feb. 2026 Trial Month OK'd APPLEBEE'S SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, George Alleges BARRACUDA NETWORKS: First Circuit Rejects Post-Data Breach Claims BRUCE LACKEY: Class Settlement in Imber Suit Gets Final Nod CANOPY GROWTH: Ontario Court Greenlights Shareholder Class Action CHARMING MEDICAL: Louie Balks at Failure to Disclose Material Info CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Amended Bid to Certify Class in Smoke Dismissed CIGNA GROUP: Faces Putative Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit CITIBANK NA: Bid Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Tossed CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Mislabels Sunscreen Products, Krasnova Says CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Sued Over Deceptive Sunscreen Product Label COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Caldwell Files Suit Over Data Breach CONSERVICE LLC: Louis Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification COVENANT HEALTH: Edelson Investigates Data Breach Class Lawsuit CRAWFORD UNITED: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to SPX Enterprises DOLGENCORP LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Rogers Due April 1, 2026 DONALD TRUMP: Bid to Extend Class Cert Opposition Filing Granted ECOATM LLC: Harriel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California EDUCATIVE INC: Settles Automatic Renewal Class Suit for $625,000 EMERGENCY MEDICAL: 2024 Data Breach Suit Reaches $1.5M Settlement ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Light Seeks Class Certification ENT AND ALLERGY: Failed to Secure Private Info, Giambrone Says ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Cohen Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval FERMI INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit FONAR CORP: M&A Investigates Sales to Affiliates of CEO FORD MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Video Clip as Exhibit in Droesser FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Exhibits GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Bid to Deny Class Certification Tossed HARD EIGHT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Wilson Due Sept. 30 HESS BAKEN: Class Cert Opposition in Penman Suit Due Feb. 24 HONEY 490: Court Denies "Yoon" FLSA Class Certification HYATT CORPORATION: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines Granted INTERPLAY LEARNING: Sued Over Unfair Collection of Web Users' Data IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Conley Says JAMES LEBLANC: VOTE Wins Bid to Certify Class & Subclass JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Berger Seeks July 1 Class Cert Bid Filing KAISER PERMANENTE: Members Claim Privacy Class Action Settlement KRISTI NOEM: Class Cert Replies in Maria Suit Due Jan. 16 LEADPOINT INC: Wilson Seeks to Extend Time to File Class Cert Bid LIFELINE SCREENING: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $1.4MM MACHINERY EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orozco Alleges MAG DS: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Fine Alleges MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Lester Says MERCK SHARP: Baltimore Seeks Class Certification MID AMERICA PET: $5.5MM Settlement Final Court Hearing Set Feb. 6 MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $1.88MM MONSANTO COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Filippone Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Garrison Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Halstead Sues Over Negligent Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Harrod Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Henderson Sues Over Negligent Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Harmful to Health, Barrera Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Lopez Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Menendez Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Wells Estate Sues Over Herbicide Roundup(R) NAHGA INC: Arnett Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info NELK INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Smith Suit Continued to Feb.12 NELNET SERVICING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $10MM NEW YORK BLOOD: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $500,000 NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice NEW YOU BARIATRIC: Wins Motion for Sanctions in "Delacruz" NIKE INC: Faces Another Class Lawsuit Over Consumer Data Privacy NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents Get Partial Payments in Derailment Suit NORTH CAROLINA: State Retirees Challenge Health Benefit Changes NORTHERN STAR: Filing for Conditional Cert. in Bybee Due April 27 OURA HEALTH: Faces Lekhadia Suit Over Subscription Agreement PETCO ANIMAL: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Mack Says PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Materials PRECISION HEATING: Picon Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Hessler Suit Removed to W.D. Washington RALGO COMMERCIAL: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property S&P GLOBAL: Amended Schedule on Class Cert Briefing Entered SALESFORCE INC: Marshall Files Suit Over Data Breach SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Loses Bid to Keep "Twitty" in Federal Court SAX LLP: Wagner Files Suit Over Data Breach SCIENTIFIC HAIR: Pitre Sues Over Misleading Hair Product Labels SEI INVESTMENTS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Hall Suit Alleges SEVEN WONDERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Paredes Alleges SKYWEST AIRLINES: Court Denies Class Certification in "Wright" SPROUTS FARMERS: Bid to Continue Class Cert Filing Tossed SUBARU CORP: Agrees to Settle Defective EyeSight System Class Suit SUPERGOOP LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Sunscreen Products Claims SWEEPSTEAKS LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Promotion TALBOTS LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Discounts TORHOERMAN LAW: Cook Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Data TYSON FOODS: Settles Beef Prices Class Action Suit for $82.5-Mil. UNILEVER UNITED: Sued Over Mislabeled Dove Men+Care Deodorant UNIQURE NV: Kessler Investigates Potential Securities Claims VALLEY HOSPITAL: Babecki Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty VOCOVISION LLC: Mitchell Class Cert Hearing Continued to Oct. 16 WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Brown Bid for Class Certification Tossed WE CARE TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cucul Alleges WEBBANK: Faces Beverly Suit Over Predatory Lending Practices WYETH INC: Class Cert. Bid Administratively Terminated YES MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Alleges ZENIA CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges ZILLOW HOME: Class Action Suit Includes Real Brokerage as Defendant ZOA ENERGY: $3-Mil. Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Feb. 20 [] Novak Djokovic Cut Ties With Professional Tennis Players Assoc. ********* 700 CREDIT: Denmark Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY DENMARK, individually, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. 700 CREDIT, LLC, and NORTH BAKERSFIELD IMPORTS, LLC, d/b/a NORTH BAKERSFIELD TOYOTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-at-01344 (E.D. Cal., December 18, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for their failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are customers of NBT and were required to provide their PII to NBT and 700 Credit to run credit reports and soft pull credit data to determine their eligibility for automobile loans. In October 2025, 700 Credit experienced a data breach where an unknown third party gained access to its network environment and systems. The data breach impacted millions of individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, exposing their name, Social Security number, date of birth, and address in the data breach. NBT failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and failed to ensure that its third party vendor, 700 Credit, would maintain adequate safeguards to protect NBT's customers' private information. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate data security and breaches of their duties to handle private information with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was accessed by cybercriminals and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, says the suit. 700 Credit is the largest provider of credit reports, soft pull credit data, identity verification, fraud detection and compliance solutions for Automotive, RV, Powersports and Marine dealerships, including Defendant North Bakersfield Imports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence J.H. Liu, Esq. Ohia Amadi, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 Facsimile: (424) 600-8504 E-mail: lawrence@frostllp.com ohia@frostllp.com 700 CREDIT: Fails to Properly Secure Private Info, Johnson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TYRONE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. 700 CREDIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-14192 (E.D. Mich., December 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' sensitive information, including full names, Social Security numbers, address, and dates of birth ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Defendant's former and current customers are required to entrust to the Defendant sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain financial services from Defendant. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the consumer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII 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. In October 2025, the Defendant experienced a Data Breach that impacted millions of individuals, exposing their sensitive Private Information, including full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and addresses (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff received a Notice Letter from Defendant, dated December 22, 2025, informing him that his PII was involved in the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff is at a present risk and will continue to be at increased risk of identity theft and fraud for years to come, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks appropriate injunctive relief designed to prevent Defendant from experiencing yet another data breach by adopting and implementing best data security practices to safeguard PII and to provide or extend credit monitoring services and similar services to protect against all types of identity theft and medical identity theft. Plaintiff Tyrone Johnson is a resident of Mansfield, Ohio. Defendant 700 Credit, LLC is one of the largest providers of credit reports, soft pull credit data, identity verification, fraud detection and compliance solutions for Automotive, RV, Powersports and Marine dealerships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com 700CREDIT LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Redmond Says --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT REDMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 700CREDIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-14167-RJW-APP (E.D. Mich., Dec. 28, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breach its duty and betrayed the trust of the Plaintiff and the Class by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, and misuse it. The Defendant's misconduct caused substantial harm and injuries to the Plaintiff and the Class members. 700Credit, LLC is a major provider of credit reports and compliance solutions for the automotive industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com A. RADFORD MACFARLANE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lawes Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN LAWES, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A. RADFORD MACFARLANE, M.D., P.A. d/b/a MILLCREEK PEDIATRICS, Defendant, Case No. N25C-12-385 SSA (Del. Super., December 18, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. A. Radford MacFarlane, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Millcreek Pediatrics, is a pediatric facility based in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: droland@coochtaylor.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over Sales Tax Overcharges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Cullen Duke filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon.com Services LLC. Why: Duke claims the company overcharges sales tax on third-party sales made through its marketplace. Where: The Amazon class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Amazon overcharges sales tax on third-party sales made through its marketplace to shipping addresses in Tennessee. Plaintiff Cullen Duke claims Amazon, as a "marketplace facilitator," is responsible for calculating, collecting, remitting and refunding the correct amount of sales tax on third-party sales made through its marketplace. Duke argues Amazon, however, overcharges sales tax by 0.25% on sales made through its marketplace by third-party sellers, in violation of Tennessee law. "Amazon continued to calculate and collect excessive sales tax even after the plaintiff notified Amazon of the overcharges and requested a refund," the Amazon class action lawsuit says. Duke wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who, on or after Dec. 12, 2021, purchased goods or services from marketplace sellers through Amazon's marketplace for which Amazon collected sales tax at a rate higher than applicable for their shipping addresses. Amazon refuses to refund excess sales tax, class action claims Duke argues Amazon's actions have left consumers with no choice but to seek relief through legal action since Tennessee law requires customers to seek refunds directly from the company. "Amazon, however, refused to pay the funds at issue back to the plaintiff, and Amazon continues to calculate and collect excessive sales tax from him and the class members," the Amazon class action lawsuit says. Duke says Amazon is guilty of violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act and unjust enrichment, alleging that Amazon's actions have caused him and other consumers to suffer financial harm by paying more in sales tax than they should have. He demands a jury trial and requests an order certifying the class action and an award of actual and exemplary damages for himself and all class members. Another Amazon class action lawsuit, filed in Washington federal court, accused the company of misrepresenting the consumer's ownership rights of digital goods during the purchase process on its Amazon Prime Video platform. Have you been overcharged sales tax by Amazon? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Toby J. Marshall and Eric R. Nusser of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Daniel A. Rozenblatt and Natasha Dandavati of Edge, A Professional Law Corporation. The Amazon class action lawsuit is Duke v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 25-2-37599-4 SEA, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. [GN] APPLE INC: Bid to Continue Feb. 2026 Trial Month OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hazlitt et al v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421 (S.D. Ill., Filed May 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstenge entered an order granting Joint Motion to Continue February 2026 Presumptive Trial Month. Due to the pending class certification and dispositive motions, the Final Pretrial Conference and Presumptive Trial Month are canceled and will be reset by separate order. As agreed, the Parties shall confer with the Special Master regarding a new presumptive trial month once the Court rules on Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability. Apple is an American multinational technology company.[CC] APPLEBEE'S SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, George Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLEBEE'S SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00447-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 26, 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 George was employed by the Defendant as a server. Applebee's Services Inc. operates as a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com BARRACUDA NETWORKS: First Circuit Rejects Post-Data Breach Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The First Circuit recently affirmed a District of Massachusetts decision granting summary judgment in litigation arising from a 2018 data breach involving protected health information (PHI). In Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., the court held that the plaintiff could not establish equitable indemnification or contractual liability under Massachusetts law. The decision reinforces limits on downstream vendor liability in data breach litigation and further solidifies the District of Massachusetts—and the First Circuit—as a leading forum for resolving complex privacy and cybersecurity disputes. The Zoll Data Breach and its Class Action Aftermath Zoll Medical Corporation and its subsidiary received email and electronic messaging services from Fusion LLC. Fusion relied on Barracuda's email archiving technology pursuant to an agreement that required Fusion to include specific limitation-of-liability and indemnification provisions in its customer contracts. Fusion did not include those provisions in its hosting agreement with Zoll. After a data breach at Barracuda exposed Zoll's customer data, Zoll settled a class action brought by affected customers. Zoll then initiated arbitration against Fusion and separately sued Barracuda in the District of Massachusetts. Fusion intervened and asserted its own claims. District Court Holds Independent Contractor Relationships Do Not Support Equitable Indemnification for Breach-Related Losses On the pleadings, the district court dismissed most claims, allowing only Zoll's equitable indemnification claim and Fusion's claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to proceed. Following discovery, Barracuda moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion in full. It held that: -- Zoll could not pursue equitable indemnification because its relationship with Barracuda did not give rise to derivative or vicarious liability. -- Fusion's breach of contract claim failed because Fusion did not satisfy a condition precedent by omitting required contractual protections in its customer agreement with Zoll. -- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not create rights that were absent from the parties' contract. -- Zoll and Fusion assigned their remaining claims to Axis Insurance Company, which appealed. First Circuit Clarifies Limits on Vendor Liability and Rejects Post-Breach Risk Reallocation On de novo review, the First Circuit affirmed, agreeing that no claim could survive summary judgment under Massachusetts law. The court emphasized that the dispositive issues were legal, not factual, and could be resolved by reference to the parties' contractual relationships and settled indemnification principles. First, the court rejected Axis's equitable indemnification claim. Applying Massachusetts precedent, the court reiterated that equitable indemnification is available only if the party seeking indemnity is held vicariously or derivatively liable for the wrongful acts of another. Because Zoll and Barracuda operated as independent contractors several steps removed from one another, Zoll's liability to its customers was not derivative of Barracuda's conduct. The absence of a qualifying legal relationship was fatal to the indemnification claim, regardless of the alleged role Barracuda's technology played in the breach. Second, the court affirmed dismissal of the breach of contract claim based on Fusion's failure to satisfy a condition precedent in the agreement. The agreement expressly required Fusion to include specified limitation-of-liability and indemnification provisions in its customer contracts. It was undisputed that Fusion did not do so in its agreement with Zoll. The court held that this foreclosed any claim that Barracuda breached their agreement. The court also rejected Axis's waiver and estoppel arguments. Axis argued that Barracuda waived the condition precedent by failing to exercise its contractual audit rights. The court disagreed, emphasizing that the agreement conferred a discretionary right to audit, not an affirmative obligation. The agreement's anti-waiver provision further confirmed that inaction could not operate as a waiver. On that basis, the court resolved the waiver issue as a matter of law at summary judgment. Finally, the court affirmed dismissal of the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court reiterated that the covenant cannot be used to create substantive rights that do not exist under the contract itself. Because Fusion had no contractual entitlement to indemnification or breach-related remedies in the absence of compliance with contractual conditions, the implied covenant could not supply those rights after the fact. Key Takeaway: Ruling Reinforces Contract-Centered Approach to Cybersecurity Risk Taken together, the First Circuit's analysis reflects a contract-centered approach to allocating responsibility for data breach losses. The First Circuit made clear that equitable indemnification is a narrow remedy tied to specific vicarious or derivative relationships. It is not a mechanism for reallocating risk after a breach occurs. The decision reflects the growing concentration of privacy and data breach litigation in the District of Massachusetts and, by extension, before the First Circuit. As these cases comprise an increasing share of the docket, the court has emerged as a national leader in resolving complex cybersecurity disputes. [GN] BRUCE LACKEY: Class Settlement in Imber Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON IMBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRUCE LACKEY, PAM LACKEY, LACKEY FAMILY TRUST, COLE SCHARTON, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, MIGUEL PAREDES, RICH ROUSH, DEL THACKER, RICHARD DEYOUNG, AND RITCHIE TRUCKING SERVICE HOLDINGS, INC., and PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00004-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted to the extent that the Court approves the settlement as fair, reasonable, and Adequate. 2. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees, costs, and incentive award to the Plaintiff is granted to the extent the Court awards the following sums: a. Class Counsel shall receive $442,624.00 in attorneys' fees and $33,009.53 in expenses; and b. Analytics Consulting, LLC shall receive $5,449.00 in settlement administration costs and expenses. 3. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for service award is granted to the extent that named Plaintiff and Class Representative Brandon Imber shall receive $5,000.00 as a service award; 4. The Parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the Settlement Agreement, including all deadlines and procedures for allocation and distribution to class members. The Releases contained in the Settlement Agreement are expressly incorporated herein in all respects: a. The claims of Plaintiff and the Class with respect to Counts I-IV and VI-VIII are released as provided in the Settlement Agreement ¶ XIV(1) and ¶ XIV(4); b. The claims of Defendants against Plaintiff, the Class, Plaintiff's counsel and Class Counsel are released as provided in Settlement Agreement ¶ XIV(2) and XIV(4); c. The Parties and the Class are barred and enjoined from prosecuting any and all settled claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement (including claims released by the Independent Fiduciary as to those claims allowed to be released in section XIV(3) of the Settlement Agreement) against any Party with respect to whom they have released claims. d. Plaintiff’s individual claim, Count V, including claims for attorneys’ fees and costs related to Count V, are not released; and any claims to enforce the Settlement Agreement are not released. 5. Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII of this action are dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement calls for Defendants to pay $485,000.00, plus any earnings and interest accrued thereon, into a Cash Settlement Fund which will be distributed to class members in accordance with their ESOP accounts minus any Court-approved deductions and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, the service award for the class representative, estimated taxes on income earned on the Cash Settlement Fund and related costs, costs related to the Class Notice, and costs incurred by the Settlement Administrator. The proposed settlement class is identified as: "All participants in the ESOP from Dec.31, 2018, or any time thereafter until Dec.31, 2024 (unless the participant terminated without vesting) and those participants' beneficiaries other than the Excluded Persons." "Excluded Persons" means the following persons who are excluded from the Class: (a) the Defendants; (b) any fiduciary of the Plan; (c) the officers and directors of Ritchie Trucking or of any entity in which the individual Defendants have a controlling interest; (d) immediate family members of any of the foregoing excluded persons; and (e) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5cItAg at no extra charge.[CC] CANOPY GROWTH: Ontario Court Greenlights Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that an Ontario court has certified a proposed shareholder class action against Canopy Growth Corp. and a couple of its executives over alleged disclosure failures that arose in connection with the company's acquisition of its sports drink subsidiary BioSteel in 2019. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice green lit a proposed class action on behalf of investors who acquired shares of Canopy between June 1, 2021 and June 22, 2023 -- seeking damages based on the alleged impact on the company's share price of misrepresentations in its disclosure regarding its financials, the financials of its subsidiary, BioSteel Sports Nutrition Inc., and alleged weaknesses in its governance and internal controls that allowed those misstatements. None of the allegations have been proven. "The fact that Canopy made both quantitative and qualitative misstatements is not controversial," the court said, noting that the company later issued disclosure that admitted the misstatements, and corrected them. One of the major issues that the court considered in determining whether to certify the case as a class action revolved around a dispute over whether the allegedly deficient disclosures were "material" under securities law, and whether the plaintiff met the test for proceeding with an action alleging secondary market misrepresentation. Both sides submitted expert evidence on the materiality issue. However, the court ultimately deemed the academic debate over materiality to be fundamentally unhelpful. "The deepest problem with the entire statistical approach is . . . that it seems altogether detached from the real subject matter it is meant to highlight," the court said in its decision. "The [debate] has the feel of organic chemists examining the microscopic, molecular interactions of dairy, wheat, tomato and pineapple drops in a petri dish, as a way of opining on, but never mentioning, the good or bad taste of a Hawaiian pizza," it said. Indeed, ultimately, the court said that the market was a more important gauge of whether the disclosures were material or not. ". . . This is an instance where the market speaks louder than the experts," the court said. "There is no indication that anything else transpired beside the corrective disclosure announcements to impact Canopy's share price so dramatically downward. The coincidence of timing serves to confirm the fact that the downward movement of the market reflected the impact of Canopy having disclosed material misstatements and made material changes to its financial reporting," it said, in ruling that the plaintiffs have a potentially viable case. Additionally, the court noted that the failure of a similar claim against Canopy in a U.S. court doesn't undermine the proposed Ontario class action. ". . . The U.S. decision turned on legal requirements that do not exist under either the [Ontario Securities Act or Canadian corporate law], and addressed issues not relevant in Canadian litigation," the court said. "The U.S. ruling provides no support for Canopy's position in the present action. The plaintiff has valid causes of action against Canopy for misrepresentation under the [Ontario Securities Act] and for oppression under the [Canada Business Corporations Act]," the court ruled in certifying the claim. [GN] CHARMING MEDICAL: Louie Balks at Failure to Disclose Material Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JULIANNE LOUIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARMING MEDICAL, LIMITED; KIT WONG; CHING MAN CHEUNG; JOSEPHINE YAN YEUNG; LEUT MING GUNG; SHU TAI VICTOR YU; CATHAY SECURITIES INC.; WWC, P.C.; and COGENCY GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10535-JPO (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Charming securities between October 10, 2025, and November 12, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This case arises from the suspension of Charming's stock in November 2025, following a dramatic yet illusory run-up orchestrated by a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. In the weeks leading up to November 12, 2025, Charming's share price surged from the initial public offering price (IPO) of $4 to an all-time high of $29.36 per share, despite no fundamental news from the Company justifying such a spike. Investigations and public reports have revealed that Charming's stock became the subject of an illicit social-media-based promotion scheme that artificially inflated its price. These reports detail how impersonators claiming to be legitimate financial advisors touted Charming in online forums, chat groups, and through social media posts with sensational, but baseless, claims to create a buying frenzy among retail investors. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Charming's business, operations, and the true nature of its securities trading activity. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Charming was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals; (2) insiders and/or affiliates used offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping of shares during a price inflation campaign; (3) Charming's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock price; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in fact, says the suit. Charming Medical, Limited operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides beauty, wellness, and postpartum services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. Sean Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jjacobson@scott-scott.com smasson@scott-scott.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Mollie Chadwick, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com mchadwick@scott-scott.com - and - Tom Grady, Esq. GRADYLAW 720 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34102 E-mail: tgrady@gradylaw.com CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Amended Bid to Certify Class in Smoke Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE A. SMOKE, et al., v. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-02919 (D.D.C., Filed Oct. 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order dismissing amended motion to certify class and appointment of counsel as moot In light of the Parties continued settlement discussions. The Court will permit Plaintiffs to refile their motion if discussions do not result in settlement. Pursuant to the Court's July 7, 2025, Minute Order, the Parties shall continue to file joint status reports every 30 days, advising of the status of settlement discussions. The nature of Suit states Statutory Actions.[CC] CIGNA GROUP: Faces Putative Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Justin Marcus Smith, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that the consumers accused Cigna of using its Evernorth and Express Scripts PBM affiliates, in conjunction with its specialty dispensary Accredo, to extract monopoly rents from millions of Americans facing serious or chronic medical conditions. A group of nine named consumers have filed a putative antitrust class action against Accredo Health Group, Inc. (Accredo), Express Scripts, Inc., Evernorth Health, Inc. (Evernorth) and Cigna Group (collectively, the Cigna parties) in the federal district court in Chicago. The gist of the complaint is that health insurer Cigna Group and its affiliates Evernorth and Express Scripts have tied pharmacy benefit management (PBM) services to their affiliated specialty pharmacy, Accredo, to "shut out" competing pharmacies. The eleven-count complaint claims violations of the Sherman Act, the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) (Wolf v. Accredo Health Group, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00098 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2026)). "Choke point." The consumers described Express Scripts, Evernorth, and Accredo as all part of one vertically and horizontally integrated health care mega-conglomerate: Cigna Group. The consumers said, "Cigna coordinates and facilitates this enterprise and reaps the profits." According to the consumers, the alleged tying of Accredo to the PBMs created a "choke point" over medicines with a particularly severe effect on those suffering from chronic, complex, or rare conditions, including those covered by employer plans and public programs like TRICARE. The consumers said victims abound. They described personal experiences with "impaired access" to medically necessary care in detail and at great length. More specifically, the consumers alleged that Accredo, which dispenses "specialty drugs," has failed to live up to its promises with respect to obtaining medications, including routine refills. They alleged that Accredo "systematically" fails patients who must make repeated, time-consuming calls for their prescriptions, sometimes without resolution, and that they often receive "inconsistent or inaccurate information" about refill status and other details. They said prescription delivery delays can stretch into months. In at least one alleged instance, a four-month delay in the delivery of a Humira prescription was said to cause emergency surgery to remove a growing mass. The consumers alleged that PBMs Express Scripts and Evernorth know they have a "captive customer base" and use their authority to define some of the most profitable prescription dispensing opportunities as "specialty" drugs with the explicit purpose of excluding Accredo rivals. The allegations appear to outline a diffusion of responsibility in the way the PBMs, Accredo, and Cigna interact with each other leading to serious communication problems, poor prescription fulfillment, and few options for the consumers in light of their insurance arrangements with Cigna. Two of the named consumers said they reside in Illinois, two reside in Wisconsin, two in California, and the others reside in Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Some are parents who represent the interests of their children. Counts. The complaint consists of a total of eleven counts grouped in six class/defendant combinations: Private Insurance Statutory Claims Class, all defendants: I. Illegal restraints of trade or commerce - violation of Sherman Act Sec. 1 II. Monopolization - violation of Sherman Act Sec. 2 III. Attempted monopolization - violation of Sherman Act Sec. 2 California Private Insurance Statutory Claims subclass, all defendants: IV. Unlawful and unfair business practices - violation of California UCL Illinois Private Insurance Statutory Claims Subclass, all defendants: V. Unfair business practices - violation of ICFA TRICARE Class, all defendants: VI. Monopolization - violation of Sherman Act Sec. 2 (TRICARE Class, all defendants). VII. Attempted monopolization - violation of Sherman Act Sec. 2 (TRICARE Class, all defendants); Accredo Common Law Claims Class against Accredo: VIII. Common law negligence - violation of state law; IX. Public nuisance - violation of state law; X. Breach of contract - violation of state law; XI. Promissory estoppel. Relief sought. The consumers pray for the following relief: -- R. 23 class certification(s) and associated appointments; -- Actual and punitive damages; -- Treble damages 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15; -- Injunctive relief prohibiting the alleged conduct; -- A finding of public nuisance and ordered abatement; -- Attorney's fees and costs; -- Any other proper relief. The consumers requested a jury trial. The Case is No. 1:26-cv-00098. Judge: Wood, A. Attorneys: Aaron Michael Tucek (Loevy & Loevy) for Kimberly Wolf. Companies: Accredo Health Group, Inc. [GN] CITIBANK NA: Bid Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alec Karghaian et al. v. Citibank, N.A. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00879-MWF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fitzgerald entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to strike class allegations. -- The motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint is denied. -- The motion to Strike Class Allegations is denied without prejudice because Defendant can re raise these arguments to oppose a motion for class certification. -- The Defendant shall file an Answer to the SAC no later than Jan. 12, 2026. Citibank offers a wide range of retail and commercial banking, lending, investment, and digital financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y44WiT at no extra charge.[CC] CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Mislabels Sunscreen Products, Krasnova Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA KRASNOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-at-01439 (E.D. Cal., December 29, 2025) is a class action seeking redress and to put a stop to the false, deceptive, and unlawful manner in which Defendant has labeled, distributed, advertised, promoted, and marketed its sunscreen product "Clinique Broad Spectrum SPF 50 Mineral Sunscreen Fluid for Face" (the "Product"). The complaint relates that on the Product's labeling, its outer packaging (the box), and in advertising and promotional materials for the Product, Defendant represents that the Product provides a sun protection factor ("SPF") that is far higher than the SPF that the Product actually provides, thereby deceiving consumers into believing that the Product offers better protection against sunburns and other dangerous effects of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (such as skin cancer and premature aging) than it actually provides, and that the Product is thus worth purchasing at a price higher than what is charged for other lower-SPF sunscreens. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes purchased the Product based on Defendant's representations that the Product provides SPF 50 protection. Unbeknownst to them, however, the Product actually provides only SPF 26 protection--nearly half of the protection Defendant represents--as independent laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel has revealed. At SPF 26, the Product provides far less protection from the sun's harmful rays—and is of significantly lower quality and worth far less money—than a sunscreen that actually provides SPF 50 protection. The complaint alleges that by falsely representing the SPF protection provided by the Product, Defendant has knowingly misled and continues to knowingly mislead consumers into believing that they are purchasing a sunscreen with better quality, filtration, absorption, and reflection capabilities against ultraviolet radiation than the lower-SPF product that they actually receive, thereby deceiving them into paying a premium price for a non-premium product. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other legal and equitable remedies on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. Plaintiff Maria Krasnova is a citizen and resident of Kern County, California. Defendant Clinique Laboratories, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that produces, packages, manufactures, and labels the Product, and distributes, advertises, promotes, and markets the Product throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Sued Over Deceptive Sunscreen Product Label ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA KRASNOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02060-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal., December 29, 2025) is a class action seeking redress and to put a stop to the false, deceptive, and unlawful manner in which Defendant has labeled, distributed, advertised, promoted, and marketed its sunscreen product "Clinique Broad Spectrum SPF 50 Mineral Sunscreen Fluid for Face". The complaint relates that on the Product's labeling, its outer packaging (the box), and in advertising and promotional materials for the Product, Defendant represents that the Product provides a sun protection factor ("SPF") that is far higher than the SPF that the Product actually provides, thereby deceiving consumers into believing that the Product offers better protection against sunburns and other dangerous effects of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (such as skin cancer and premature aging) than it actually provides, and that the Product is worth purchasing at a price higher than what is charged for other lower-SPF sunscreens. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes purchased the Product based on Defendant's representations that the Product provides SPF 50 protection. Unbeknownst to them, however, the Product actually provides only SPF 26 protection--nearly half of the protection Defendant represents--as independent laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel has revealed. At SPF 26, the Product provides far less protection from the sun's harmful rays--and is of significantly lower quality and worth far less money--than a sunscreen that actually provides SPF 50 protection. The complaint alleges that by falsely representing the SPF protection provided by the Product, Defendant has knowingly misled and continues to knowingly mislead consumers into believing that they are purchasing a sunscreen with better quality, filtration, absorption, and reflection capabilities against ultraviolet radiation than the lower-SPF product that they actually receive, thereby deceiving them into paying a premium price for a non-premium product. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other legal and equitable remedies on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. Plaintiff Maria Krasnova is a citizen and resident of Kern County, California. Defendant Clinique Laboratories, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that produces, packages, manufactures, and labels the Product, and distributes, advertises, promotes, and markets the Product throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Caldwell Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- JIM CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, and SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-19056 (D.N.J., December 30, 2025) arises from Defendants' 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 San Francisco Health Plan. But such PII/PHI was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its consumers' PII/PHI. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 Jim Caldwell is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. Defendant TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC is a provider of revenue management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems, based in Earth City, Missouri. Defendant Cognizant is a provider of software solutions to health care providers, insurance companies, and other entities within the healthcare industry. Defendant San Francisco Health Plan is a nonprofit health care provider that administers Medi-Cal and other publicly funded health coverage programs for residents of San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com CONSERVICE LLC: Louis Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA JOLICOEUR-LOUIS and SOPHIE PHILIPS, v. CONSERVICE, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-03253-HDV-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb.26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an Order granting Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs seek entry of an Order: 1. Certifying the following proposed Classes under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3): -- Business & Professions Code section 17200 Class (Unlicensed Fee Collection) -- Rosenthal Unauthorized Fee Collection Class -- Business & Professions Code section 17500 False Advertising Class -- Rosenthal Mini-Miranda Class 2. Appointing Plaintiffs Amanda Jolicoeur-Louis and Sophie Philips as Class Representatives; and 3. Appointing The Law Office of Kenneth Townsend and The Law Office of Daniel M. O’Leary as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) The Plaintiffs request that this Court certify the following classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Business and Professions Code section17200 Class (Unlicensed Fee Collection): "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who, within the applicable statute of limitations, paid any service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a residential lease and associated with a utility bill, during a period when Conservice was not licensed per Financial Code section 100001 as required to lawfully engage in the business of debt collection." Rosenthal Subclass (Rosenthal Unauthorized Fee Collection): "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who paid a service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a lease that did not authorize such fees and associated with a utility bill during the period when Conservice was unlicensed as a debt collector, during the applicable statute of limitations through the date the class is certified." Business and Professions Code section 17500 (False Advertising Class): "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who paid any service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a residential lease and associated with a utility bill, during a period when Conservice was not licensed under Financial Code section 100001 as required to engage in debt collection activity lawfully." Rosenthal Class (Mini-Miranda): "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who, within the applicable statute of limitations, received an initial billing communication or outreach in which Conservice, acting as a debt collector on behalf of the property owner or manager, attempted to collect utility charges owed to the landlord, and who did not receive the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(11)." Excluded from the foregoing Classes are the assigned Judge(s), Conservice, its officers and directors, its affiliated entities, their officers and directors, and members of their immediate families. Since January 1, 2022, when debt collection licensing became mandatory in California, Conservice has charged California tenants across the state over $100,000,000 in illegal “convenience” fees and late fees. During the height of the pandemic, hundreds of thousands of California tenants paid an average of $4.85 per month, every month, to Conservice, just for the “benefit” of paying their utility bills. Sometimes Conservice called the surcharge a “trash collection fee,” other times a “rent collection fee,” and still other times Conservice called it what it was – a "service fee." On the FAQ page of its website, which receives more than 230,000 unique hits a day on average, Conservice misinformed tenants that the service fees could not be waived and that it could collect late fees. Neither of these statements was true, since Conservice was not licensed as a debt collector in California and lacked any method to determine whether consumers' leases expressly authorized such charges. Conservice provides utility management and billing solutions to property owners and managers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QL09Y4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth Townsend, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH TOWNSEND 1001 Gayley Avenue, Suite 105 #24514 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 997-0386 E-mail: townsend1994@lawnet.ucla.edu - and - Daniel O'Leary, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. O’LEARY 2300 Westwood Boulevard, Suite105 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 481-2020 E-mail: dan@danolearylaw.com COVENANT HEALTH: Edelson Investigates Data Breach Class Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating data privacy claims regarding an incident at Covenant Health, Inc. ("Covenant Health"). Covenant Health learned of a data breach on or about May 26, 2025. If you would like to discuss this case with a lawyer, visit link https://www.edelson-law.com/data-breach-class-actions/. About Covenant Health, Inc. Covenant Health is a name shared by multiple independent healthcare networks operating in different regions. What happened? On or about May 26, 2025, Covenant Health discovered unusual activity in its Information Technology environment. They launched an investigation and determined that on May 18, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to their network and acquired certain patient information. This information may have included personal information such as names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and treatment information. Up to 478,188 individuals have been affected by this data breach. How can I protect my personal data? If you receive a data breach notification regarding Covenant Health, you should take steps to protect yourself against identity theft and fraud. Such measures include regularly reviewing your account statements and monitoring your credit reports for any suspicious or unauthorized activity. Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating a class action lawsuit to seek legal remedies for individuals whose sensitive personal data may have been compromised by the Covenant Health data breach. For more information, please contact: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (844) 696-7492 ext. 2 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com Web: www.edelson-law.com About Edelson Lechtzin LLP Edelson Lechtzin LLP is a national class action law firm with offices in Pennsylvania and California. In addition to data breach cases, our lawyers focus on class and collective litigation involving allegations of securities and investment fraud, violations of federal antitrust laws, employee benefit plans under ERISA, wage theft, and consumer fraud. [GN] CRAWFORD UNITED: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to SPX Enterprises ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Crawford United Corporation (OTCMKTS: CRAWA) related to its sale to SPX Enterprises, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Crawford shareholders are expected to receive $83.24 per share of Crawford common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 3, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/crawford-united-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNCR) related to its sale to Lumine Group Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Synchronoss shareholders are expected to receive $9.00 per share, subject to adjustment for transaction expenses. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 3, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/synchronoss-technologies-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Sonida Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: SNDA) related to its merger with CNL Healthcare Properties, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Sonida existing shareholders' ownership would range from 39.5% to 50.0% of the newly combined company's diluted common stock equity. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 26, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sonida-senior-living-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Forge Global Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: FRGE) related to its sale to The Charles Schwab Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Forge Global shareholders will receive $45.00 in cash per share of Forge Global common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 22, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/forge-global-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] DOLGENCORP LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Rogers Due April 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELLA ROGERS, v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-02080-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mendoza entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Action or Event Deadline Mandatory initial disclosures: Feb. 9, 2026 Motion to join a party or amend pleadings: Mar. 20, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert report disclosure: Feb.2, 2027 The Defendant's expert report disclosure: Mar. 4, 2027 Completion of discovery and motion to Apr. 2, 2027 compel discovery: Class Certification: Apr. 1, 2026 Dispositive and Daubert motions: May 4, 2027 Dolgencorp is an import/export company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uyVHSM at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Bid to Extend Class Cert Opposition Filing Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLOBAL NURSE FORCE, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-08454-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to submit an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class certification by 28 days, to be submitted on or before Jan.29, 2026. The Plaintiffs' replies in support of their motions would be due February 5, 2026. Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E3zpym at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jaime A. Scott, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-3620 E-mail: Jaime.A.Scott@usdoj.gov ECOATM LLC: Harriel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against EcoATM, LLC. The case is styled as Donella Harriel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. EcoATM, LLC doing business as: Gazelle, Case No. 3:25-cv-03793-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. ecoATM, LLC, doing business as Gazelle -- https://www.ecoatm.com/ -- is an e-commerce company founded in 2006 that recycles used electronic devices, such as mobile phones and tablet and laptop computers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 713 Pitman Street Escondido, CA 92027 Phone: (773) 946-9399 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com EDUCATIVE INC: Settles Automatic Renewal Class Suit for $625,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Educative Inc. has agreed to a $625,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the online learning platform automatically renewed subscriptions for California residents without providing proper notice or obtaining informed consent. The Educative class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 3, 2025 and covers all individuals with a California billing address who, between November 16, 2019 and November 14, 2023, enrolled in an automatically renewing monthly or annual Educative subscription and were charged and paid for any automatic renewal fees in connection with the subscription and did not receive a full refund. The court-approved website for the Educative settlement can be found at https://www.EducativeRenewalSettlement.com/. According to the website, Educative settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive reimbursement, as their information is already stored in the Educative systems. Those included in the class action settlement are entitled to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the amount that remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, lead plaintiff service awards, and settlement administration costs. The settlement site notes that class members enrolled in annual or quarterly subscriptions will receive a payment of approximately $23.86, while those enrolled in monthly subscriptions will receive a payment of approximately $11.93. The settlement agreement states that class members will receive their payout in the form of a check or electronic payment based on the information stored in Educative's systems, and all checks must be cashed within 180 days after issuance before expiration. Educative class members who want to ask to be excluded from the settlement must send to the address provided here a timely, written notice to the settlement administrator that includes their name, address, signature, and a statement confirming they wish to be excluded from the settlement class. All Educative settlement exclusion requests and objections must be sent to the settlement administrator by February 13, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Educative settlement at a hearing on October 5, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Educative class action lawsuit alleged that the education platform for coding developers unlawfully enrolled consumers into automatically renewing subscriptions and charged their payment methods without first providing certain statutory disclosures and obtaining proper authorization. [GN] EMERGENCY MEDICAL: 2024 Data Breach Suit Reaches $1.5M Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) has agreed to a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a February 2024 data breach that allegedly compromised personal information of patients and employees of the medical service provider. The Emergency Medical Services Authority class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 4, 2025 and covers all United States residents who were mailed notice from EMSA that their private information may have been compromised during the February 2024 data breach. The court-approved website for the EMSA data breach settlement can be found at EMSASettlement.com. Per the settlement website, EMSA settlement class members who submit documented proof of out-of-pocket losses with a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $3,000. The site adds that reimbursable losses must have been incurred as a result of the February 2024 data breach, and covered expenses include those related to bank fees, credit reporting or monitoring fees, and attorneys’ and accountants’ fees. EMSA class members can also file a claim for up to 4 hours of reimbursement for lost time spent dealing with issues related to the data breach, at a rate of $15 per hour, the website relays. Any claims for lost time will be included toward the $3,000 cap for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, the site notes. In addition to any monetary benefits, the agreement adds that all settlement class members who submit a claim form may receive two years of free one-bureau credit monitoring and identity protection services. To submit a claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All EMSA claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 5, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the class action settlement at a hearing on April 6, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Emergency Medical Services Authority class action lawsuit alleged that the service provider failed to protect the sensitive information stored on its systems from a data breach between approximately February 10, 2024 and February 13, 2024. The complaint claimed the information accessed included names, dates of birth, dates of service, and, in some cases, primary care information and Social Security numbers. [GN] ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Light Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS LIGHT, individually and behalf of all those similarly situated, v. ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION INC., and FLEETMASTER EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00102-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1) Certifying a class consisting of: "all individuals who contracted with the Defendants to provide delivery services, and who personally provided delivery services for the Defendants, at any time between February 2022 and the present and who were classified by the Defendants as independent contractors; 2) Appointing the named Plaintiff Travis Light, as the class representative; and 3) Appointing Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. as class counsel. The Plaintiff Travis Light worked as a delivery driver for the Defendants hauling freight for the Defendants' customers from July 2023 to January 2025. Englander provides freight delivery services from either Virginia or Tennessee to the west coast. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aYR6Kq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St. Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - Jacob M. Small, Esq. J. MADISON PLC 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 910-5062 Facsimile: (703) 910-5107 E-mail: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com ENT AND ALLERGY: Failed to Secure Private Info, Giambrone Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SALVATORE GIAMBRONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENT AND ALLERGY ASSOCIATES, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-19079 (D.N.J., December 30, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security procedures and practices, resulting in a data breach in March 2025 (the "Data Breach"), in which unauthorized third parties accessed and/or exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive personal information, including but not limited to: full names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, patient and/or medical record numbers, health insurance information, clinical and diagnostic information related to medical treatment and health related services, and other personal and medical information defined as "personal information," "medical information," and/or "protected health information" under applicable federal and state law (collectively, "PII/PHI" or "Personal Information"). The complaint relates that the Defendant serves over 150,000 patients every month and offers a wide range of medical treatment and health related services, including ENT and allergy, sinus and skull base surgery, voice and swallowing, facial plastics, disorders of the inner ear, asthma, clinical immunology, and diagnostic audiology. Believing Defendant would implement and maintain reasonable security practices to protect his PII/PHI, Plaintiff routinely provided his PII/PHI to Defendant in connection with receiving medical treatment and health related services. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information, exposed Plaintiff and Class members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft, and lead to third parties accessing highly sensitive PII/PHI. As a result of Defendant's conduct and the resulting Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members' privacy has been invaded, their Personal Information is now in the hands of criminals, and they now 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, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks appropriate injunctive relief, appropriate monetary relief, including actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution, and disgorgement. Plaintiff Salvatore Giambrone is a New Jersey resident who has paid for and received medical treatment and health related services from Defendant. Defendant ENT and Allergy Associates, LLP is a leading ENT, allergy, and audiology practice, with over 450 providers across 60+ office locations in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Cohen Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dalit Cohen, Anastasia Kurtz, Tina Scott, Paige Vasseur, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. eSupplements, LLC d/b/a Nutricost, Case No. 2:23-cv-06387-NJC-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the Class action settlement. The Plaintiffs request that the Court: (i) conditionally certify the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement; (ii) appoint Plaintiffs as Settlement Class Representatives; (iii) appoint Lemberg Law, LLC, as Class Counsel; (iv) preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (v) approve the form, content and method of delivering notice to the Settlement Class as set out in the Settlement Agreement as "the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)); and (vi) schedule a final approval hearing in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the proposed Preliminary Approval Order. Nutricost does not oppose the relief sought in this motion and entry of the proposed Preliminary Approval Order. Esupplements is a company that specializes in providing a range of dietary supplements and wellness products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JNVzAX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 FERMI INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Fermi Inc. ("Fermi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:FRMI) securities during the period of September 28, 2025 through December 11, 2025, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Fermi investments, you have until March 6, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (1) the Company overstated its tenant demand for its Project Matador campus; (2) the extent to which Project Matador would rely on a single tenant's funding commitment to finance the construction of Project Matador; and (3) there was a significant risk that that tenant would terminate its funding commitment. On October 1, 2025, Fermi began trading on the NASDAQ at $21.00 per share following its Initial Public Offering. Then, on December 12, 2025, Fermi revealed that the first tenant for the Company's anticipated Project Matador AI campus had terminated its $150 million Advance in Aid of Construction Agreement, which would have supplied construction costs for the facility. On this news, the price of Fermi shares declined by $5.16 per share, or approximately 33.8%, from $15.25 per share on December 11, 2025 to close at $10.09 on December 12, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fermi securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 investigations@kmllp.com [GN] FONAR CORP: M&A Investigates Sales to Affiliates of CEO ------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating FONAR Corporation (NASDAQ: FONR) related to its sale to affiliates of Chief Executive Officer Timothy Damadian and certain executives and directors of the company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, FONAR's Class B common stockholders will receive $19.00 per share and FONAR's Class C common stockholders will receive $6.34 per share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fonar-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] FORD MOTOR: Seeks Leave to File Video Clip as Exhibit in Droesser ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WILLIAM DROESSER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-12365-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file a video clip as an exhibit to its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. The media file contains a video that former Named Plaintiff Mark Droesser uploaded to his publicly available Facebook page where he described fueling a Class Vehicle with gasoline and then driving it. The media file is evidence about the alleged defectiveness of the CP4 pumps as to misfueled gasoline and about non-defect-related causes of pump failure. Ford is a major American global automaker. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mo6Qqz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Perry W. Miles, IV, Esq. Brian D. Schmalzbach, Esq. W. Cole Geddy, Esq. MCQUIREWOODS LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 E-mail: pmiles@mcguirewoods.com bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com cgeddy@mcguirewoods.com - and - Derek J. Linkous, Esq. Stephanie A. Douglas, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 822-7800 E-mail: douglas@bsplaw.com linkous@bsplaw.com FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WILLIAM DROESSER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-12365-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing portions of and exhibits to its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. Ford seeks an order to seal or redact Exhibits 1–17, 19–20, and 29 to its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. Many of the exhibits overlap with exhibits already filed; i.e., the same document is filed as an exhibit for this opposition and for other Ford briefs. The exhibits to be sealed or redacted fall into two categories. The first category of exhibits contains confidential business information produced by Ford pursuant to a Protective Order in a related case. Ford is a major American global automaker. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=loDzHD at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Perry W. Miles, IV, Esq. Brian D. Schmalzbach, Esq. W. Cole Geddy, Esq. MCQUIREWOODS LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-1000 E-mail: pmiles@mcguirewoods.com bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com cgeddy@mcguirewoods.com - and - Derek J. Linkous, Esq. Stephanie A. Douglas, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 822-7800 E-mail: douglas@bsplaw.com linkous@bsplaw.com GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Bid to Deny Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL CENTARICZKI, an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES, INC., KEELER PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, CASTELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, J MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, S&M MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC, MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS HS LP, MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS MS LP, and MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS 235 LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00127-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Armistead entered an order: -- Denying Defendants' motion to deny class certification, and -- Granting Centariczki's motion for leave to amend her complaint. Rachel Centariczki, on behalf of herself and a putative class, sued defendants in Oregon state court for violation of Oregon's Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The Defendants -- owners and managers of residential properties in Oregon -- timely removed to federal court. Now, nearly two years into the litigation, defendants move to decertify the class for failing to comply with Oregon's Rule of Civil Procedure 32 H (ORCP 32 H)1, which requires sending notice to defendants before filing a class action lawsuit for damages. The court agrees with defendants that there is no material difference between Centariczki's current and proposed complaints. A copy of the Court's finding and recommendation dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRfsDA at no extra charge.[CC] HARD EIGHT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Wilson Due Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. HARD EIGHT NUTRITION LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00144 (D. Or., Filed Jan. 28, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as follows: Amended Complaint is due April 16, 2026. Discovery is to be completed by July 23, 2026. Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by July 30, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure to be completed by Aug. 28, 2026. Expert Discovery to be completed by Sept. 18, 2026. Dispositive Motions and Class Certification are due by Sept. 30, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Hard Eight is a manufacturer of nutritional supplements.[CC] HESS BAKEN: Class Cert Opposition in Penman Suit Due Feb. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Penman v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097 (D.N.D., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Daniel L. Hovland entered an order granting motion to amend/correct as follows: -- Defendant's Expert Witness Reports due by Feb. 24, 2026. -- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Witness Reports due by March 24, 2026. -- Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification due by Feb. 24, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification due by March 24, 2026. -- The Parties shall be ready to evaluate the case for settlement purposes by 4/10/2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC] HONEY 490: Court Denies "Yoon" FLSA Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Dana Yoon, on behalf of herself and a class and collective of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Honey 490 Inc., et al, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-07909-RPK-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. On November 13, 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this action against the Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law Section 650 et seq., based on the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay for all hours worked in violation of New York Labor Law Section 191, failure to provide accurate wage notices and wage statements in violation of New York Labor Law Section 195(1), (3), failure to reimburse for mileage and travel expenses, discrimination based on age and nationality, and violations of the New York Health and Essential Rights Act, New York Labor Law Section 218-b, 27-d, and Occupational Safety and Health Act standards for Hazardous Work Environment, 29 U.S.C. Section 654. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants operate a chain of nail salons as an integrated enterprise under the shared trade name Honey Nail. The Plaintiff alleged that the nail salons are owned and operated by individual defendants Jina Sun and Jisoo Sun as a common enterprise, as the individual salons are advertised jointly on the Defendants' website, www.honeynails.com, and share the same logo and provide similar services. The nail salons are also alleged to share payroll methods and have a single, centralized system of labor relations for employees. They share supplies and employees which are interchangeable among the various locations. The Plaintiff alleged that she was employed by the Defendants from February 26, 2020 until July 6, 2024, regularly working four days a week, or occasionally three days a week, for over 10 hours per day, with her shift beginning between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m. and ending at 7:50 p.m. However, she was required to wait until 10:00 a.m. to clock in, and perform off-the-clock work for which she was not paid. She alleged that from 2020 to 2022, she was paid an hourly wage of $15.00, which increased to $16.00 per hour in 2023, and then to $17.00 per hour on January 1, 2024. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants' time shaving practices resulted in pay at less than the minimum wage across all hours worked. On occasion the Plaintiff was asked to work an additional day at other nail salon locations; during these weeks, she worked more than 40 hours but was only paid at her regular rate of pay for her overtime hours. The Plaintiff asserted minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of a collective class of similarly situated employees employed as a cosmetologist, nail technician, skin care technician, and eyelash extension technician. She alleged that the members of the collective were subject to substantially similar job requirements, were paid in the same manner and under common policies and practices, and were not paid proper minimum and overtime wages. On January 14, 2025, the Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. The case was referred to Mediation on February 5, 2025. The Mediation proved to be unsuccessful, and on March 20, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Certify Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action. The Defendants submitted their Memorandum in Opposition on April 3, 2025, and the Plaintiff's reply was filed on April 8, 2025. The Court noted that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee may bring a collective action for and on behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated. Courts use a two-step analysis to determine whether certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act is appropriate. The first step involves looking to the pleadings and affidavits to determine whether plaintiffs have satisfied the minimal burden of showing that the similarly situated requirement is met. To meet this burden, plaintiffs need only make a modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The Court found that the Plaintiff's declaration merely reiterated in each instance boilerplate language that she was aware that other employees were subjected to similar pay practices because I have spoken to them about it. Given the Plaintiff's failure to name or specifically reference any similarly situated employees, provide their positions or the locations at which they worked, or describe the context and timing of the conversations referenced in her declaration, she failed to satisfy even the minimal burden of showing that there were similarly situated employees subjected to the same wage and hour violations. The Court stated that courts have denied collective certification where the plaintiff fails to specifically describe observations about other similarly situated employees or fails to provide any details as to conversations with other employees. As the Declaration suggested the possibility that she can make these showings because she stated that she personally observed and personally knew similarly situated employees, the Court denied the motion for conditional certification, but without prejudice to renew if the Plaintiff submits a supplemental declaration curing the defects noted above. Accordingly, the Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the defined collective and did not address the Defendants' arguments with respect to the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms. The Plaintiff was granted leave to file a supplemental declaration to support a renewed motion for conditional certification. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 2, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oCGQNu from PacerMonitor.com HYATT CORPORATION: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY J. HASTY, v. HYATT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-02662-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the Plaintiff Bradley Hasty's motion to extend deadlines related to class certification. The Court says that is good cause to continue the class certification deadlines due to the need to complete the Belaire-West process, and there was not undue delay in waiting until the pleadings were settled to attempt to compile the class-wide data. However, an extension of 90 days rather than 120 days appears more appropriate in light of Plaintiff’s submission. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due April 30, 2026. The opposition and rebuttal expert disclosures in support of class certification are due June 8, 2026. The reply is due June 29, 2026. The class certification motion hearing is set for July 28, 2026. Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KiwjE8 at no extra charge.[CC] INTERPLAY LEARNING: Sued Over Unfair Collection of Web Users' Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ FORREST ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERPLAY LEARNING, INC., a DELAWARE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02084 (W.D. Tex., December 18, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, Interplay Learning uses data broker software on its website, www.interplaylearning.com, to secretly collect data about website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the website user. The Defendants' installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, says the suit. Interplay Learning owns, operates, and/or controls the website which offers its customers an educational platform to train individuals or employees in such areas as plumbing, electrical services, facilities maintenance, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Bvld., Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Conley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH CONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IROQUOIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESIDENT HOME, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02342-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., December 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure its patients' and employees' sensitive personal information--including but not limited to first and last names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers (SSN), financial information, and other personally identifiable information ("PII"), as well as medical histories, diagnoses and treatment details, prescription information, medical record number/patient ID, health insurance information, and other protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "PII/PHI" or "Personal Information"). The complaint relates that Iroquois Memorial regularly handles Personal Information belonging to its patients and employees, including medical histories, treatment records, demographic identifiers, social security numbers, and financial information. On December 11, 2025, hackers breached Iroquois Memorial's databases and exfiltrated 3.5 terabytes of data that contained information about Iroquois Memorial's patients and employees (the "Data Breach"). As of December 29, 2025, Iroquois Memorial has yet to notify its patients and employees of the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that Iroquois Memorial's failures exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to actual harm consistent with injuries that data breaches cause, including loss of the value of Plaintiff and Class Members' PII/PHI, imminent and actual threat of PII/PHI theft, and other types of quantifiable harm that stem from the Data Breach, including out-of-pocket losses and money spent on identity theft monitoring. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other members of the Class, asserts claims for breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment, and seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. Plaintiff Elizabeth Conley is a patient of Iroquois Memorial and provided her Personal Information to the hospital. Defendant Iroquois Memorial Hospital & Resident Home is a healthcare provider that provides services through its clinics, hospital, resident home, pharmacies, and outpatient services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7354 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com JAMES LEBLANC: VOTE Wins Bid to Certify Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS, ET AL., V. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL., Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jackson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification. The classes are defined as follows: 1) A General Class consisting of all persons incarcerated at LSP who currently are, or may in the future be, assigned to the Farm Line; and 2) An ADA Subclass, comprising all persons incarcerated at LSP who have disabilities that substantially limit one or more of their major life activities and who currently are, or may in the future be, assigned to the Farm Line. The Court further entered an order that Named Plaintiffs are designated as the class representatives and the Plaintiffs' Counsel are designated as class counsel. The action challenges the Defendants' operation of the Farm Line at Louisiana State Penitentiary in Tunica, Louisiana, otherwise known as "Angola" or "LSP," as unconstitutional. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FaqQhi at no extra charge.[CC] JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Berger Seeks July 1 Class Cert Bid Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berger v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al. (re American Airlines/JetBlue Antitrust Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-07374-AMD-CHK (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for an extension of the class certification deadlines. The Defendants do not consent to Plaintiffs' request. The Parties are actively engaged in discovery at this time, with fact depositions to end January 20, 2026. The following upcoming case deadlines, detailed in the CMO, would be adjusted by this extension. Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' filing and service of opening July 1, 2026 motion for class certification together with supporting documents and related expert reports: The Defendants' filing and service of memoranda On or before in opposition to class certification, together Oct. 9, 2026 with supporting documents and related expert reports: The Plaintiffs' filing and service of reply On or before brief in support of motion for class Dec. 18, 2026 certification: JetBlue is an American low-cost airline. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XrkSD1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 KAISER PERMANENTE: Members Claim Privacy Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDEPOT reports that Kaiser Permanente members who accessed the authenticated pages of Kaiser Permanente's websites or mobile applications between November 2017 and May 2024 may be eligible to claim an estimated $20 to $40 payment from a class action settlement. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. agreed to pay $46 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it disclosed members' confidential personal information through the use of third-party technologies on its websites and mobile apps. Who is eligible to file a claim? Class members can file a claim if they meet all of the following criteria: -- They are a current or former member (enrollee) of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. or any of its affiliates. -- They resided in one of the operating states: California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Virginia, Washington or the District of Columbia -- They accessed the authenticated (logged-in) pages of any of the following Kaiser Permanente websites or mobile applications between November 2017 and May 2024: -- Websites: -- https://wa-member.kaiserpermanente.org -- https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org -- https://mydoctor.kaiserpermanente.org -- Mobile apps: -- Kaiser Permanente Washington App -- Kaiser Permanente App -- My Doctor Online (NCAL Only) App -- My KP Meds App -- KP Health Ally App Both current and former members qualify regardless of whether they are still enrolled with Kaiser Permanente. How much are the Kaiser Privacy Breach Settlement payouts? Those who submit a valid claim can expect to receive a payment estimated to range between $20 and $40. The actual amount will depend on the number of valid claims submitted and the net settlement fund remaining after deductions for administrative costs, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and service awards to the named plaintiffs. How to file a claim To receive a payment, eligible class members must submit a claim form by March 12, 2026. Class members can submit claims in two ways: -- Online: Complete the online claim form. -- By mail: Download and print the PDF claim form, fill it out and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Kaiser Privacy Breach Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims Services Inc., P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Claimants must provide their name, address, contact information and, if available, the unique ID provided in their settlement notice. Those who did not receive a unique ID can request one from the settlement administrator. What are the options? Claimants can choose: -- Electronic payment (via email) -- Options include electronic Mastercard, Amazon, Target, Venmo, PayPal or ACH direct deposit -- Physical check mailed to the address provided on the claim form $46 million settlement fund The settlement fund of $46,000,000 will cover all payments to class members, as well as the costs of administering the settlement, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and service awards to the named plaintiffs. The fund may increase up to $47.5 million under certain conditions but will not exceed that amount. Settlement fund breakdown: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $1.7 million to $2.4 million -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $15,675,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $900,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $40,000 ($5,000 each for eight plaintiffs) -- Payments to eligible class members: The remaining net settlement fund Important dates -- Claim deadline: March 12, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: May 7, 2026 When is the Kaiser privacy breach settlement payout date? Claim Depot estimates payouts will occur in summer 2026 (likely late June or July). The exact payout date will depend on the timing of the final approval and resolution of appeals, if any. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. used third-party tracking technologies on its websites and mobile apps, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential personal information. The plaintiffs claimed this conduct violated several state and federal privacy laws. Kaiser denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the burden, expense and uncertainty of continued litigation. The settlement provides a guaranteed cash benefit to class members without the risks and delays of further court proceedings. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $20-$40 Deadline: March 12, 2026 [GN] KRISTI NOEM: Class Cert Replies in Maria Suit Due Jan. 16 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maria L., et al., v. Noem, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-13471 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge George A. Otoole, Jr. entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class, motion to stay agency action, parties joint motion for briefing schedule. -- Responses due by Jan. 6, 2026 -- Replies due by Jan. 16, 2026 -- Reply briefs in further support of the motions, each not to exceed ten pages. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem is an American politician serving as the 8th United States secretary of homeland security since 2025.[CC] . LEADPOINT INC: Wilson Seeks to Extend Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Leadpoint, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06200-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to extend the time to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed. As such, the Plaintiff requests that the motion for class certification be filed at a time that is Ordered by the Court when a joint proposed Scheduling Order is issued. The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. Leadpoint is engaged in the retail sale of products by television, catalog, and mail-order. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K7QUe1 at no extra charge.[CC] 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 LIFELINE SCREENING: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $1.4MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Life Line Screening of America has agreed to a $1,400,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the medical device company unlawfully exposed personally identifiable information to third parties without consent via tracking hidden online technologies such as the Meta Pixel. The Life Line Screening class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 18, 2025 and covers all individuals who set health screenings or purchased medical test kits through the Life Line website or web platform between June 1, 2018 and the present. The court-approved website for the Life Line settlement can be found at https://LifeLinePixelSettlement.com/. According to the website, Life Line settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $20. Per the website, Life Line class members who resided in California when they set their screening or made their purchases online are eligible to receive a one-time cash payout of $50 in place of the $20 cash payment. All Life Line settlement class members may elect to receive their payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 60 days of issuance before expiration. To submit a Life Line pixel settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID provided on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a Life Line settlement class member but did not receive a notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login information. All Life Line privacy settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by February 17, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Life Line class action settlement at a hearing on March 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Life Line class action lawsuit alleged that the medical device manufacturer exposed the confidential communications of consumers who used its online services to third parties, including Meta and Google, by way of embedded tracking technologies. [GN] MACHINERY EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orozco Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NIXON CUENCA OROZCO; and SIRILO ALCANTARA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MACHINERY EQUIPMENT REBUILDER INC.; and PAUL MICHAEL MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07089 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. Machinery Equipment Rebuilder Inc. refers to a business specializing in restoring large industrial machines and tools, often involving skilled mechanics and machine shops to repair, refurbish, and extend the life of equipment. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 MAG DS: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Fine Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ WESLEY FINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAG DS CORP. D/B/A MAG AEROSPACE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-2505 (E.D. Va., December 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former employees' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, Government-issued ID numbers, and financial information (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")). The complaint relates that while employed by MAG Aerospace, Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide Defendant with their Private Information and/or the Private Information of their family members. Because of this, MAG Aerospace has a 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 MAG Aerospace's duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and previous employees, and/or their family members, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on August 30, 2025, Defendant "were alerted to suspicious activity within our network" (the "Data Breach"). The complaint alleges that MAG Aerospace waited until December of 2025 to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access. Based on publicly available information, the Private Information impacted by the Data Breach includes a wide swath of highly sensitive information belonging to MAG Aerospace's current and former employees, as well as certain of their family members, including their names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, Government-issued ID numbers, financial information, and medical information. As a direct and proximate result, the plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of 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 Wesley Fine is a former employee of Defendant and received a data breach notice. Defendant MAG DS Corp. d/b/a MAG Aerospace is a defense contractor that provides aviation and technical support services to the United States government and its military partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 728 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone and Facsimile: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, 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 MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Lester Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SALLY LESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01452 (E.D. Tex., December 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive personally identifiable information--i.e., information that is or could be used, whether on its own or in combination with other information, to identify, locate, or contact a person, including, without limitation: dates of birth, account numbers, Social Security Numbers, and Tax Identification Numbers. The complaint states that the Plaintiff Private Information was provided indirectly and/or directly to Defendant as a condition of receiving services. Despite Marquis's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's network and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on August 14, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff received a data breach notice from Defendant informing her that her Private Information indirectly and/or directly provided to Marquis was compromised during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered actual injury from having her Private Information exposed and/or stolen as a result of the Data Breach, including: (a) required mitigation efforts, including researching the Data Breach and needing to monitor her financial statements to ensure her information is not used for identity theft and fraud; (b) damages to and diminution of the value of her Private Information, a form of intangible property that loses value when it falls into the hands of criminals; (c) loss of privacy; and (d) continuous imminent and impending injury raising from increased risk of financial identity theft and fraud. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves 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 Sally Lester is a citizen of the state of Maine. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a marketing and compliance software and services provider that specializes in providing services to banks and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Austin P. Smith, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com austin@stecklerlaw.com judgestick@gmail.com MERCK SHARP: Baltimore Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the following Class: "All third-party payors that purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of RotaTeq, on behalf of their insureds, members and/or beneficiaries, other than for resale, that was administered in a Class State,1 at any time during the period from March 3, 2019 through Nov.17, 2025" Excluded from the Class are (1) Merck, its subsidiaries, and affiliates; (2) all state and federal governmental entities; -- appointing Baltimore as representative of the class, and -- appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Berger Montague PC as Class Counsel. Merck operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vj0KeY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Walker, Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. David Langer, Esq. Sarah Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9740 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net ecramer@bm.net rpaul@bm.net dlanger@bm.net szimmerman@bm.net - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. Jared Dummitt, Esq. Silvie Saltzman, Esq. Grace Ann Brew, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 858-1990 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com srobertson@cohenmilstein.com jdummitt@cohenmilstein.com ssaltzman@cohenmilstein.com MID AMERICA PET: $5.5MM Settlement Final Court Hearing Set Feb. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. SUN reports that heartbroken pet owners are set to share a $5.5 million payout after claims that popular dog and cat food was contaminated with deadly salmonella. Mid America Pet Food has agreed to the massive class action settlement after allegations its products left pets seriously ill -- and in some cases dead. The firm has not admitted any wrongdoing, but has agreed to cough up millions to bring the case to an end. The lawsuit claims the company knew, or should have known, that its pet food was contaminated with the dangerous bacteria, but failed to warn customers, putting thousands of animals at risk. Salmonella can cause severe illness and can be fatal, particularly in young or vulnerable pets. The scandal prompted an investigation by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which carried out a recall probe in 2024. The settlement covers a string of popular brands, including Victor Super Premium and Wayne Feeds dog and cat food, Wayne Feeds Gold products, Eagle Mountain Pet Food and Member’s Mark. A full list of covered products can be found on the settlement website. Under the terms of the deal, pet owners whose animals were harmed can claim eye-watering sums. Those with veterinary records, receipts and other paperwork could receive up to $100,000 if their pet was injured or died after eating the food. Owners without documents can still claim smaller amounts, with payouts capped at $50 for pets that became ill and $100 for pets that died. Shoppers can also get their money back for the contaminated food itself. Customers with proof of purchase can receive a full refund, while those without receipts can claim up to $40 for a maximum of two bags. If there is cash left in the settlement pot after all valid claims are paid, payouts could be increased. Pet owners who want to opt out of the settlement or lodge an objection must do so by January 6, 2026. The final court hearing is scheduled for February 6, 2026, and anyone hoping to receive compensation must submit a claim by February 5, 2026. The settlement is open to anyone who bought the affected pet food or whose pet became ill or died after eating it -- in a case that has left owners furious and demanding answers over how their beloved animals were put in danger. [GN] MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $1.88MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle Toth of ClaimDEPOT reports that individuals who logged into the authenticated portion of dulyhealthandcare.com between July 24, 2020, and April 10, 2023, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Midwest Physician Administrative Services LLC, doing business as Duly Health and Care, agreed to pay $1.88 million to settle a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Duly Health and Care installed and used a Meta tracking pixel on its website without users' knowledge or consent, potentially violating federal privacy laws. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes all natural persons who logged into the authenticated portion of Duly Health and Care's website at at any time between July 24, 2020, and April 10, 2023. The class is estimated to include approximately 272,373 individuals. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $1,880,000. After deducting court-approved attorneys' fees, costs, service awards to the class representatives and the costs of administering the settlement, the settlement administrator will distribute the remaining balance to class members who submit valid claims. The administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis, meaning each claimant will receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. How to claim a class action payment Eligible class members can complete the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Mayer v. Midwest Physician Administrative Services LLC, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 Is proof or documentation required to submit a claim? To submit an online claim, class members must provide the class member ID located on the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Electronic payment (online claims only) -- Paper check $1.88 million settlement fund breakdown The $1,880,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $620,400 -- Attorneys' costs and expenses: Up to $25,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 each ($7,500 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: March 2, 2026 -- Deadline to opt out: March 2, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: April 7, 2026 When is the Duly Health and Care settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments approximately 61 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Duly Health and Care installed and used a Meta tracking pixel on its website without informing users or obtaining their consent. The plaintiffs claimed this violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and constituted negligence. Duly Health and Care denies all wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata payment Deadline: March 2, 2026 [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN BARBER, on behalf of the estate of KEVIN BARBER, and others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-541 MON (Del. Sup., December 18, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff Kevin Barber developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Filippone Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Anthony Filippone, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-519 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: Garrison Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Garrison, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-485 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: Halstead Sues Over Negligent Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------- John Halstead, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-520 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: Harrod Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Harrod, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-487 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: Henderson Sues Over Negligent Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Henderson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-483 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: Herbicide Harmful to Health, Barrera Says ----------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA BARRERA, on behalf of the estate of RUBY BRANNEN, and others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-542 MON (Del. Sup., December 18, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff Ruby Brannen developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lopez Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Lopez, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-486 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: Menendez Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON MENENDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-539 MON (Del. Sup., December 18, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Wells Estate Sues Over Herbicide Roundup(R) ------------------------------------------------------------- ION VOLTAIRE SANCHO, on behalf of the estate of CANDACE WELLS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-536 MON (Del. Sup., December 18, 2025) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the U.S., were avoidable. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff Candace Wells developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com NAHGA INC: Arnett Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ TIFFANY B. ARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAHGA, INC. d/b/a NAHGA CLAIM SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00632-KFW (D. Maine, December 18, 2025) is a class action arising out of NAHGA's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to a "Notice of Data Security Incident" posted on Defendant's website, a data breach occurred on its network between April 8, 2025 and April 11, 2025. The Defendant reported to Maine's Attorney General that the breach affected over 181,160 of its clients. Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the data breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally identifiable information and protected health information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. As a result of this data breach, the Plaintiff's and Class members' private information was compromised and stolen and remains in the hands of those cybercriminals, says the suit. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' private information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both, adds the complaint. NAHGA, Inc. is a third party administrator with a focus on secondary accident insurance claims processing for clients across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bauer, Esq. 443 Saint John Street Portland, ME 04102 Telephone: (207) 804-6296 E-mail: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com NELK INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Smith Suit Continued to Feb.12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRENTON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHN SHAHIDI, an individual; NELK, INC. dba NELK, FULL SEND, a Canadian Company, METACARD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; NELK USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; KYLE FORGEARD, an individual, Case No. 8:25-cv-00161-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Slaughter entered an order approving the stipulation and orders the following: -- The in-person hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, or in the Alternative, Motion for Continuance Pending Completion of Discovery is continued from Jan. 8, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D, to Feb.12, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D. Nelk provides apparels online. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=utaa2C at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $10MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Nelnet, Edfinancial Services and the Oklahoma Student Loan Authority agreed to a $10 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims they failed to prevent a data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. The Nelnet settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was compromised in the Nelnet data breach publicly announced on Aug. 26, 2022. The data breach reportedly compromised sensitive information, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and Social Security numbers. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit say the companies failed to protect their information through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Nelnet is a student loan servicer that manages payments and other aspects of student loans for borrowers. Edfinancial Services and the Oklahoma Student Loan Authority are similar companies. Nelnet, Edfinancial Services and the Oklahoma Student Loan Authority have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $10 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Nelnet settlement, class members can receive a cash payment and credit monitoring services. Class members can receive a cash payment for lost time and out-of-pocket losses, such as bank fees, fraudulent charges, identity theft expenses and more. No payment estimates are available at this time. In addition to receiving a cash payment, class members can receive two years of free credit monitoring services. These services include identity restoration services and $1 million in identity theft insurance. These services have a retail value of $187 per year. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 5, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Nelnet data breach settlement is scheduled for May 5, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 5, 2026. Who's Eligible All persons in the United States whose personal information was compromised in the data security incident publicly announced on Aug. 26, 2022. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses and/or lost time. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/05/2026 Case Name In re: Data Security Cases Against Nelnet Servicing LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03191, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska Final Hearing 05/05/2026 Settlement Website NelnetSettlement.com Claims Administrator Nelnet Data Security Settlement c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173032 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@Nelnetsettlement.com (877) 388-1763 Class Counsel Christian Levis Amanda Fiorilla Anthony M. Christina LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. Ian W Sloss Johnathan Seredynski Steven L Bloch SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP Defense Counsel Claudia D McCarron MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC Charles F Kaplan PERRY, GUTHERY LAW FIRM Casie D Collignon Sarah A Ballard BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Jill H Fertel Conor Hafertepe CIPRIANI & WERNER [GN] NEW YORK BLOOD: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $500,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that New York Blood Center and Memorial Blood Centers agreed to a $500,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that a 2025 data breach compromised consumer information. The New York Blood Centers settlement benefits individuals who received a notice that their private information was compromised in the January 2025 data breach experienced by New York Blood Center and Memorial Blood Centers. According to the data breach class action lawsuit, the New York Blood Center and Memorial Blood Centers failed to protect consumers from a 2025 data breach. The breach allegedly compromised sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers, blood type, blood test results and more. New York Blood Center is a nonprofit blood center that serves New York City, the surrounding tri-state area and the Caribbean. Memorial Blood Centers is a nonprofit blood center that serves Minnesota and Wisconsin. The blood centers have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the New York Blood Centers data breach settlement, class members can receive compensation for documented losses or a cash payment as well as one year of medical data monitoring services. Class members who experienced documented losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $2,500 in compensation. These losses must have occurred between Jan. 26, 2025, and Feb. 11, 2026, and must be supported by documentation such as receipts. Class members who did not experience documented losses can receive a one-time $20 payment. These payments may be reduced or increased on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed. All class members are eligible for one year of CyEx Medical Shield Pro medical data monitoring services. These services include $1 million in medical identity theft insurance, monitoring for healthcare insurance ID exposure, Medical Record Number exposure and unauthorized Health Savings Account spending. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 12, 2026. The final approval hearing for the New York Blood Center and Memorial Blood Centers data breach settlement is scheduled for Feb. 10, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 11, 2026. Who's Eligible All persons residing in the United States who were sent notice that their private information was compromised in the data incident experienced by defendants in January 2025. Potential Award Up to $2,500 for documented losses or a one-time $20 cash payment. Proof of Purchase Receipts, bills, bank statements, credit card statements, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/11/2026 Case Name Dean, et al. v. New York Blood Center Inc., et al., Case No. 62-CV-25-5975, in the Ramsey County District Court, Minnesota Final Hearing 02/10/2026 Settlement Website BloodCentersSettlement.com Claims Administrator Blood Centers Data Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@BloodCentersSettlement.com (833) 417-4928 Class Counsel Leanna A. Loginov SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. Mariya Weekes MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Raina Borrelli STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC Defense Counsel Casie D. Collignon Erica Adina Barrow BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaintiffs 1-3, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JESSICA S. TISCH, Police Commissioner for the City of New York, in her official capacity; JOSEPH KENNY, Chief of Detectives for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; and JOHN HART, Assistant Chief of Intelligence for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:25-cv-02397-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cogan entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice to renewal after completion of limited discovery. The defendants' motion to dismiss is granted only as to the individual defendants and is otherwise denied.’ The plaintiffs' motion to proceed anonymously is denied. The Court thus concludes that plaintiffs have failed to successfully rebut the presumption of public disclosure. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have any greater a need for anonymity than those many plaintiffs that have come before them. The Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3, who refer to themselves by the pseudonyms Adam Anderson, Bryan Bradley, and Chris Cooper, bring this putative class action against the City of New York and NYPD officials "to end the [NYPD's] unconstitutional practice of disparately criminalizing and targeting tens of thousands of Black and Latino New Yorkers by placing their names in the Department’s Criminal Group Database." The Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and their parallel rights under the New York State Constitution, and for violation of the New York City Administrative Code's prohibition against bias-based profiling. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fAkFLv at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YOU BARIATRIC: Wins Motion for Sanctions in "Delacruz" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, Plaintiff, v. New You Bariatric Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06405 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion for sanctions and dismissed the First Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff. On July 24, 2023, plaintiff Emanuel Delacruz initiated this action against defendants New Your Bariartic Group, LLC and others alleging that their website www.bariatric.stopobesityforlife.com (the "website") is inaccessible to blind or visually impaired people such as Delacruz. Delacruz brings claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). On March 11, 2025, defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, to dismiss the case as frivolous, for summary judgment, and for sanctions.On May 8, 2024, Delacruz filed a memorandum of law in opposition to these motions, and a cross-motion for summary judgment. On May 31, 2025, defendants filed a reply and opposition to the cross-motion. On June 6, 2025, Delacruz filed a reply in support of his cross-motion. According to the Court "In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court " may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. Section 6369(b)(1)(C)." To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Judge Paul A .EngelMayer observed that It is a bedrock principle that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction as obsereved in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court added that their jurisdiction is limited first by the Constitution, to only the kinds of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' listed in Article III. And for all lower federal courts, limited as well by statute." Judge observed that Subject matter jurisdiction is a nonwaivable requirement, and may be raised at any time by a party of by the court sua sponte. The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction extists. If the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it "must" dismiss an action." Behrens v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 96F.4th 202,207(2d Cir. 2024) Because no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. The Court highlighted that the imposition of a Rule 11 sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an action," Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 496 (1990), however, the Court can reach the Report's recommendation as to that issue. Careful review of Judge Parker's thorough and well-reasoned analysis reveals no facial error in its conclusion. The Court therefore adopts the recommendation to deny defendants' motion for sanctions. Judge Engelmayer noted that the report explicitly states that Delacruz's failure to object within 17 days, and defendants' failure to object within 14 days, "will result in a waiver of those objections for purpose of appeal. Therefore the Court dismissed, without prejudice, Delacruz's First Amended Complaint, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied defendants' motion for sanctions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s0oHky from PacerMonitor.com NIKE INC: Faces Another Class Lawsuit Over Consumer Data Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Nike Inc. Why: The plaintiffs claim the company tracks and shares customer data without consent. Where: The Nike class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. Nike has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging the company tracks and shares customers' data without consent, highlighting serious concerns over data privacy. Plaintiffs Neal Magenheim and Angela Neil filed the class action complaint against Nike on Dec. 16 in Florida federal court, alleging violations of state privacy laws. The class action lawsuit alleges that Nike uses its website to install invasive software on visitors' web browsers without their consent, allowing the company to collect and share personal data with third parties for commercial purposes. The lawsuit claims that Nike's actions are part of a broader trend in which large corporations, data brokers and marketers invade private web browsers to harvest personal data, which is then used to track and target individuals online. The plaintiffs allege that Nike's website, www.nike.com, automatically installs tracking technologies on visitors' web browsers as soon as they land on the site. This occurs even if users have enabled privacy settings, such as the Global Privacy Control indicator, which signals that they do not consent to the installation of invasive code, the Nike class action lawsuit says. Nike profits from data collection, class action alleges The lawsuit further claims that Nike's website includes a misleading “your privacy choices” link, which gives users the impression that they can opt out of data sharing. However, even when users explicitly withhold consent, the website continues to deploy tracking software, the plaintiffs allege. As a result, visitors to the Nike website are allegedly tracked and targeted with ads across the internet, and their data is sold to identity resolution companies, which maintain detailed profiles of individuals based on their online activities. The plaintiffs claim that Nike's actions are highly offensive and constitute a violation of privacy and property rights. They allege that the company profits from the data it collects by optimizing its marketing strategies and selling information to third parties. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who accessed the Nike website from within Florida over the past two years. It alleges invasion of privacy, trespass upon chattels, conversion and unjust enrichment. It seeks damages, including punitive damages, and the disgorgement of profits generated by Nike's alleged unlawful conduct. In another recent Nike class action, a Washington resident claims Nike sent promotional emails that created a false sense of urgency in violation of the state's consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs are represented by James P. Gitkin of Salpeter Gitkin LLP, Joshua M. Entin of Entin Law Group P.A. and Nolan K. Klein of the Law Offices of Nolan Klein P.A. The Nike class action lawsuit is Magenheim, et al. v. Nike Inc., Case No. 9:25-cv-81573, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents Get Partial Payments in Derailment Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Elverd of The Vindicator reports that partial payments are beginning to reach residents impacted by the 2023 East Palestine train derailment, more than a year after class counsel promised personal injury compensation would be issued. According to a statement posted on the settlement website, partial personal injury awards are in the mail. Eastpalestinetrainsettlement.com states checks were scheduled to be mailed Dec. 29 and 30 to eligible settlement class members who submitted valid and timely personal injury claims and had not previously received payment. The payments are part of a $600 million class-action settlement stemming from the Feb. 3, 2023, derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, including the "controlled vent-and-burn" of five railcars three days later. Residents who lived or worked within 10 miles of the derailment were told personal injury compensation of up to $25,000 per person would be paid by the end of 2024. That timeline was not met. Class counsel had encouraged residents to sign onto the personal injury component of the settlement in the summer of 2024, describing the process as quick and timely. However, thousands of claims, administrative complications and repeated delays extended the process well beyond the promised deadline. In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson removed Kroll as settlement administrator and appointed Epiq as its replacement. Epiq said the December 2025 checks represent only partial awards. The administrator said it is unable to determine the full value of individual personal injury claims, noting that award amounts may be adjusted once its review is complete. The remaining portion of approved personal injury payments is expected to be mailed no later than March 31. Claimants whose submissions were identified as deficient or rejected will not receive payment as part of the December distribution. Epiq began mailing defect and rejection notices in November and said it will continue issuing notices through January. Claimants must respond by stated deadlines for their claims to be reconsidered for future payment. Payments related to minors at the time of claim submission, as well as claims involving deceased settlement class members, will not be issued in the December distribution. Subject to any further appellate review, payments for direct payment claims are expected to be mailed in May or June of 2026. Plaintiffs allege the derailment caused property damage, lost wages, business losses, displacement expenses, emotional distress, increased risk of disease and diminished property values. Residents claim the released chemicals have already led to a long list of persistent health symptoms including nosebleeds, eye and skin irritation, respiratory ailments and digestive problems with some reporting severe ailments -- seizure-like episodes, cognitive issues, heart problems and cancers. Norfolk Southern denies the allegations and any wrongdoing, including violations of law. Individuals are considered settlement class members if they lived, worked, owned property or owned or operated a business within 20 miles of the derailment site between Feb. 3, 2023, and April 26, 2024. Certain individuals and entities -- including Norfolk Southern officers, employees sent to respond to the incident, government agencies, legal counsel and the presiding judge and staff -- are excluded. The settlement website provides details about the case, claim eligibility and deadlines, along with answers to frequently asked questions. [GN] NORTH CAROLINA: State Retirees Challenge Health Benefit Changes --------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Blythe, writing for NC Health News, reports that more than 13 years have passed since a group of prominent state retirees filed a lawsuit challenging what was then a new state law that required them to start paying for health care benefits they had received free of charge for years as part of their benefits package. Now, attorneys for the state agencies that oversee the state health plan are asking the state Supreme Court to weigh in on the case one more time before trial -- a move that the retirees' attorneys contend is yet another of many delay tactics. "While the defendants have delayed this trial interminably through their procedural antics, the members of the retiree class are dying at an ever-increasing rate," Michael Carpenter, a Gastonia attorney, and Sam McGee, a Charlotte attorney argued in their motion to dismiss the state agency requests. "Many members of the class will never see the benefit of their bargain as promised by the state." The latest court battle in the lawsuit comes as many state workers and others across North Carolina are wrestling with uncertainty over health care. Current North Carolina state employees will be paying more for their health care premiums in 2026 as part of an effort by State Treasurer Brad Briner to chip away at a growing deficit he inherited when he came into office in 2025. And the U.S. Congress let enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act expire in 2025, leading to premium hikes for many other North Carolinians. The crux of the lawsuit filed in 2012 by the retirees does not touch on those issues, but they all hinge upon the same thing: rising cost of health care in this country. Long, winding road to justice In 2011, the Republican-led General Assembly adopted changes that transferred the State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees to the state treasurer's portfolio. The new statute also required retirees and some active members of the plan to start paying premiums for their health care, a shift from previous practice where coverage had been offered premium-free for life once they retired. Part of the implicit bargain generations of state employees entered into as they took state jobs had been the tradeoff of lesser salaries for richer fringe benefits. Twenty-seven employees, including the late I. Beverly Lake Jr., a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court who died in 2019, said the state had broken a contract with the retirees and sought class-action status. The case wended its way through many levels of state court. In 2016, Judge Edwin Wilson certified a group of some 220,000 people as having similar enough complaints against the State Health Plan that they could move forward as a group. In 2022, the state Supreme Court ruled that employees in that group had a vested contractual right to a plan equivalent to what they had when they were vested -- meaning some of the employees should not have to contribute more for their premiums as the 2011 law stated. The state sought to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but those justices declined to hear the case in October 2022, setting the stage for more hearings at the North Carolina trial court level to determine damages and further proceedings. Expert reports were shared. Depositions and sworn statements were gathered by attorneys in the case. Representatives for the State Health Plan and agencies overseeing it sought to block the previous state Supreme Court ruling. Even after the state Supreme Court switched from a Democratic majority in 2022 to a 5-2 Republican majority in 2023, the answer was no. On the eve of trial The case had been set to go to trial last year, but after several more attempts by the state agencies to change the course of the lawsuit, the judge canceled the trial, pending appellate review. Now, the state Supreme Court could take up the case again, making it the third appeal to that court. Attorneys for the retirees filed a motion on Dec. 23 to dismiss the most recent appeal. Attorneys Carpenter and McGee described that request challenging the outcome of the previous class-action ruling "on the eve of trial" as "unfortunately the most recent in a long line of maneuvers to avoid the state's contractual obligations" to the retirees who sued. In a March 11 ruling written by Justice Anita Earls in 2022, the state Supreme Court held "that the Retirees who satisfied the eligibility requirements existing at the time they were hired obtained a vested right in remaining eligible to enroll in a noncontributory health insurance plan for life." The retirees, Earls continued, "relied on the promise of this benefit in choosing to accept employment with the State. They are entitled to the benefit of their bargain, which includes eligibility to enroll in a premium-free plan offering the same or greater coverage value as the one available to them when their rights vested." Earls' opinion further states that in sending the case back to the trial court for further deliberation on what damages would be appropriate, it was its intent to narrow the issues and "move the parties closer to a just resolution." Justice Paul Newby did not participate in consideration of the case, according to Earls' order. Justices Tamara Barringer and Phil Berger concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. It's not clear how quickly the state Supreme Court will weigh in on the latest requests, or whether it will even consider the third appeal before further action in the trial court. [GN] NORTHERN STAR: Filing for Conditional Cert. in Bybee Due April 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY BYBEE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. NORTHERN STAR (POGO) LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00256-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Gleason entered an order on deadlines for collective action and class certification: -- The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Conditional Certification on or before April 27, 2026. -- The Defendant shall file any opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification on or before May 11, 2026. If the Plaintiff files his Motion prior to April 13, 2026, the Defendant shall file its opposition, if any, within 14 days of service. -- The Plaintiff shall file any reply to the Defendant's opposition on or before May 18, 2026. If Plaintiff files his motion prior to April 13, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file his reply 7 days after the Defendant's opposition is filed. -- The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification on or before Jan. 4, 2027. -- The Defendant shall file any opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification on or before Jan. 25, 2027. -- The Plaintiff shall file any reply to Defendant's Opposition on or before Feb. 8, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X398kV at no extra charge.[CC] OURA HEALTH: Faces Lekhadia Suit Over Subscription Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------ KUNAL LEKHADIA; NEEL PATEL; and GAURAV AGRAWAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OURA HEALTH OY; and OURARING INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10997-AGT (N.D. Cal., Dec. 26, 2025) alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose (a) the nature of the subscription agreement as one that will continue until the consumer canceled, (b) how to cancel the subscription, (c) the recurring amounts that would be charged to the consumer's payment account, (d) the length of the automatic renewal term, or (e) any minimum purchasing obligation(s). The Defendants failed to provide a "cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation" whereby consumers can "terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service exclusively online, at will, and without engaging any further steps that obstruct or delay the consumer's ability to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service immediately," added the suit. Oura Health Oy operates as a health technology company. The Company offers wellness ring and app that shows how the body responds by analyzing sleep, activity levels, daily rhythms, and the physiological responses in body. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com PETCO ANIMAL: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Mack Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03806-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial information such as account numbers and credit or debit card numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Petco 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 Petco's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when Petco discovered the Data Breach during a routine security review on July of 2025. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as July of 2025, the Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until December of 2025. Indeed, Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach for months until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised by an unauthorized third-party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Matthew Mack is an adult and was a resident and citizen of the state of New York. Defendant Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. is a nationwide retailer that sells pet food and supplies and offers basic pet care services through its stores and website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, 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 PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Materials ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIRLEY HINTON and HEATHER SHIPLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04529-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint omnibus motion to seal materials submitted in connection with briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Nov. 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification along with 11 exhibits. On Dec.5, 2025, PPFA filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, along with 18 exhibits. On Dec. 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Class Certification along with eight exhibits. The Defendant is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health care. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ETprai at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Klint L. Bruno, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. Jamie A. Robinson, Esq. Adam J. Feuer, Esq. THE BRUNO FIRM, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 321-6481 Telephone: kb@brunolawus.com E-mail: msilverman@brunolawus.com jr@brunolawus.com af@brunolawus.com - and - Bradley A. Benbrook, Esq. Stephen M. Duvernay, Esq. BENBROOK LAW GROUP, PC 701 University Avenue, Suite 106 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 447-4900 E-mail: brad@benbrooklawgroup.com steve@benbrooklawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacob M. Heath, Esq. Rebecca Harlow, Esq. Thomas Fu, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: jheath@orrick.com rharlow@orrick.com tfu@orrick.com PRECISION HEATING: Picon Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN PICON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRECISION HEATING & AIR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05507-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to extend deadline for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this class and collective action on Sept. 29, 2025. The Defendant just waived service on Dec.18, 2025. Accordingly, its answer and its counsel's appearance is not due until Feb.18, 2025. Precision provides heating, cooling, furnace & air conditioning installation, repair & maintenance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IuAtIV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dane Steffenson, Esq. DANE LAW, LLC 3575 Piedmont Rd. NE, Suite L120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 919-9719 E-mail: Dane@TheDaneLawFirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Clayton O. Carmack, Esq. MOORE INGRAM JOHNSON & STEELE 326 Roswell Street, Suite 100 Marietta, GA 30060 PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Hessler Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gregory Hessler, individually and as the representative of all persons similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 22-2-09668-9 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02716. The Plaintiff attempts to state two causes of action for breach of contract: for diminished value on behalf of the putative class; and for loss of use as an individual claim.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Hansen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, P.S. 1821 Dock St., Unit 103 Tacoma, WA 98402 Email: steven@stephenmhansenlaw.com - and - Scott P. Nealey, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. NEALEY 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Email: snealey@nealeylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert Leslie Christie, Esq. BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, LLC 2100 Westlake Avenue N., Suite 206 Seattle, WA 98109 Phone: (206) 957-9669 Facsimile: (206) 352-7875 Email: robert.christie@bakersterchi.com RALGO COMMERCIAL: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. RALGO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC and CARIBBEAN VENTURES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-26118-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. RALGO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, 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 S&P GLOBAL: Amended Schedule on Class Cert Briefing Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, and SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. S&P GLOBAL, INC., AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order on amended schedule regarding briefing on motions related to class certification and redaction and sealing of those papers: 1. The schedule set forth in the November 6 Order shall further be amended as follows: a. The Plaintiffs' deadline to depose the defendants' class certification experts is Jan.17, 2026. b. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification, including any motions to exclude expert testimony relating to class certification, and opposition to any defendant motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts' testimony is due Feb.18, 2026. c. The Defendants' reply on any motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts' testimony and opposition to any plaintiff motions to exclude defendants' experts' testimony is due April 15, 2026. d. The Plaintiffs' reply on any motions to exclude the defendants' experts' testimony is due May 13, 2026. 2. The schedule for redaction and sealing papers on plaintiffs' reply on their class certification motion, opposition to defendants' motions to exclude plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony, and any motions to exclude defendants’ experts’ testimony is amended as follows: a. Reply papers filing deadline: February 18, 2026; b. Initial proposed redactions: March 11, 2026; c. Redaction deadline: March 18, 2026; d. Letter motion filing deadline: March 25, 2026; and e. Response to letter motion filing deadline: April 3, 2026. 3. The schedule for redaction and sealing papers on defendants' reply on their motions to exclude plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony and opposition to any motions to exclude defendants' experts' testimony is amended as follows: a. Reply and opposition papers filing deadline: April 15, 2026; b. Initial proposed redactions: May 1, 2026; c. Redaction deadline: May 8, 2026; d. Letter motion filing deadline: May 15, 2026; and e. Response to letter motion filing deadline: May 26, 2026. 5. The schedule for redaction and sealing papers on Plaintiffs' reply on any motion to exclude defendants’ experts’ testimony is amended as follows: a. Reply papers filing deadline: May 13, 2026; b. Initial proposed redactions: May 29, 2026; c. Redaction deadline: June 5, 2026; d. Letter motion filing deadline: June 12, 2026; and e. Response to letter motion filing deadline: June 23, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sdFkKG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. Ryan A. Kane, Esq. Joshua M. Slocum, Esq. Lyndon M. Tretter, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: raranoff@wmd-law.com rkane@wmd-law.com jslocum@wmd-law.com ltretter@wmd-law.com - and - Leiv Blad, Esq. Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. Meg Slachetka, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 742-4300 E-mail: leiv@competitionlawpartners.com jeff@competitionlawpartners.com meg@competitionlawpartners.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Ave., 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. Esther Lifshitz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com elifshitz@gibsondunn.com - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq. Amanda L. Dollinger, Esq. Craig E. Stewart, Esq. Caroline M. Mitchell, Esq. Paul C. Hines, Esq. Michelle K. Fischer, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com cestewart@jonesday.com amaugeri@jonesday.com adollinger@jonesday.com mfischer@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. Ellison A. Snider, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com esnider@scl-llp.com - and - W. Stephen Cannon, Esq. Seth D. Greenstein, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1300 N Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 204-3500 Facsimile: (202) 204-3501 E-mail: scannon@constantinecannon.com sgreenstein@constantinecannon.com SALESFORCE INC: Marshall Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- FREDDRICK MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SALESFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-11131 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its data security failures, enjoin its continued failure to implement basic and fundamental data security practices, and recover damages and all other relief available at law on behalf of the Plaintiff and members of the classes he seeks to represent. The complaint relates that during the ordinary course of its business, Salesforce stores an enormous amount of its customers' PII and generated nearly $38 billion in revenue last fiscal year. Each of the cyber incursions occurred because Salesforce's Data Loader portal, used by Salesforce customers to import or export Salesforce data, is easily mimicked by bad actors. In approximately July and August 2025, Salesforce's systems were breached by unauthorized cyber-attackers, and millions of customer PII was stolen as a result of these attacks (the "Salesforce Data Breach" or "Data Breach"). According to the complaint, Salesforce did nothing to fortify its networks to prevent these attacks, or otherwise aid its customers in preparing and defending against the Data Breach beyond publishing a blog article. Several Salesforce customers have been breached by the threat actors using the same foreseeable and preventable Salesforce vulnerability. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have been substantially injured by Salesforce's data security failures. Plaintiff further believes that his and Class Members' PII has or will be published for sale on the dark web following the Data Breach, as that is the modus operandi of cybercriminals that commit cyberattacks of this type. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff has suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, lost time and expenses mitigating the risk of data misuse, diminishment in value of his PII, lost time and expenses monitoring and repairing credit, and failing to receive the benefit of the bargain reached with Salesforce, says the suit. Plaintiff Freddrick Marshall is a resident of Richland County, South Carolina and who had his PII stolen in the Salesforce Data Breach. Defendant Salesforce, Inc. is a company specializing in cloud-based data storage software and technology serving thousands of corporate clients by facilitating sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, and analytics with Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415-981-4800 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com - and - Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Michael J. Miarmi, Esq. Margaret M. Becko, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: 212-355-9500 E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com mmiarmi@lchb.com mbecko@lchb.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nick Murphy, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th St NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com nmurphy@hausfeld.com SANDHILLS MEDICAL: Loses Bid to Keep "Twitty" in Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sondra Bristow Twitty, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-10394-JD (D.S.C.), Judge Joseph Dawson of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. This putative class action arises from an alleged cybersecurity incident involving Defendant Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc., a South Carolina healthcare provider. The Plaintiff alleges that Sandhills experienced a data breach in which unauthorized third parties gained access to sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of patients. According to the state court Complaint, the Plaintiff contends that the compromised data includes, among other information, names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical and insurance information. The Plaintiff alleges that Sandhills failed to implement reasonable data security measures, failed to monitor its systems adequately, and failed to notify affected individuals of the breach promptly. The Plaintiff asserts that she and the proposed class members have suffered damages in the form of increased risk of identity theft, invasion of privacy, diminution in the value of their personal data, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in mitigating future harm. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals and asserts claims under South Carolina law, including negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of statutory duties. The Plaintiff initiated this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Chesterfield County, South Carolina. On August 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On August 18, 2025, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Remand. The Court noted that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute. The party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that removal jurisdiction is proper. Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 to curb perceived abuses of the class action device and to facilitate federal adjudication of large, interstate class actions. CAFA grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over any civil class action in which: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; (2) the proposed class consists of at least 100 members; and (3) any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a State different from any defendant (minimal diversity). The burden of establishing CAFA jurisdiction rests with the removing party. If the removing defendant fails to carry that burden, remand is mandatory. The Defendant's Notice of Removal asserts that minimal diversity exists under CAFA based solely on a declaration stating that at least one affected individual resides outside South Carolina, and then concludes, without any supporting factual analysis, that such individual is therefore domiciled in another state. The Court found that reasoning legally insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. The Court observed that it is long and unequivocally settled law that citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction depends on domicile, not residence. As the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly held, citizenship and residence are not synonymous terms, and the existence of such citizenship cannot be inferred from allegations of mere residence, standing alone. Domicile requires both physical presence in a state and the intent to remain there indefinitely, and neither element may be presumed from residence alone. The declaration attached to the Notice of Removal relies exclusively on residence. The Notice of Removal itself then substitutes the legally required standard by conclusory assertion, labeling the unidentified resident domiciled, without providing any supporting facts demonstrating intent to remain, such as voter registration, taxation, permanent physical address, property ownership, or comparable indicia of domicile. The Court noted this is precisely the defect condemned in Axel Johnson, where the Fourth Circuit held that federal jurisdiction fails where a party alleges only residence and failed to plead facts from which the existence of citizenship could properly be inferred. The Defendant's reliance on later CAFA cases recognizing a rebuttable presumption of citizenship from residence in the context of CAFA exceptions is misplaced. As the Fourth Circuit explained in Skyline Tower Painting, Inc. v. Goldberg, that rebuttable presumption operates only after CAFA jurisdiction has been established, and only in the distinct context of applying CAFA's abstention-based exceptions, such as the local-controversy or home-state exceptions. Critically, those exceptions do not defeat jurisdiction; they merely require a court to decline to exercise it. By contrast, minimal diversity is a jurisdiction-creating prerequisite. Where minimal diversity is not established at the time of removal, CAFA jurisdiction never attaches at all, and the Court lacks the constitutional and statutory power to proceed. The Court concluded this is not a case involving evidentiary presumptions governing CAFA exceptions. It is a case of complete failure to establish the existence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction at the jurisdiction-creation stage. Because minimal diversity is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A), the Defendant's failure to establish citizenship, rather than mere residence, is dispositive. Where CAFA jurisdiction is not established at the time of removal, the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and the case must be remanded. The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests squarely with the removing party. Having elected to rely on a legally insufficient jurisdictional predicate, and having failed to present any competent evidence of domicile, the Defendant has not carried that burden. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. This action is hereby remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Chesterfield County, South Carolina. Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay are denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 5 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rm7IBT from PacerMonitor.com SAX LLP: Wagner Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- JAMES WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAX, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-19031 (D.N.J., December 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff has entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach. On August 7, 2024, Defendant were alerted of a suspicious activity on its IT Network. Upon detection, Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident and determined that some individuals' sensitive personal information may have been compromised in the Data Breach. The following types of Sensitive Personal Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. On December 16, 2025, Defendant filed a notice of Data Breach with the office of Maine Attorney General and began sending out notice letters to impacted individuals including the Plaintiff. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself 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 James Wagner is a citizen of Avenel, New Jersey. Defendant Sax LLP is a professional services firm that specializes in accounting, auditing, and business advisory services. Defendant is headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.[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 - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com E-mail: mmeyer@zlk.com SCIENTIFIC HAIR: Pitre Sues Over Misleading Hair Product Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- Yolanda Pitre, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scientific Hair Research, LLC and Profectus Beauty, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-11045 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold Defendants accountable for misleading consumers about the regulatory status and exclusivity of their Keranique products, and to recover the money consumers lost as a result. The complaint relates that the Defendants sell Keranique brand hair regrowth products claiming they are "THE ONLY FDA APPROVED TOPICAL SOLUTION FOR WOMEN'S HAIR REGROWTH." This promise is displayed prominently on the front label of each product. However, it is false and misleading. Consumers reasonably believe "THE ONLY FDA APPROVED TOPICAL SOLUTION" means exactly what it says: that Keranique is the only topical women's hair regrowth solution on the market with FDA approval. But this representation is a lie. The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to consumers, the Keranique products are not the "ONLY" ones with FDA approval for women's hair regrowth. The FDA has granted formal approvals to numerous manufacturers to sell topical minoxidil solutions for women's hair regrowth. By claiming to be "THE ONLY" one, Defendants attempt to erase these lawful competitors from the market, all while charging a large premium for the Keranique products. Indeed, Keranique sells for approximately $14.49 per ounce. Competing FDA-approved products often sell for as little as $4.97 per ounce, less than one-third the price for the same exact active ingredient at the same exact concentration with the same exact approval. Consumers are paying a premium for a lie, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and other consumers relied and continue to rely on Defendants' false promise of exclusivity. They paid for a product they believed was the unique and "ONLY" FDA-approved solution. Had they known the truth--that they could buy the same FDA-approved solutions for nearly a third of the price--they would not have purchased Keranique, would have paid significantly less for it, or would have purchased cheaper competitor products. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by Defendants' deceptive business practices, says the suit. Plaintiff Yolanda Pitre is a citizen of California and currently resides in San Mateo, California. Defendant Scientific Hair Research, LLC is engaged in the production, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, distribution and sale of the Products to consumers and retail stores across the United States, including stores physically located in the State of California. Defendant Scientific Hair Research additionally markets and distributes the Products through e-commerce stores that ship to consumers throughout the State of California and the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. Ammad Bajwa, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com abajwa@treehouselaw.com SEI INVESTMENTS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Hall Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HALL and JENNIFER KNAPP, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY; SEI INVESTMENTS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; SEI CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, and John Does 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07341 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 26, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by selecting, retaining, and failing to monitor the Plan's investment options in a prudent and loyal manner. Rather than evaluate available investments objectively, Defendants disproportionately populated the Plan with SEI-proprietary investment products that persistently underperformed comparable alternatives. These conflicted and imprudent decisions caused substantial and avoidable losses to the Plan and its participants, says the suit. SEI Investments Company provides global investment solutions and business solutions. The Company integrates technology, research, information services, financial products, and asset management advice to serve banks, mutual fund and pension plan sponsors, insurance companies, money managers, and individual investors. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Austin B. Cohen, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: acohen@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. Christopher M. Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com SEVEN WONDERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Paredes Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- FREDY MOISES DIAZ PAREDES; and JOSE MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEVEN WONDERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC; LUIS SANTANA; and JOSE MENDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18994 (D.N.J., Dec. 26, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers. Seven Wonders Construction, LLC is a general contracting and remodeling company based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com SKYWEST AIRLINES: Court Denies Class Certification in "Wright" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Daquasia Wright, Erika Thomas, and Cherie Poole, on behalf of themselves and others, Plaintiffs, v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22 CV 914 (EK) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of an FLSA collective action. On February 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs commenced this action against Skywest Airlines, Inc., alleging violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(a); the overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a); the New York Labor Law's requirement that employers pay manual worker employees all wages owed on a weekly basis, N.Y. Lab. Law Section 191(1)(a); and the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements, N.Y. Lab. Law Section 195(3), as codified in the Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the Complaint, Defendant Skywest owns and operates an airline that provides transportation services to passengers throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were employees, working as flight attendants, who were required to undergo a thirty day training program, in which they worked over three-fifty hours, with only two days off. For this time, they were purportedly paid $18.13 per hour, but, according to the Plaintiffs, they were only paid for approximately 64 hours in total. This resulted in an effective hourly pay rate of $3.00 per hour. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant willfully failed to pay them and their other trainees the federal minimum wage rate and by failing to pay any overtime compensation throughout their training period, despite the hours worked in excess of 40 in a given week. On March 21, 2025, the district court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the FLSA overtime claims, and denied any motion to amend. After further briefing, the court issued a separate order on June 6, 2025, dismissing the Plaintiffs' wage statement claims. On August 1, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to certify an FLSA collective action for their remaining FLSA minimum wage claims, which motion was referred to the undersigned on November 12, 2025. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify a class of all current and former flight attendants employed by Defendant, who during the applicable FLSA limitations period, underwent Defendant's training program for new hires. The Complaint alleged that the Plaintiffs were subject to a common policy or practice wherein all Covered Employees were required to undergo training at the same facility in Salt Lake City, Utah. According to the Plaintiffs, new training groups arrived for each subsequent week the Plaintiffs spent at the Utah facility, and they stated that they all underwent the same training, working the same or substantially the same hours as Plaintiffs. The Court found that the Plaintiffs satisfied the minimal requirements to warrant conditional certification of a collective action. However, Defendant raised several issues in opposition. First, Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs' claims fail because flight attendant trainees are not employees during the training period, and therefore, they were not entitled to any pay under the law. The Court found that there was a factual question as to whether the Plaintiffs were or were not exempt from coverage under the NYLL during their training period. At this stage of the proceedings, the court does not resolve factual disputes or make credibility determinations, and the merits of the Plaintiff's claim are not at issue. Second, Defendant argued that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims of potential opt-ins because, under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), for every person bringing a claim, including each and every opt-in plaintiff, there must be a showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to every claim. Acknowledging that the Second Circuit has not ruled on this issue in the context of collective actions under the FLSA, Defendant relied on cases from the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by not raising it at the earliest possible opportunity. The Court determined that it need not reach the issue of waiver at this time. Rather, given that the Second Circuit is currently considering the issue of whether the principles of personal jurisdiction announced in Bristol-Myers apply to collective actions brought under the FLSA, the Plaintiffs' motion for collective action certification is denied without prejudice. The Court noted that at this juncture, when the law in the Second Circuit is unclear, delaying a determination on certification may ultimately result in a significant cost saving to both parties. Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of an FLSA collective action without prejudice to renew. The parties were instructed to file a joint status report in 90 days, or when the Second Circuit has issued a decision in Provencher v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Case No. 24-3112, whichever is sooner. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 30, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m1kTZ0 from PacerMonitor.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Bid to Continue Class Cert Filing Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON WASHINGTON, v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08520-FLA-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge FERNANDO AENLLE-ROCHA entered an order denying stipulation to continue the Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification. On Dec. 15, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulation to Continue the Deadline to File Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification. The parties state they have scheduled a mediation for April 8, 2026, and request the court continue the last date to hear Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification from July 24, 2026, to Jan. 29, 2027, and stay all proceedings pending the completion of mediation. Sprouts operate a chain of retail grocery stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zxzzzf at no extra charge.[CC] SUBARU CORP: Agrees to Settle Defective EyeSight System Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Rivers, writing for Road and Track, reports that for the last four years, Subaru has been in court defending itself against a class-action lawsuit that advanced claims the company's EyeSight driver-assist system was defective. Plaintiffs said that EyeSight had proved problematic on models that include the Legacy, Outback, Impreza, Crosstrek, Forester, WRX, Ascent, and BRZ made during a swath of model years that stretched from 2013 through 2024. Now, Subaru and the plaintiffs have settled the case, with a judge's approval marking the end of a saga that started in 2021. First, let's lay out the lawsuit and the claims therein. The lawsuit alleged EyeSight systems such as Pre-Collision Braking, Rear Automatic Braking, and Lane Keep Assist sometimes malfunctioned; according to CarComplaints.com, owners claimed the brakes would engage randomly, fail to engage when necessary, or jerk the steering unexpectedly. Subaru has denied all wrongdoing, insisting its vehicles are safe and that the suit was without merit. The nine plaintiffs will each receive $5000, while attorneys representing the class walk away with $2,428,118.67. Subaru also promised a warranty extension for EyeSight repairs, as well as reimbursement for selected out-of pocket expenses if they haven't already been reimbursed, but the fine print is notable: the coverage handles 75 percent of repair costs, limited to 48 months or 48,000 miles from the vehicle’s original in-service date. Of course, for older cars in the swath covered by the class-action suit, that “extended” coverage already expired years ago. Any vehicles outside that window only receive four months of extra waranty past the settlement notice date -- a period which has already passed. Repairs are also excluded if they result from accidents, misuse, environmental factors, or any kind of modification. That said, the plaintiffs walked away with something more than they walked into the proceedings with -- and some Subaru owners, at least, may receive a lessened blow if they're forced to deal with EyeSight pain. [GN] SUPERGOOP LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Sunscreen Products Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Pleasant Wayne filed a class action lawsuit against Supergoop LLC. Why: Wayne claims Supergoop's mineral sunscreen products contain synthetic ingredients. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Supergoop is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging it falsely markets its mineral sunscreen products as containing only mineral ingredients when they actually contain synthetic ingredients. Plaintiff Pleasant Wayne filed the class action complaint against Supergoop in California state court, alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws. The company removed the lawsuit to federal court on Dec. 15. According to the class action lawsuit, Supergoop markets its products as "100% mineral" or "mineral," leading consumers to believe they contain only mineral ingredients and no synthetic ingredients. However, Wayne claims that the products actually contain numerous synthetic ingredients, making the marketing claims false and misleading. Supergoop's mineral sunscreen products are sold through various channels, including the company's website and retailers like Sephora, Ulta Beauty, Amazon and Nordstrom, the class action lawsuit says. The products are labeled with phrases like "100% Mineral" and "Mineral Sunscreen," which Wayne claims are intended to appeal to consumers who prefer natural and mineral-based products. Wayne argues that consumers, including herself, are willing to pay a premium for products they believe are natural and free from synthetic ingredients. She claims she purchased Supergoop's Mineral Mattescreen SPF 40 product multiple times based on the belief that it was a 100% mineral product. However, she says she would not have purchased the product if she had known it contained synthetic ingredients. Supergoop's marketing campaign for its mineral sunscreen products is extensive and includes labels, packaging and website pages that prominently feature the "100% Mineral" claim, the class action lawsuit says. The complaint lists several synthetic ingredients found in the products, such as Butyloctyl Salicylate, Polymethyl Methacrylate and Caprylhydroxamic Acid, among others. Wayne claims that the presence of these ingredients contradicts the company's marketing claims, making them false and misleading. Wayne is seeking to represent anyone in California who purchased Supergoop's mineral sunscreen products within the past four years. She is suing for violations of California's consumer protection laws and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Earlier this year, Celtic Ocean International LLC faced a class action lawsuit claiming its Celtic Sea Salt products were contaminated with lead and arsenic. What do you think of the allegations made in this Supergoop class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. Wayne is represented by Paul D. Stevens of Stevens LC. The Supergoop class action lawsuit is Wayne v. Supergoop LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11844, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] SWEEPSTEAKS LTD: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Promotion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Martin of Loeb & Loeb LLP reports that new class action complaint has been filed against Stake.us and celebrity endorsers Drake and Adin Ross, alleging that Stake.us operates as an illegal online gambling platform in violation of federal and Virginia law. The suit claims that Stake.us, marketed as a "social casino," misleads consumers by purporting to offer safe, free gaming while actually enabling real-money gambling through its virtual currencies, Gold Coins and Stake Cash. Stake.us is a popular platform in the "social casino" (or "sweepstakes casino") segment. Social casinos offer casino-style games, often with free-to-play options, and operate as an alternative to state-licensed real-money online casinos. Stake.us promotes a hybrid free-to-play model in which the purchase of "Gold Coins" also provides the user with "Stake Cash" that the plaintiffs allege can be redeemed for cryptocurrency or digital gift cards at a 1:1 rate with the U.S. dollar. The plaintiffs allege that this effectively allows users to wager and cash out real money. Key allegations include: Stake.us is accused of bypassing U.S. gambling regulations by bundling Gold Coins (for entertainment) with Stake Cash (redeemable for real money), thus facilitating illegal gambling activity. The platform’s marketing, heavily promoted by Drake and Ross through live-streamed gambling sessions and social media, is alleged to have misrepresented the legality and safety of Stake.us, luring consumers—including Virginia residents—into unlawful gambling. Plaintiffs claim substantial consumer harm, including financial losses and increased risk of gambling addiction, resulting from deceptive advertising and the misleading "social casino" label. The complaint seeks damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), including treble damages, restitution and injunctive relief. Key takeaways: The Stake.us lawsuit is part of a rapidly expanding series of class actions against social casino operators, including separate actions against Stake.us filed in Illinois, California and Missouri. Plaintiffs across the U.S. are challenging platforms that use dual-currency models (e.g., Gold Coins and Stake Cash) to simulate gambling, arguing these systems constitute illegal gambling under state law. Celebrities who are engaged in promoting unlicensed gaming platforms may risk their marketability and ability to be endorsers for platforms in licensed gaming segments, which are subject to state gaming commission oversight and in some states, vendor licensing requirements. The case comes on the heels of advocacy by the American Gaming Association and state regulators calling for stricter enforcement against social/sweepstakes casino models, citing risks to consumers and the integrity of regulated gaming markets. The case underscores regulatory risks for promoters and co-promotional partners involved with unlicensed online social casinos that approach real-money gambling experiences and offer prizes or cash payouts. Companies and individuals engaged in similar promotional activities should review their diligence and compliance strategies, as well as contractual protections, to mitigate exposure. [GN] TALBOTS LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that consumers Marissa Porcuna, Karen Schreiman, Romy Edge and Celestina Benn have filed a class action lawsuit against The Talbots LLC. Why: The plaintiffs claim the retailer routinely runs fake sales on its online store and in its brick-and-mortar locations. Where: The Talbots class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Talbots of routinely running fake sales on its online store and in its brick-and-mortar locations. Lead plaintiff Marissa Porcuna and three others want to represent a California class of consumers who purchased one or more Talbots products advertised at a discount or markdown. The plaintiffs argue Talbots violates California consumer protection laws by routinely advertising steep discounts on its products that are not actually time-limited. "Far from being time-limited, however, the defendant's discounts -- both the ones that apply to non-markdown products and the ones that apply to markdown products -- are routinely available," the Talbots class action lawsuit alleges. Talbots allegedly uses false expiration dates to create the false impression that its products' regular prices are higher than they truly are and that the discounts are a limited-time offer. The plaintiffs argue Talbots' products are consistently available for less than the regular prices advertised and that the purported discounts are not the true discount the customer is receiving. Talbots class action claims retailer's discounts are not time-limited The Talbots class action lawsuit asserts the retailer's advertisements are unfair, deceptive and unlawful. The plaintiffs point to California's False Advertising Law, which prohibits businesses from making statements they know or should know to be untrue or misleading. They claim Talbots' advertisements harm consumers by inducing them to make purchases based on false information, artificially increasing consumer demand and putting upward pressure on the prices that Talbots can charge for its products. The Talbots class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of California's False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and seeks class certification, an order certifying the class action claims, a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the proposed class, damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, an injunction prohibiting Talbots' deceptive conduct, attorneys' fees and costs and any additional relief the court deems reasonable and just. Meanwhile, clothing brand Lands' End recently faced a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertised discounts that were continuously available and not genuine reductions from the products' regular prices. What do you think of the allegations made in this Talbots class action lawsuit? Tell us in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Simon Franzini and Grace Bennett of Dovel & Luner LLP. The Talbots class action lawsuit is Porcuna, et al. v. The Talbots LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-10522, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] TORHOERMAN LAW: Cook Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Data --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM COOK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15412 (N.D. Ill., December 18, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current, former, and prospective clients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information, says the suit. Torhoerman Law, LLC is an Illinois-based law firm that offers personal injury legal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com TYSON FOODS: Settles Beef Prices Class Action Suit for $82.5-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Castle Site reports that Tyson Foods has agreed to pay $82.5 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by grocers and other businesses that accused the meat and poultry giant of conspiring to inflate US beef prices by restricting supply, reported Reuters. The proposed settlement in the federal lawsuit was disclosed on Wednesday, January 7, in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota. Lawyers for the plaintiffs -- grocery stores, food distributors and other businesses that bought beef products directly from Tyson -- said in the filing that they are working on a final settlement agreement to present to a judge for approval. Tyson, and the attorneys for the beef purchasers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The buyers had accused Tyson and several other major beef producers of conspiring to charge inflated prices for retail sale-ready consumer cuts or edible boxed beef between 2015 and 2022. The plaintiffs include Pennsylvania-based Redner’s Markets and Mississippi-based R&D Marketing. Lawyers for the plaintiffs estimated thousands of so-called direct purchasers are part of the proposed class. The Tyson accord is the second for the direct purchasers, after JBS USA agreed to pay $52.5 million. The company denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to the deal, which was approved by a judge in 2022. Tyson and JBS are the two largest defendants. Two remaining defendants, Cargill and National Beef, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Arkansas-based Tyson, the largest US meat company, settled related price-fixing claims from consumers in the beef litigation for $55 million. Tyson also separately agreed this year to pay $85 million to settle a proposed consumer class-action accusing it of conspiring with rivals to inflate pork prices. The case is In re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, US District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 0:22-md-03031-JRT-JFD. For plaintiffs: Daniel Gustafson of Gustafson Gluek; Adam Zapala of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Jason Hartley of Hartley LLP; and Megan Jones of Hausfeld For Tyson: Susan Foster of Perkins Coie and John Terzaken of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett [GN] UNILEVER UNITED: Sued Over Mislabeled Dove Men+Care Deodorant ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a woman has sued Unilever United States Inc. Why: The plaintiff alleges Unilever falsely advertises its Dove Men+Care deodorant as alcohol-free. Where: The Dove Men+Care class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Unilever falsely advertises its Dove Men+Care deodorant as alcohol-free when it actually contains benzyl alcohol. Plaintiff Doris Gardner filed the class action complaint against Unilever on Dec. 29, 2025, in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Unilever manufactures, markets and sells Dove Men+Care 0% Aluminum Deodorant in thousands of stores throughout the United States, including in New York. Unilever prominently advertises the product as containing "no alcohol" to appeal to consumers who believe alcohol ingredients can be harmful and cause skin irritation and allergic reactions, the class action lawsuit says. "However, unbeknownst to consumers, the products do contain an alcohol ingredient in the form of benzyl alcohol," Gardner alleges. Unilever’s conduct false and deceptive, plaintiff alleges Gardner argues Unilever has engaged in widespread false and deceptive conduct by designing, marketing, manufacturing, distributing and selling the products with the alcohol-free representation. "Every package of the products misleads consumers into believing the products do not contain alcohol ingredients," she says. Gardner says she relied on the alcohol-free representation when purchasing the product and would not have bought it, or would not have paid as much, had she known it contained alcohol. As a result, she says she suffered monetary damages. She is looking to represent anyone in the United States who bought the product during the applicable statute of limitations period. The plaintiff is suing for fraud, breach of express warranty and violations of New York General Business Law and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, Unilever faces a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertised Dove retinol body wash and other retinol skin cleansers as providing the benefits of retinol when the products, which are rinse-off cleansers, do not deliver those results. The plaintiff is represented by Stacey Ann Van Malden of Goldberger & Dubin P.C. and Brittany S. Scott of Smith Krivoshey P.C. The Dove Men+Care class action lawsuit is Gardner v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-07113, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] UNIQURE NV: Kessler Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) is currently investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of investors of uniQure N.V. (NASDAQ: QURE) ("uniQure"). On November 3, 2025, uniQure issued a press release revealing that the FDA notified the company that data for its AMT-130, an investigational gene therapy for Huntington's disease, did not provide sufficient evidence to support uniQure's Biologics License Application ("BLA") submission. Specifically, uniQure disclosed that the company believes the FDA currently no longer agrees that data from the Phase I/II studies of AMT-130 may be adequate to provide the primary evidence in support of a BLA submission, and that the timing of the BLA submission for AMT-130 is now unclear as a result. On this news, the price of uniQure's stock fell over 50%, from a close of $67.69 on October 31, 2025, to close at $34.29 on November 3, 2025. If you are a uniQure investor and would like to learn more about our investigation, please CLICK here to fill out our online form or contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or E-mail at info@ktmc.com. Visit link for more information: https://www.ktmc.com/uniqure-nv-investigation?utm_source=NewMediaWire&mktm=PR or https://youtube.com/shorts/MPTaI5yN0zw?feature=share Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S. plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions and global investor protection. The firm represents individual investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds, asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades, including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (484) 270-1453 info@ktmc.com [GN] VALLEY HOSPITAL: Babecki Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------- LOUIS BABECKI, MATTHEW CLEGG, and SASHA BAMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, THE VALLEY HOSPITAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE - DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18765 (D.N.J., December 18, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, against the 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan for Employees of the Valley Hospital's fiduciaries, which include The Valley Hospital, The Board of Trustees of Valley Health System, and the Valley Hospital Investment Committee - Defined Contribution Plans. To safeguard plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties it owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants engaged in prohibited transactions with a party-in-interest. Specifically, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence by allowing a party-in-interest, Lincoln National, to benefit from its provision of services to the Plan by receiving excessive compensation for managing the Lincoln National GIC. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count II), and violation of ERISA's prohibited transactions (Count III). The Valley Hospital is the plan sponsor for the Plan and a Plan administrator with a principal place of business at 4 Valley Health Plaza, Paramus, New Jersey.[BN] 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 VOCOVISION LLC: Mitchell Class Cert Hearing Continued to Oct. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHARINE MITCHELL, v. VOCOVISION, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04678-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving stipulation to continue deadline for hearing motion for class certification and stay ruling on motion to compel arbitration pending mediation. 1. The last day for the court to hear the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is continued from April 17, 2026, to Oct. 16, 2026. 2. The court stays its decision on the Defendants' pending motion to compel arbitration until at least one week after the parties' March 11, 2026, mediation session. On Dec. 19, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulation to continue the deadline for hearing Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and to stay the court's ruling on Defendants' pending Motion to Compel Arbitration pending the parties' upcoming full day of mediation on March 11, 2026. VocoVision is a telepractice provider for US school. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B76Mq2 at no extra charge.[CC] WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Brown Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAITLIN BROWN et al., v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, TERRI GRAHAM, Case No. 2:24-cv-10779-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie Michelson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs -- nine 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 between 2015 and 2023. The case follows a series of putative class actions challenging the Wayne County Jail's strip-searching practices, including Woodall v. County of Wayne, No. 17-13707 (E.D. Mich. filed Nov. 14, 2017) and the currently-pending companion case, Harris v. County of Wayne, No. 23-10986 (E.D. Mich. filed Apr. 27, 2023). The Plaintiffs seek to certify the same classes as the Plaintiffs in Harris, and the Defendants here seek summary judgment for the same reasons as in Harris. Wayne is situated in the heart of the Great Lakes region along the Detroit River. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o2Nwdz at no extra charge.[CC] WE CARE TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cucul Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ MARTIN CAAL CUCUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WE CARE TREE SERVICE INC.; and CHRISTOPHER JULIANO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07087 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 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 Cucul was employed by the Defendant as a landscaper. We Care Tree Service Inc. is a tree cutting and removal company based in Bellmore, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 WEBBANK: Faces Beverly Suit Over Predatory Lending Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANIECE BEVERLY, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBBANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01142 (D. Utah, December 18, 2025) seeks to protect active-duty military service members from Defendant's predatory lending practices in violation of the Military Lending Act. According to the complaint, acting through its partner Zip CO US Inc., WebBank is in the "buy now pay later" (BNPL) business, offering short-term loans to consumers to facilitate every-day purchases. Zip markets their BNPL product as follows: "From your favorite brands to everyday bills, Zip lets you pay over time. Split your order into 4 or 8 installments, with payments due every 2 weeks." WebBank issues the loans to Zip's customers, who repay principal and finance charges over a fixed repayment period. Despite marketing Zip's products as low cost, WebBank takes in expensive finance charges on the loans it issues. Its short-term, high-cost loans extract substantial fees from workers, encourage serial usage and dependance on BNPL financing, and worsen borrowers' financial circumstances. The Plaintiff, a Petty Officer Second Class in the U.S. Navy, has taken out several BNPL loans from WebBank marketed through Zip. By virtue of the high fees charged to borrow money, WebBank has extended consumer credit to Plaintiff in violation of the MLA, says the suit. WebBank, is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City. During the relevant period, WebBank has acted as originator and issuer of the closed-end loans marketed as Zip Pay in 4 and Pay in 8.[BN] The Plaintiff is reprensented by: Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. Courtney Ross Brown, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com cbrown@cbplaw.com - and - Jared D. Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com WYETH INC: Class Cert. Bid Administratively Terminated ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. v. WYETH, INC., Case No. 3:11-cv-05479 (D.N.J., Filed Sept. 22, 2011), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order instructing the Clerk's Office to administratively terminate the Motion for Class Certification filed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs pending the hearing on that Motion scheduled for Feb. 4, 2026. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Wyeth produces, develops, and researches pharmaceutical products.[CC] YES MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- LAURIELL BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YES MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04171-DDD (D. Colo., Dec. 26, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Baker was employed by the Defendant as a sales agent. YES Management, LLC provides real estate services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 ZENIA CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MARIA DE JESUS CORONA AYALA; and BERTHA ALICIA ISIDRO CORONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZENIA CLEANING CREW CORP.; and ZENIA FLORES MARROQUIN; Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07090 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as housekeepers. Zenia Cleaning Crew Corp. provides commercial cleaning, window cleaning, local moving services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 ZILLOW HOME: Class Action Suit Includes Real Brokerage as Defendant ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Gallagher of Real Estate News reports that Real Brokerage has been added as a defendant in a lawsuit filed against Zillow last fall. The lawsuit known as the Taylor case accused the portal of racketeering and of running a coordinated scheme to inflate commission fees and steer buyers toward Zillow Home Loans. An amended complaint filed Dec. 29 in the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington added Real Broker, LLC, a subsidiary of Real Brokerage, to its list of defendants. Real told Real Estate News via email that it does not comment on ongoing litigation. A growing list of defendants, accusers: The Taylor case was originally filed last September. Three brokerages/teams -- Oregon-based Works Industries LLC, Nevada-based GK Properties and Florida-based The Frano Team -- were added in November. The addition of Real Brokerage appears to be the biggest change in the Dec. 29 filing, which focused on a variety of complaints made by the 11 plaintiffs. The 100-page amended complaint features accounts from several confidential sources, who the plaintiffs say back up their complaints. Commentary from real estate coach Jared James, who spoke at length about Zillow on a September podcast, is also included. What the case is about: Zillow has been accused of running a "fraudulent enterprise" that tricks buyers into working with Zillow-affiliated agents. Those agents are allegedly pushed to send business to Zillow Home Loans in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). In December, the Taylor case was merged with Armstrong v. Zillow. The Armstrong case, which was initially filed in early November, also raised concerns about Zillow's Premier Agent structure and lead generation. The Armstrong case accused Zillow of rewarding agents who sent more clients to Zillow's mortgage division with extra or higher-quality leads. The Dec. 29 amended complaint is the first that has been filed since the two lawsuits were consolidated. Zillow has denied the claims and said that its programs comply with RESPA. [GN] ZOA ENERGY: $3-Mil. Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Feb. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Durr, writing for MLIVE, reports that an energy drink company co-founded by Hollywood megastar Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has agreed to a $3 million settlement after being accused of misleading marketing. A class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges ZOA Energy’s claim of "0 Preservatives" on drink labels is false. The lawsuit claims the drinks contained chemical preservatives that made the advertisement false. While it agreed to a settlement, ZOA did not admit any wrongdoing in the matter and says its marketing is truthful and compliant with applicable law. The $3 million pool will be made available to qualified customers who purchased ZOA energy drinks between March 1, 2021 and Nov. 21, 2025. The drinks must have been purchased for personal use and not for resale or distribution in order to qualify. Customers who submit receipts with their claim will be eligible to receive up to $150 per household. Those who do not submit receipts will be capped at $10 per household. Each individual can is worth $1 in reimbursement, according to the settlement. Those who receive a payment must redeem the payment within 180 days or it will be invalid and no other payment will be issued. Claims must be submitted online or postmarked by Feb. 20, 2026 to be eligible. Class members may opt out of the settlement by Feb. 13, 2026. Those wishing to opt out must do so in writing and the request must be postmarked by Feb. 13, 2026. A portion of the $3 million settlement will go toward covering attorney fees and other costs associated with the case. A final hearing is scheduled for March 26 where the settlement is expected to be approved. For more information about the settlement, or to submit a claim online, visit the settlement website. [GN] [] Novak Djokovic Cut Ties With Professional Tennis Players Assoc. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Novak Djokovic has cut ties with the Professional Tennis Players Association, the players' union he co-founded, saying "it has become clear that my values and approach are no longer aligned with the current direction of the organization." The 24-time Grand Slam champion launched the breakaway organization alongside Canadian player Vasek Pospisil in 2021. They said they were aiming to offer representation for players who are independent contractors in a largely individual sport. One of the goals made clear along the way was to become a sort of full-fledged union that negotiates collective bargaining agreements like those that exist in team sports, although that sort of thing hasn't happened. Djokovic, a 24-time Grand Slam champion, said Sunday, January 4, on X that he had "ongoing concerns regarding transparency, governance, and the way my voice and image have been represented." The PTPA filed a class-action lawsuit in March against the women's and men's tours, the International Tennis Federation and the sport's integrity agency, accusing the organizations of "systemic abuse, anti-competitive practices, and a blatant disregard for player welfare." The four Grand Slam tournaments were later added as defendants. Djokovic was not listed as a plaintiff when the suit was filed; Pospisil, who is now retired, and other players were. That's because, Djokovic said in March, "I want other players to step up." The lawsuit says players should gain access to more earnings, arguing that the governing bodies that oversee the four Grand Slam tournaments -- Wimbledon, the US Open, the French Open and the Australian Open -- and other professional events "cap the prize money tournaments award and limit players' ability to earn money off the court." Djokovic said he "will continue to focus on my tennis, my family, and contributing to the sport in ways that reflect my principles and integrity. I wish the players and those involved the best as they move forward, but for me, this chapter is now closed." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***