260115.mbx

260115.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 15, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 11 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Law Firm Fails to Vet Claims in $6B Earplugs Suit ABBOTT DIABETES: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Glucose Monitors ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Crozier Files Suit in S.D. New York ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Underpays Company Employees, Lowery Says ALBERT KEMPERLE: Seested Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts AMERICAN EXPRESS: Padao Suit Transferred to S.D. New York APAC-KANSAS INC: Henning Sues Over Work-Based Sexual Harassment ARDENT HEALTH: Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Stock Price Drop ARREL ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ARTEMIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Kannberg Says ARTISANS' BANK: Harris Files Suit Over Data Breach AT&T CORP: Customers Sue Over Disconnected Phone Service Charges AYABLU INCORPORATED: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Says AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Info BANK OF AMERICA: Faces New Class Suit Over Financial Surveillance BLUECHIP FINANCIAL: Wood Files Suit Over Predatory Loan Practices BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Drivers Sue Over Defective Transfer Cases BOB EVANS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Mac & Cheese BOOHOO.COM USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Application BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Seeks Denial of Caughey Class Cert Bid BUILT BRANDS: All Discovery in Roach Class Suit Due August 31 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Control Egg Prices, Hudson Suit Says CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Pinedo-Renteria Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CALIFORNIA NATURALS: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CALIFORNIA: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Mirabelli Suit CALIFORNIA: Williams Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid Denial by Feb. 6 CALIFORNIA: Wins Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs CARON TRANSPORTATION: Rodriguez Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages CATALENT INC: Class Settlement in Warwick Suit Gets Initial Nod CEBU LUXURY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Alleges CELSIUS NETWORK: Goines Suit Transferred to S.D. New York CERNER CORP: Inadequately Protects Sensitive Info, Tatum Says CERNER CORP: J.S. Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info CERNER CORPORATION: Magliozzi Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHEWY INC: Loughry Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL: McCoy Files Suit in C.D. California CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Jasso Says CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Court Tosses Goldovsky Suit w/ Prejudice CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Goldovsky Suit Dismissed CNHI LLC: Mahaffey Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Clients' Info COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Rabinowitz Files Suit Over Toothpaste's False Ad COLLARS & COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COUNTY TREE SERVICE: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages COVENANT HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Information, Pineau Says CRATEJOY INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle Jet Fuel Dump Class Suit for $78.75MM DIRECTTOU LLC: $1.58M Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Jan 20 DOLLAR TREE: Mendez Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. DYSON DIRECT: Fact Discovery in Tevis Suit Due June 26 EIDP INC: Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery as to DuPont Tossed EIDP INC: NEFCO Defendants Bid to Dismiss Partly OK'd EL CAMINO ASPHALT: Zuniga Suit Removed to C.D. California EMBLEMHEALTH INC: APA Files Class Action Over Ghost Networks FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Sued Over Loan Originator Kickback Scheme FANATICS INC: Faces Koester Suit Over Patron Protection Exclusion FARMERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Private Information, Nolan Says FERMI INC: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations FIRST FOUNDATION: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to FirstSun FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC: Preston Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC: Smith Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. FLYING FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sanchez Due July 8 FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Herrera Files Suit in M.D. Florida GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Appeals Motion to Remand Order to 6th Cir. GENERAC POWER: Court Narrows Claims in Dawson Suit GENERAL DYNAMICS: Class Cert Discovery Continued to April 22 GENERAL DYNAMICS: Lopez Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Suit Over Air Filled Cereal Boxes GENFOOT AMERICA: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GEODIS LOGISTICS: Villalobos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. GERBER LIFE: Bid to Decertify Class Tossed GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Harris Suit Removed to N.D. California GIG PHARMACY: Gioules Files Class Suit Over FLSA Breach GOLD STAR: Recalls FDA-Regulated Products Due to Contamination HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Robinson Sues Over Data Breach HERRMAN & HERRMAN: Joseph Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. HOMELIGHT INCORPORATED: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona HOYT ARCHERY: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Goodall Claims HUGO BOSS: Asks 9th Circuit to Revive Bid to Dismiss Dilanyan Suit HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Devalkeneer Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Theft Class Suit for $4.5MM ISLANDWIDE SEAMLESS: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. JAGUAR LAND: Must Pay $6.6MM Atty's Fee to Class Counsel JP MORGAN: Kostiner Suit Removed to N.D. California JUSTANSWER LLC: Pappas Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. KENVUE BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Baby Oil Labeling LEASE CRUTCHER: Vesikuru Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. LES SCHWAB: Robles Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. LIMITED RUN: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit for $2.72MM LYON REAL ESTATE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $637,000 LZ77 LLC: Faces Gomez Suit Over Disabled People's Access Barriers MDL 3153: Lemon Suit Consolidated in Coinbase Data Breach Row MICHAEL KORS: Agrees to Settle False Advertising Suit for $1.99MM MICROF LLC: Olivero Files Suit Over Data Breach MICROF LLC: Yukna Files Suit Over Data Breach MISSISSIPPI: Victims of Water Crisis Attempt to Revive Class Action MONSANTO COMPANY: Hunter Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Levi Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: McCarthy Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Morrison Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Muir Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Nagy Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Navales Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Nienkamp Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Sued Over Negligent Advertising of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Whalen Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Wheeler Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah NANO NUCLEAR: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit NEBRASKA: Rodriguez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed NESTLE SA: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims NEW YORK: Jenner & Block Files Suit Over OCFS Solitary Confinement NEXFUND LLC: Berger Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls OPPENHEIMER & CO: Appeals Class Certification Order in Liberty Suit PERMIRA HOLDINGS: Phyllis Sues Over Misused of ABS for Unjust Gain PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Appeals Judgment Order in Paschal FLSA Suit PHILADELPHIA, PA: Flacco Appeals Class Cert. Order to 3rd Circuit POM MEDICAL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Manzano Suit to 9th Cir. POPILUSH LLC: Walsh Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Acosta Says PROSPER FUNDING: Hurd-Pride Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info QUANTUM BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 23 RAC ACCEPTANCE: Agrees to Settle Unlawful Fees Suit for $14-Mil. REGENCE BLUESHIELD: $3M Settlement Claim Forms Submission Set Feb 3 RESERVEBAR HOLDINGS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES: Gucciardo Sues Over FMLA Rights Violations SALLIE MAE: Zappia Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Le Suit Alleges SNAPCOMMERCE HOLDINGS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Ferrell Suit SYNGENTA CROP: Rodgers Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks TCL NORTH: Intercepted Private Communications, Raimondi Says TOMMY BAHAMA: Peterson Suit Over False Emails Removed to D. Md. TRANSUNION LLC: Herships Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Wheeler Says UNITED AIRLINES: Pimm Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty UNITED STATES: African Sues Over TPS Termination for South Sudan UNITED STATES: Reed Suit Seeks Full Payment of Damages from FEMA UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Pointer Files Suit Over Data Breach VERNON POWELL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says WACOAL AMERICA: Davis Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Suit Over Misleading ESPN Streaming Deal [] New Federal Court Ruling Fuels Digital Tracking Class Actions ********* 3M COMPANY: Law Firm Fails to Vet Claims in $6B Earplugs Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- William Rabb, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that an Alabama law firm will likely have to pay more than $800,000 -- plus another $100,000 in sanctions -- for failing to verify hearing loss in hundreds of Ugandans who claimed part of the massive settlement over faulty 3M earplugs. "It's been a learning experience for us," said Birmingham attorney Stephen Heninger of the Heninger Garrison Davis law firm, one of many mass-tort firms that were part of the multi-district federal litigation over the 3M Combat Arms earplugs. "It's extremely doubtful we will represent foreign claimants again because they're not as trustworthy as people in the United States and Canada." 3M reached a $6 billion settlement in 2023, agreeing to provide significant payments to thousands of military members, government contractors and others who used the earplugs and suffered hearing loss. Insurers have been asked to cover about $1.5 billion of that, according to law firms involved. Multiple insurers are in litigation over 3M's coverage claims. Chubb Bermuda and ACE Bermuda Insurance were in arbitration with 3M as of this month. The Heninger Garrison law firm signed up almost 1,000 Ugandans who were recommended by a Ugandan lawyer, according to a court-appointed special master who recommended the sanctions. But the law firm did not verify audiograms from the African claimants -- and most of those audiograms turned out to have been forged or faked. "The undersigned does not find that any member of the Heninger Garrison Davis firm intentionally committed fraud on the court through this settlement program," the special master, David Herndon, a retired federal judge, wrote in his report in December. It is clear, however, that two members of the firm "were not simply negligent in the handling of these claims, but instead were consciously and recklessly indifferent to the variety of circumstances of the Ugandan settlement program, allowing fraud to occur and equally indifferent to their duties as officers of the court . . .," Herndon wrote. Litigation and tort-reform experts said the lack of scrutiny shows the risk involved in massive class actions, in which plaintiff law firms can gain millions of dollars in attorney fees but individual claimants end up with smaller amounts. "Class-action lawsuits always present a vetting problem. Indeed, the impossibility of knowing all the clients in a class-action lawsuit is the reason historically that class-action lawsuits were disfavored," said Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. In 1966, federal courts, then state courts began accepting more class-actions after adopting rules requiring a robust intake system designed to weed out fraud, Jarvis noted. The Heninger firm did not seem to have such a system in place, allowing fraudulent claims to slip through, according to the special master's report. Others said the firm's lack of scrutiny is troubling, considering the huge amounts that insurers and businesses often have to pay in mass tort litigation damages and defense costs. "Attorneys have a continuing obligation to verify the veracity of potential clients' claims. If they fail to do so, they can be held accountable by judges and the Bar," said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. The 3M earplug litigation began in 2016, after a whistleblower alleged 3M and its subsidiary knew of defects in the product. In 2019, more than 250,000 claimants had applied, and thousands of lawsuits from around the country were consolidated into one, to be heard by the federal court in Pensacola, Florida. The judge in the case, Casey Rodgers, has received high marks from lawyers for her efficient handling of the complex litigation and a steady focus on deadlines. In the Heninger episode, it was a forgotten deadline and a misunderstood court instruction that may have led firm members to rush through the Ugandan claims at the last minute, the special master's report suggests. "What is clear to this Special Master is that Heninger Garrison Davis' handling of its Ugandan claims failed at several levels," Special Master Herndon wrote. The Ugandan claims began with a phone call from Uganda lawyer known by several names, it turned out. The lawyer, whose real name is Arafah Musoke, according to Herndon's report, told a Heninger attorney that he had many clients that had served as security contractors for U.S. bases and embassies in war zones. But when emails from Ugandan claimants, all containing the same wording, began circulating, the BrownGreer settlement administrator firm, based in Virginia, started scrutinizing the paid claims. An audit found that the audiograms submitted by Musoke and others were faked and looked nothing like standard hearing test reports seen from U.S. medical professionals. The license for one Ugandan medical clinic had been forged. The claimants were probably not exposed to warfare, shootings or other loud noises during their contract period at U.S. bases, reports found. The Heninger firm did not know or did not check on the fact that most U.S. military contractors undergo a baseline hearing test before they begin work, and these were available from the U.S. Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System but were never requested, the special master explained. Further, it was never shown that the Ugandan contractors actually used the 3M earplugs. At one point, Herndon interviewed Musoke. The Ugandan lawyer explained that some local audiograms had been hurriedly "recreated" and backdated because original records had been lost—but medical professionals "knew" the claimants. Heninger Garrison attorneys indicated they were not aware of some Ugandans' reportedly shady reputation—despite a U.S. State Department website warning that fraud is prevalent in the country, the 37-page report noted. "The finding of this Special Master is that all except four of the Ugandan claims submitted by Heninger Garrison Davis were fraudulent," Herndon wrote. Those four claims had some indicia of reliability, but they still raised questions. The special master recommended the Heninger law firm should pay at least $50,000 in sanctions, while a named partner charged with oversight of the claims should pay another $10,000, and two others at the firm should pay $20,000 each. One of those attorneys is no longer with the firm. The judge has yet to sign off on the penalties. The firm should also pay an estimated $804,000 that the settlement paid out on the fraudulent claims, the special master report said. That includes almost $322,000 in attorney fees. The court should ask the BrownGreer settlement administrator firm to determine the exact amount to be returned by the firm and paid into the settlement program and a common benefit fund. Those who investigated the fraud should also be compensated, Herndon said. Jarvis, the Nova Southeastern law professor, said the level of sanctions appears to be rather low, given how much work it took to uncover the lack of vetting and the number of fraudulent claims involved. The special master's Dec. 5 report noted that the Heninger firm had indicated it did nothing wrong. The firm responded to the report in a Dec. 19 filing: "While we acknowledge and respect the Special Master's finding that our firm's training, guiding, vetting, and submission of claims relative to this singular, unique group of Ugandan clients was deficient, we must emphasize, without reservation, that this firm did not knowingly or intentionally engage in any fraudulent conduct with regard to these claimants or otherwise." Almost $3 million of the $6 billion overall settlement has been paid, but hundreds of claims are still being processed and should be paid by 2029, according to lawyers involved and news reports. [GN] ABBOTT DIABETES: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Glucose Monitors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson of About Lawsuit reports that in the wake of an Abbott Freestyle Libre 3 continuous glucose monitor recall late last year, the manufacturer now faces a class action lawsuit claiming it concealed critical, and ultimately deadly, manufacturing defects from federal regulators, the medical community and patients. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are small devices worn on the upper arm that continuously track blood sugar levels, a critical tool for people with diabetes who rely on real-time data to avoid dangerous highs and lows. By showing current levels and trends, the sensors help users adjust medication, food intake and daily activity. The Freestyle Libre 3 recall was announced on November 24, 2025, following more than 700 reports of serious health consequences, including at least seven deaths linked to complications caused by false readings. Internal testing of FreeStyle Libre 3 units found that some may generate undetected false lows for extended periods. This can mislead users into taking insulin they do not need, increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia, confusion, loss of consciousness and other life-threatening complications. The recall impacted approximately 3 million Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3 and Libre 3 Plus sensors in the U.S., about half of which are estimated to have already expired or been used. On January 1, plaintiffs Christopher Taylor and Krystal Chambers filed a complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, alleging the companies hid manufacturing problems while simultaneously making false and misleading statements about the safety and effectiveness of the recalled glucose sensors. In the lawsuit, neither Taylor nor Chambers indicate they suffered physical injuries from the recalled Freestyle Libre 3. However, they seek class action status for themselves and other similarly situated consumers who purchased the device, believing they were buying a safe and effective glucose sensor. The plaintiffs note that this is particularly dangerous for diabetics, who can be left in life-threatening situations if given inaccurate glucose data. Taylor, of Tennessee, is a type 1 diabetic who began using the sensors in 2024. Chambers, of Mississippi, also began using the devices beginning in 2024, and is a type 2 diabetic. Both Taylor and Chambers indicate they received dangerously inaccurate glucose readings from the devices when compared to the results of traditional fingerstick measurements, as well as failed alerts. According to the complaint, the problem tracks back to at least one defective production line that led to the sensors providing incorrect low glucose readings. "The defect caused the affected sensors to falsely indicate hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) when patients' actual glucose levels were normal or elevated. This manufacturing deviation created a systematic pattern of inaccurate readings in the affected sensors that undermined their intended function of continuous glucose monitoring." -- Christopher Taylor et al. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al Taylor and Chambers indicate Abbott knew or should have known of this problem since at least 2024, after identifying the issue through its own internal testing. Despite having this information, the lawsuit claims the manufacturer sat on it, refusing to issue warnings or recalls for more than a year while placing profits over patient safety. In addition, the class action lawsuit alleges that even after Abbott reported it had received 736 serious injury reports as of November 14, it waited another 10 days to issue a public correction notice, which deprived users of further opportunities to switch to a safer monitoring system. Plaintiffs allege Abbott has a history of concealing such problems, particularly with its Freestyle CGMs, noting that it had to issue a similar Freestyle recall in July 2024 due to inaccurate glucose readings. The lawsuit presents claims of fraudulent omission, unjust enrichment, breach of unfair competition law, violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. FreeStyle Libre 3 Lawsuits Following the recall, attorneys are now investigating FreeStyle Libre 3 lawsuits for individuals and families who suffered injuries or wrongful death caused by incorrectly low glucose readings. You may qualify for a Libre 3 recall lawsuit if you or a loved one used a recalled FreeStyle Libre 3 or Libre 3 Plus sensor and suffered serious injuries after relying on inaccurate glucose readings, including: -- Wrongful Death -- Severe hypoglycemia -- Seizures -- Confusion or altered mental state -- Loss of consciousness -- Diabetic ketoacidosis -- Other acute metabolic emergencies -- Emergency medical treatment or hospitalization To determine whether you or a family member may qualify for a FreeStyle Libre 3 lawsuit, submit your information for a free case evaluation. An attorney can review your case, explain your legal rights, and pursue a claim if eligible. [GN] ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Crozier Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance Publications Inc. The case is styled as Michael Crozier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Publications Inc. doing business as: Conde Nast, Case No. 1:25-cv-10779 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Advance Publications Inc. doing business as Conde Nast -- https://www.condenast.com/ -- is an American mass media company founded in 1909 by Condé Montrose Nast and owned by Advance Publications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Underpays Company Employees, Lowery Says ------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE LOWERY, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00001 (S.D. Ill., January 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay all overtime wages and other earned compensation for time spent on Defendant's premises, and for uncompensated meal break time, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff worked at the Caseyville Plant between approximately October 2024 to October 2025. He primarily worked the second and third shifts during his employment with Defendant at the Caseyville Plant from Monday through Friday between 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. or 10:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. He also frequently performed work for Defendant on Saturdays. The complaint alleges that the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other Class Members for the time they were required to be on the Caseyville Plant's premises prior to the start time of their scheduled shift, including but not limited to the time they spent waiting to go through security screenings, donning protective clothing and equipment, walking within the Caseyville Plant, and waiting to clock in on the time clock. At the end of the workday, Defendant required Plaintiff and other Class Members to "clock out," and then walk through the Caseyville Plant and remove their protective clothing and equipment before undergoing security screenings and finally exiting the premise. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other Class Members for the time they were required to be in the Caseyville Plant after they clocked out on the time clock. The Plaintiff and the Classes are similar to one another because they were all subject to the same allegedly illegal practices: failing to pay overtime wages under the IMWL for time associated with various required activities arising on the Caseyville Plant premises at the beginning and end of the workday; and spending their meal breaks predominantly for the benefit of Defendant, says the suit. Plaintiff Eddie Lowery Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant. Defendant AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., is a protein and handheld foods processor and distributor to retail and grocery stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com ALBERT KEMPERLE: Seested Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chris Seested, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALBERT KEMPERLE, LLC, Case No. 2581CV02918 was removed from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on Dec. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-14019-LTS. In Count II of the Complaint, Seested alleges federal claims of failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Esq., BBO No. 712140 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 200 State Street, 13th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 722-0044 Fax: (617) 532-5899 Email: jsshapiro@fisherphillips.com - and - Eleanor F. Miller, Esq. (pro hac vice forthcoming) FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 916-7189 Fax (202) 978-3788 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Padao Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas Padao, Robert Uyematsu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. American Express National Bank, Case No. 5:22-cv-00145 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10793-VEC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking. American Express National Bank -- https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/ -- offers savings accounts, checking accounts, certificates of deposit and personal loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa L. Koepfgen, Esq. Claire E. Tonry, Esq. Eric Knoll Lowney, Esq. Marc A. R. Zemel, Esq. SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC 2317 E. John Street Seattle, WA 98112 Phone: (206) 388-0728 Fax: (206) 860-4187 - and - Matthew David Ballew, Esq. Paul J. Puryear, Jr., Esq. Zachary R. Kaplan, Esq. BALLEW PURYEAR PLLC 4000 Westchase Blvd., Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27607 Phone: (919) 412-5920 - and - Robert E. Zaytoun, Esq. ZAYTOUN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3130 Fairhill Dr., Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Phone: (919) 832-6690 Fax: (919) 831-4793 The Defendant is represented by: Alisa M. Taormina, Esq. Brian C. Frontino, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 415-3314 Fax: (305) 415-3001 Email: brian.frontino@morganlewis.com - and - Edwin L. West, III, Esq. BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP 115 N. 3rd Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2460 - Zip Code 28402 Wilmington, NC 28401 Phone: (910) 444-2021 Fax: (336) 232-9064 - and - Stephen J. Newman, Esq. Daniel J. Shannon, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 980 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 439-9400 - and - Justin N. Outling, Esq. BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L.L.P. 230 North Elm Street, Suite 2000 Greensboro, NC 27401 Phone: (336) 232-4685 Fax: (336) 232-9106 - and - Mario Marin, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 653-5000 APAC-KANSAS INC: Henning Sues Over Work-Based Sexual Harassment --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DIANE HENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APAC-KANSAS, INC., d/b/a APAC Kansas Shears Division, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01290 (D. Kan., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was subjected to frequent, unwelcome, and explicitly sexual conduct by multiple males similarly situated coworkers. The harassment occurred regularly and repeatedly, in an unwelcome manner, including during working hours and in the workplace. The Defendant terminated the Plaintiff due to her complaints regarding the harassment by a fellow employee, which occurred on the basis of the Plaintiff's sex, an act of retaliation by the Defendant, suit says. APAC-Kansas, Inc., doing business as APAC Kansas Shears Division, is a company that offers premium construction materials and services in Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Alan Brumley, Esq. Chloe Elizabeth Davis, Esq. BRUMLEY LAW OFFICE 2348 SW Topeka Blvd., Suite 201 Topeka, KS 66611 Telephone: (785) 267-3367 Email: chloe@brucebrumleylaw.com bruce@brucebrumleylaw.com ARDENT HEALTH: Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Ardent Health, Inc. (NYSE:ARDT) and certain of the Company's senior executives for securities fraud after a significant stock drop resulting from potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Ardent Health, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/ardent-health-inc-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until March 9, 2026, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Ardent Health securities. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. It is captioned Postiwala v. Ardent Health, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-00022. Why is Ardent Health Being Sued for Securities Fraud? Ardent Health and its affiliates operate acute care hospitals and other healthcare facilities. A critical aspect of Ardent Health's operations is the collection of accounts receivable and the framework by which Ardent Health determines the collectability of such accounts. According to the lawsuit, Ardent Health stated that it employed an active monitoring process to determine the collectability of its accounts receivable, and that this process included "detailed reviews of historical collections" as a "primary source of information." As alleged, in truth, Ardent Health did not primarily rely on "detailed reviews of historical collections" in determining collectability of accounts receivable, but instead "utilized a 180-day cliff at which time an account became fully reserved." This allowed Ardent Health to report higher amounts of accounts receivable during the Class Period, and delay recognizing losses on uncollectable accounts. The lawsuit alleges that Ardent Health's purported misrepresentations are a violation of the federal securities laws. Why did Ardent Health's Stock Drop? On November 12, 2025, after market hours, Ardent Health revealed it had completed "hindsight evaluations of historical collection trends" that resulted in a $43 million decrease in revenue for the quarter. Ardent Health also revealed that it increased its professional liability reserves by $54 million because of "adverse prior period claim developments" resulting from a set of claims between 2019 and 2022 "as well as consideration of broader industry trends." This news caused the price of Ardent Health stock to drop $4.75 per share, or more than 33%, from a closing price of $14.05 per share on November 12, 2025, to $9.30 per share on November 13, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/ardent-health-inc-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Ardent Health, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis; there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/ardent-health-inc-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/ardent-health-inc-class-action-lawsuit [GN] ARREL ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ARREL ENTERPRISES, INC., HAPPY HOUR, LLC, HEALTHY BEGINNING BEVERAGES, LLC and EMERALD THAI, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-62703-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 30, 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 over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make 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 to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at 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. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial gas station, food mart and cafeteria, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated 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, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. HEALTHY BEGINNING BEVERAGES, LLC, owned and/or operated a commercial retail business within the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com ARTEMIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Kannberg Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVE KANNBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTEMIS HEALTHCARE, INC. and ARIANA SCIENCES, LLC d/b/a PALM BEACH PATHOLOGY, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00003 (M.D. Tenn., January 2, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that on May 31, 2025, Defendant Artemis learned of unusual activity within its network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Defendant Artemis learned that Private Information contained in its network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party on May 5, 2025, through May 31, 2025. Crypto24, a ransomware group, took responsibility for this Data Breach and posted the stolen information on the dark web. On December 23, 2025, seven months after Defendant was made aware of the Data Breach, the Defendant began sending notice letters ("Notice") to impacted individuals. The complaint alleges that the failure to timely notify affected persons for seven months shows that Defendant Artemis was grossly negligent. As a result of Defendants' inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Dave Kannberg is a resident and citizen of Wellington, Florida. Defendant Artemis Healthcare, Inc. is a benefits data company that collects a wide variety of information from its clients across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ARTISANS' BANK: Harris Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- JOEL HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTISANS' BANK, Defendant, Case No. N26C-01-014 KMV (Sup. Ct., Del., January 5, 2026) is a class action seeking to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been stolen by criminals and listed for sale on the dark web. In order to provide banking services, the Defendant stored and utilized Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. By voluntarily undertaking the collection of this sensitive Private Information, Defendant assumed a duty to use due care to protect that information. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Defendant stored their Private Information on a database that was negligently and/or recklessly configured. This misconfiguration allowed files on the database to be accessed without a password or any form of multifactor authentication, asserts the complaint. On November 4, 2025, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity affecting within its network (the "Data Breach"). Defendant immediately began an investigation, and on December 23, 2025, Defendant notified impacted individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses, including but not limited to, a loss of privacy, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket monetary losses and expenses, the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, the diminished value of their Private Information, and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft. Given the theft of information that is largely static--like Social Security numbers--this risk will remain with Plaintiff and Class Members for the rest of their lives, says the suit. Plaintiff Joel Harris is a Citizen of Delaware who provided his Private Information to Defendant in order to receive banking services from Defendant. Defendant Artisans' Bank is a community bank with locations across Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Herr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC 3411 Silverside Road The Baynard Building Wilmington, DE 19810 Telephone: 302-483-7090 E-mail: dherr@dherrlaw.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com AT&T CORP: Customers Sue Over Disconnected Phone Service Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that AT&T has unlawfully charged business customers during months of non-service after disconnecting older analog telephone infrastructure, and charged them for new digital services under different accounts without notice or consent. The 11-page lawsuit contends that AT&T, in a supposed effort to modernize its systems and infrastructure, began to retire analog copper telephone lines -- still commonly used by older Americans and businesses -- with the goal of transitioning to newer, more cost-effective digital and IP-based alternatives. With this, the case says, came the creation of new and modified billing accounts, reduced service conditions, and new payment obligations for customers being charged monthly service fees for service. However, the complaint alleges that these alterations came "without adequate notice or express, written assent" from affected consumers, who AT&T billed for new accounts automatically. The plaintiff, a California-based law firm, claims to have maintained several AT&T business lines and internet services that had apparently experienced delays and disruptions starting in 2020, which were particularly consequential for two of the lines used solely for fire alarm signal transmission and emergency communications. Upon communicating with AT&T in late 2023 and unintentionally learning of the provider's plan to phase out the preexisting infrastructure, the plaintiff relayed that the business lines were subject to "specific and mandatory local regulatory and code-compliance requirements" as fire alarm signals, the case describes. AT&T reportedly confirmed that the transition would comply with regulations and minimize service disruptions, yet the class action lawsuit contends that, for the plaintiff, the late-2023 installation only created new problems. "Defendants did not clearly disclose that they had created a new or separate billing account for the migrated fire-alarm lines," nor did they ever ". . . present Plaintiff with a new written service agreement governing the migrated service," the filing states. In other words, the suit claims that AT&T created a new billing account after installing the new business telephone line without informing the plaintiff, who reasonably believed that bills would be "consolidated" into preexisting automatic payments for other, separate AT&T services. By May 2025, the case maintains, the plaintiff's fire-alarm service was suspended due to several months of unknowingly unpaid bills, which prompted a local fire inspector to order that the business immediately establish a 24-hour fire watch. Moreover, the complaint says that the fire inspector also informed the plaintiff that the digital device installed for fire-alarm signal transmission was not approved for use, in contrast to AT&T's assurance that it would be. Months later, to reinstate fire-alarm service and discontinue the ongoing charges for months of non-service, AT&T told the plaintiff to pay the mounting $2,340.56 bill issued on the newly created business account, the complaint outlines. Despite receiving payment, AT&T allegedly did not restore service and had released the service numbers for other providers to claim. As a result, the case relays, the plaintiff business was unable to get its money back, even though it continued to receive bills for the terminated account that noted the existence of the $2,340.56 payment. "Defendants routinely bill business customers after service suspension or termination, accept payments under the pretense of restoration, and retain those payments even when restoration does not occur," the case summarizes. The AT&T non-service billing class action lawsuit looks to cover all consumers with AT&T business telephone lines whose service was suspended, disconnected, or terminated by the provider but who continued to be issued bills for the defunct line during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] AYABLU INCORPORATED: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ayablu Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00017 (N.D. Ill., January 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://burtsbeesbaby.com , to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Sandra Ford attempted to complete a purchase on the Website. She intended to buy a gift for her toddler grandchild. On August 26, 2025, she searched on Google for online stores offering baby outfit sets and came across burtsbeesbaby.com. However, when Ford attempted to navigate the website using her screen reader, she encountered accessibility barriers that made it difficult to complete the purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Ford, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States, says the suit. Ford seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Sandra Ford is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Ayablu Incorporated owns and operates the Website which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of organic baby and kids' clothing, sleepwear and pajama sets, bedding and blankets, bath and nursery essentials, accessories, and giftable baby sets for newborns, infants, and toddlers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AYLO HOLDINGS USA CORP., AYLO USA, INC., and AYLO BILLING LIMITED, collectively, d/b/a Pornhub, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02106 (W.D. Tex., December 22, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about their current and former customers, including Plaintiff's. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information, asserts the complaint. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the complaint adds. Aylo Holdings USA Corp. owns and operates some of the other largest pornography websites in the world, including Pornhub.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces New Class Suit Over Financial Surveillance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Muccigrosso of the Charlotte Observer reports that a new federal lawsuit accuses Bank of America of conducting sweeping, warrantless financial surveillance on millions of customers and sharing private data with federal law‑enforcement agencies in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack by supporters of President Donald Trump The Charlotte-based bank is accused of searching its customer base for people who traveled to the Washington, D.C., area around Jan. 6, according to the complaint filed Jan. 5 in U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida by Neil Castellon of Orlando. The bank turned over lists of customers to the FBI without subpoenas, warrants or any legal obligation to do so, according to the complaint. The results were shared with an estimated 472 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. "The legal claims in this lawsuit are without merit," Bank of America spokeswoman Abbey Collins told The Charlotte Observer Wednesday, January 7. "We followed all applicable legal obligations and regulatory requirements in our interactions with the Treasury Department and law enforcement." Lawyers for Castellon also are seeking to get the case designated as a class-action. "This action challenges an unprecedented warrantless surveillance program in which Bank of America abandoned its role as a neutral custodian of customer funds and instead became a sophisticated aggregator of personal and financial customer data," the 89-page complaint said. On Jan. 6, 2021, the U.S. Capitol was attacked by a mob of Trump supporters who stormed a Congressional session to certify the presidential election victory for Democrat Joe Biden. There are seven deaths linked to the Jan. 6 attack, including one rioter and a police officer. The FBI has estimated around 2,000 people took part in criminal acts at the event. As of last January, 1,575 people were charged in connection with the attack. On Trump's first day in office after being re-elected in 2024, he pardoned and commuted all sentences related to the riot. On January 6, the fifth anniversary of the insurrection, the White House released an official webpage that rewrites the day's history. Democrats and other Trump critics have accused him and Republicans of "whitewashing" Trump-incited mob attack for the past five years. Whistleblower claims spark Bank of America lawsuit The federal case relies on testimony from a former FBI contractor who claimed Bank of America "proactively" combed through its records in the days following the riot. The whistleblower alleged the bank created a multi‑tiered list of customers based on travel patterns, purchase histories and other lawful activities, then delivered that list to federal agents within 48 hours. The FBI's Boston field office reportedly refused to act on the information. Other field offices, however, allegedly used the data to conduct interviews and further investigations, according to the lawsuit. Bank of America used fraud surveillance system The complaint describes the nation's second-largest bank as operating an expansive internal surveillance infrastructure, including tens of millions of customer accounts, billions of annual transactions and artificial‑intelligence systems capable of profiling behavior, location patterns and purchasing habits. The system, designed for fraud detection, was repurposed to identify individuals based on political associations, travel, or constitutionally protected activities, according to the complaint. By its actions, Bank of America violating the right to Financial Privacy Act, and the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, according to claims in the lawsuit. Banks urged to flag transactions The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department, met with 30 to 50 banks on Jan. 8, 2021, according to the lawsuit, encouraging banks to flag transactions involving political keywords, travel to Washington, or purchases of items such as sporting goods, VPN services or life insurance. The lawsuit claimed that this effectively turned private banks into "de facto intelligence agencies," conducting surveillance on Americans without judicial oversight. The plaintiff seeks damages for privacy invasion, emotional distress, reputational harm and alleged placement on government watch lists. Debanking accusations follow Jan. 6 insurrection Bank of America and other banks also have come under fire by Trump and conservatives for "debanking" following the Jan. 6 insurrection. "Debanking" refers to the practice of banks closing or restricting access to financial services for certain individuals or entities, often based on assessments of risk to the bank's reputation, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Trump claimed major banks rejected his business following his first term when he had "a billion plus" to deposit. In August, Trump signed an executive order saying banks can no longer consider the risk to their reputations when deciding whether to do business with someone. Bank of America has denied Trump's accusations, stating that political beliefs are not a factor in account closure decisions. Last month, federal banking regulators released preliminary findings that nine of the nation's largest banks engaged in discriminatory "debanking" practices. The OCC is reviewing nearly 100,000 consumer complaints to identify instances of debanking based on political or religious beliefs, according to the agency. The supervisory review is ongoing to assess how bank policies were applied over the last five years. [GN] BLUECHIP FINANCIAL: Wood Files Suit Over Predatory Loan Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUECHIP FINANCIAL D/B/A SPOTLOAN; NINGO LENDING LLC; AND ZEST AI, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-3-RGJ (W.D. Ky., January 2, 2026) is a class action seeking to secure redress from predatory and unlawful loans issued and enforced by Defendants. According to the complaint, between March 25, 2022 and April 15, 2024, the Plaintiff obtained loans from Defendants. He signed the loan agreements electronically, while in Kentucky. The funds were transferred electronically to his bank accounts in Kentucky. Repayment was to be made by ACH debit from his bank account in Kentucky. The complaint alleges that the Defendants take advantage of people at their most vulnerable, in desperate moments of financial hardship, and thumb their noses at the statutory laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky by employing a scheme to charge customers illegal usurious interest rates of 99 to 490%. To do this, Defendants represent that Spotloan is a brand owned by Ningo Lending LLC ("Ningo"), tribal limited liability company formed under the laws of and wholly owned by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota (the "Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian Tribe. In reality, Defendants operate a "rent-a-tribe" scheme in order to circumvent state usury laws, including the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Spotloan continues to use the same predatory lending practices to issue high-interest loans to vulnerable individuals. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks a declaratory judgment that the loans are void and seeks damages for violations of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. Plaintiff Adam Wood resided in Owensboro, Daviess County, Kentucky. He moved to Minot, North Dakota on November 18, 2024. BlueChip Financial was created to serve as a front to disguise Zest's role in making usurious loans. Ningo Lending LLC, operating as Spotloan, is a tribal lending company owned by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, offering online installment loans to underserved consumers, functioning under tribal law from the reservation in Belcourt, ND, and providing short-term financial help with features like fixed repayment plans and potentially lower APRs than payday loans, but users should note high APRs (up to 490%) and a binding arbitration clause. ZEST AI, INC. is a US-based technology-as-a-service company that serves its clients from its headquarters in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq. Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq. Abigail C. Wearden, Esq. Lockaby PLLC 476 East High Street, Suite 200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: 859-263-7884 Facsimile: 859-406-3333 E-mail: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com alockaby@lockabylaw.com awearden@lockabylaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. Almeida Law Group LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: 773-554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Drivers Sue Over Defective Transfer Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four BMW drivers filed a class action lawsuit against BMW of North America LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW). Why: The plaintiffs claim BMW sold certain vehicles with defective transfer cases. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges BMW sold certain vehicles with defective transfer cases that affected their drivability, causing them to fail prematurely and require costly repairs. Plaintiffs Joseph Sangenito, Zhargal Dampilon, Richard Grad and Kevin Finley claim the defect causes the vehicles to jerk or shudder when driving, especially when shifting gears, making turns or driving at low speeds. Sangenito, Dampilon, Grad and Finley argue BMW knew about the alleged defect yet failed to disclose it to consumers and refused to fully reimburse them for repairs. "Plaintiffs' claims arise out of BMW's failure to disclose and/or fraudulent concealment of the Transfer Case Defect and the issues it causes, and its representations about the world-class quality of the Class Vehicles,” the BMW class action says. The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of consumers who bought or leased a BMW vehicle with a defective transfer case. BMW has been aware of defect since at least 2018, class action claims The transfer case defect affects a wide range of BMW models from 2019 to 2025, including the X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, 3 Series, 4 Series, 5 Series, 7 Series and 8 Series, according to the BMW class action. BMW, meanwhile, has been aware of the defect since at least 2018, based on its own design and testing data, consumer complaints and service bulletins, the BMW class action alleges. The plaintiffs claim the automaker issued a service bulletin in 2020 acknowledging the problem and advising dealers to replace the transfer case fluid, but that this did not resolve the defect and that they ultimately were forced to pay out of pocket for repairs that should have been covered by warranty. Sangenito, Dampilon, Grad and Finley claim BMW is guilty of breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment and of violating consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request injunctive and declaratory relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary, statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. A group of four vehicle owners filed a separate class action lawsuit against BMW last month over claims the automaker sold vehicles with defective starters that can overheat and pose a fire safety risk. The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi and Zachary A. Jacobs of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C.; Jonathan D. Selbin and Kenneth S. Byrd of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and Nathan Heber and You-Jin Han of Heber Han, P.C. The BMW class action lawsuit is Sangenito, et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-17858 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] BOB EVANS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Mac & Cheese ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Michael Dotson filed a class action lawsuit against Post Holdings Inc., doing business as Bob Evans Farms LLC. Why: Dotson claims Bob Evans falsely marketed its macaroni and cheese products as containing "no artificial preservatives" despite allegedly including synthetic ingredients. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Bob Evans of misleading consumers by labeling certain macaroni and cheese products as having "no artificial preservatives," even though the products allegedly contain synthetic chemical additives. Plaintiff Michael Dotson alleges Bob Evans violated California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law by advertising its macaroni and cheese products as preservative-free while including ingredients such as sodium phosphate and lactic acid. The class action lawsuit claims sodium phosphate and lactic acid function as artificial preservatives by preventing spoilage and extending shelf life. Dotson argues reasonable consumers understand "no artificial preservatives" to mean the product does not contain chemically manufactured ingredients added to slow deterioration or inhibit microbial growth. According to the complaint, sodium phosphate salts are synthetically produced compounds commonly used in food processing to prevent oxidation, enzymatic browning and bacterial growth. Lactic acid, on the other hand, is also industrially produced and used to prevent spoilage, the class action lawsuit alleges. Bob Evans allegedly used misleading labels to drive consumer demand The lawsuit says Bob Evans prominently displays the "no artificial preservatives" claim on the front of its macaroni and cheese packaging, leading consumers to believe the product is more natural and of higher quality than competing products. Dotson claims he relied on this labeling when purchasing the product and would not have done so, or would have paid less, had he known it allegedly contained artificial preservatives. Dotson seeks to represent a California class of consumers who purchased Bob Evans macaroni and cheese products within four years prior to the filing of the complaint. He alleges consumers paid a price premium for products marketed as preservative-free and were deprived of the benefit of their bargain. The lawsuit alleges Bob Evans' conduct allowed it to sell more products and at higher prices than it otherwise could have if the ingredients had been accurately disclosed. Dotson argues the alleged misrepresentations continue to harm consumers who are still exposed to the "no artificial preservatives" claims on store shelves. Dotson is seeking injunctive relief to stop Bob Evans from continuing to use misleading labeling, along with restitution, disgorgement of profits, damages, attorneys' fees and a jury trial. Similarly, consumers sued Kraft Heinz over allegations that it falsely advertised its macaroni and cheese product as containing "no preservatives" when it actually contains citric acid, which functions as a preservative. The plaintiff is represented by Todd M. Friedman of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. The Bob Evans false labeling class action lawsuit is Dotson v. Post Holdings Inc. d/b/a Bob Evans Farms LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11993, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] BOOHOO.COM USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Application --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOOHOO.COM USA, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-04364 (D. Minn., Dec. 30, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Mobile Application (www.boohooman.com) (the "Mobile Application" or "Defendant's Mobile Application") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Mobile Application and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Mobile Application's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Mobile Application, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Mobile Application has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Mobile Application content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Mobile Application users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Mobile Application in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Mobile Application fail to ensure its Mobile Application is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to tops, bottoms, activewear, hoodies, knits, loungewear, coats, hats, belts, jewelry, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Seeks Denial of Caughey Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW CAUGHEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, and BRIDGECREST CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00264-DSC-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Defendants ask the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to enter an order denying class certification. In support of this motion, Defendants incorporate by reference the Bridgecrest is a licensed motor vehicle sales finance company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nYPxlw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew K. Stutzman, Esq. Christopher A. Reese, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-8000 Facsimile: (215) 564-8120 E-mail: astutzman@stradley.com creese@stradley.com BUILT BRANDS: All Discovery in Roach Class Suit Due August 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Malone Kristie Roach v. Built Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01161-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before June 5, 2026. Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before June 5, 2026. All discovery is to be completed on or before Aug. 31, 2026. Other than those mentioned above, motions are to be filed on or before Dec. 1, 2026. Built manufactures and distributes packaged food. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LW35fu at no extra charge.[CC] CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Control Egg Prices, Hudson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY HUDSON and AMY SPARROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.; ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.; VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC; HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC.; HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC, HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC.; HILLANDALE FARMS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC. d/b/a EXPANA; EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC.; UNITED EGG PRODUCERS; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02573-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for price fixing and information exchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, violations of state antitrust laws and unfair and trade practices laws, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs from at least as early as January 1, 2022. To effect their collusive increases, the Egg Producer Defendants supplied inflated assessments of egg prices to Urner Barry. Urner Barry then knowingly laundered these reports, publishing price quotes using the Egg Producer Defendants' subjective and deliberately skewed information along with data from its other subscribers. In this way, Urner Barry and Egg Clearinghouse, Inc. (ECI) not only incorporate but normalize and amplify price swings led by the largest-volume producers, who were conspiring together. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive practices, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is an egg producer, with its principal place of business in Ridgeland, Mississippi. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. is an egg producer, with its principal place of business in Seymour, Indiana. Versova Holdings, LLC is an egg producer, with its principal place of business in Sioux Center, Iowa. Hillandale Farms of PA., Inc. is an egg producer, headquartered in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC is an egg producer Hillandale Farms East, Inc. is an egg producer Hillandale Farms, Inc. is an egg producer Daybreak Foods, Inc. is an egg producer, with its principal place of business in Lake Mills, Wisconsin. Urner Barry Publications, Inc., doing business as Expana, is a publication company, with its principal place of business in Toms River, New Jersey. Egg Clearinghouse, Inc. is an egg producer, with its principal place of business located in Dover, New Hampshire. United Egg Producers is a national cooperative of egg farmers, with its principal place of business in Johns Creek, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: burt@whafh.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B. Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 Email: byrd@whafh.com CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Pinedo-Renteria Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Olivia Pinedo-Renteria, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, Service Corporation International, S.E. Funeral Homes of California, Inc., SCI Shared Resources, LLC, and Pierce Brothers Valhalla; and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25STCV29929 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12359. The Complaint alleges unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, seeks waiting time penalties, and wage statements penalties, and also seeks statutory penalties for multiple types of alleged violations, including: Failure to pay for all hours worked; Failure to all overtime owed; Failure to reimburse work-related expenses; Failure to provide compliant meal periods; and Failure to provide compliant rest periods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie M. Francis, Esq. Timothy S. Lauxman, Esq. Ashley V. Cheff, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 2555 East Camelback Road, Suite 1050 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 240-3000 Facsimile: (602) 240-6600 Email: cfrancis@taftlaw.com tlauxman@taftlaw.com ACheff@taftlaw.com CALIFORNIA NATURALS: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA NATURALS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10805 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://wearthepeace.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. WEAR THE PEACE CLOTHING, INC., operates the Wear The Peace online retail store, as well as the Wear The Peace interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal CALIFORNIA: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Mirabelli Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ ROB BONTA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Mirabelli, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for alleged violation of Free Speech Clause of First Amendment to U.S. Constitution and declaratory relief. On Dec. 22, 2025, Judge Roger T. Benitez entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, declaring constitutional rights, and granting a permanent injunction. The appellate case is entitled Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta, et al., Case No. 25-8056, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Charles S LiMandri, Esq. Jeffrey M. Trissell, Esq. Paul Michael Jonna, Esq. LIMANDRI & JONNA, LLP P.O. Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 - and - Peter Breen, Esq. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY 309 W. Washington Street, Suite 1250 Chicago, IL 60606 Defendants-Appellants ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, et al. are represented by: Darrell W. Spence, Esq. Kevin Lee Quade, Esq. AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 - and - Jennifer Ann Bunshoft, Esq. Julie Veroff, Esq. AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 CALIFORNIA: Williams Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid Denial by Feb. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAMS, TALIB (MARCELLE), et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09586-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order granting joint stipulation and order setting briefing schedule on motion for denial of class certification: 1. The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' motion for denial of class certification shall be due by Feb.6, 2026; and 2. The Defendant's reply shall be due by Feb. 20, 2026. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is the penal law enforcement agency of the government of California responsible for the operation of the California state prison and parole systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hquKyS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Orthwein, Esq. Alexander Brooks, Esq. ORTHWEIN LAW, PC 2323 Broadway Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 210-0889 Facsimile: (510) 217-3580 E-mail: jen@orthweinlaw.com abrookslaw@gmail.com - and - Anne Butterfield Weills, Esq. EmilyRose Johns, Esq. SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 E-mail: abweills@gmail.com emilyrose@siegelyee.com - and - Andrew Chan Kim, Esq. KIM LAW OFFICE Belmont, CA 94002-0432 Telephone: (650) 339-2005 E-mail: chan.a.kim@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey T. Fisher, Esq. John W. Faulconer, Esq. John Nam, Esq. Gurpreet Sandhu, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 300 S. Spring St. Los Angeles CA 9001 CALIFORNIA: Wins Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAMS, TALIB (aka MARCELLE), et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09586-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order granting the Defendants' administrative motion to seal portions of their motion to deny class certification and related documents. The Court finds Defendants demonstrated compelling reasons to seal the information requested and finds good caused to grant the motion. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is the penal law enforcement agency of the government of California responsible for the operation of the California state prison and parole systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TRlCGe at no extra charge.[CC] CARON TRANSPORTATION: Rodriguez Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01268 (D.N.M., December 19, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant to recover Plaintiff's overtime pay and all other available remedies under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked on several occasions as a truck driver for Caron, including six months in 2025. During his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 65–70 hours per week and was paid on an hourly basis with an additional "hitch incentive," but was not paid one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, asserts the complaint. Caron employs a large number of other truck drivers who are compensated in the same manner. The Plaintiff and many other truck drivers regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek within the State of New Mexico, yet were denied overtime compensation, alleges the complaint. Caron Transportation Systems USA, Inc. is a privately owned trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, Box # 201 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com CATALENT INC: Class Settlement in Warwick Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF WARWICK RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CATALENT, INC., JOHN CHIMINSKI, ALESSANDRO MASELLI, and THOMAS CASTELLANO, Case No. 3:23-cv-01108-ZNQ-JTQ (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Quraishi entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, approving form and manner of notice, and setting date for hearing on final approval of settlement. -- Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court preliminarily certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, the Settlement Class of: "All persons and entities who or which, during the period from Aug. 30, 2021, through May 7, 2023, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock or exchange-traded call options or sold the exchange traded put options of Catalent, Inc. and were allegedly damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families of any Defendant who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer, director, and/or control person of Catalent during the Class Period; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling or beneficial interest; (v) Catalent's employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity, in their capacities as such. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons or entities who or which timely and validly seek exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with the requirements set forth below and in the Notice. -- SEB Investment Management AB and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi are preliminarily certified as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The law firms of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP are preliminarily appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C. is preliminarily appointed as Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is scheduled to be held before the Court, either in person or remotely at the Court's discretion on June 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Catalent provides advanced delivery technologies and development solutions for drugs, biologics, and consumer health products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LbculA at no extra charge.[CC] CEBU LUXURY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Celeb Luxury, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00030 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://celebluxury.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Pittman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Pittman's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 5, Pittman attempted to purchase a hair-care conditioner from Celebluxury.com after searching on Google for online retailers offering professional haircare products. Pittman is interested in the products offered on Celebluxury.com, which are designed to refresh hair color, maintain vibrancy, and strengthen damaged hair. The website offers a variety of formulations to keep hair healthy and vibrant. However, Pittman alleges that she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. These barriers to access have denied her full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the Website, notes the complaint. For this reason, Pittman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Debbie Pittman is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Celeb Luxury, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of professional haircare products, including shampoos, conditioners, styling creams, color-care treatments, and related hair styling and maintenance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law CELSIUS NETWORK: Goines Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Taylor Goines, individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CELSIUS NETWORK, LLC, CELSIUS LENDING, LLC, CELSIUS KEYFI LLC, ALEXANDER MASHINSKY, SHLOMI “DANIEL” LEON, DAVID BARSE, and ALAN JEFFREY CARR,, Case No. 2:22-cv-04560 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10796-JLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Securities Exchange Act. Celsius Network LLC -- https://celsius.network/ -- was a cryptocurrency company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: 646-245-8502 Facsimile: 609-385-0745 Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com - and - Johnathan M. Zimmerman, Esq. Sean T. Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-223-6444 Email: jzimmerman@scott-scott.com smasson@scott-scott.com CERNER CORP: Inadequately Protects Sensitive Info, Tatum Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CARRINGTON TATUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC., and ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM SUNBELT HEALTHCARE CORPORATION d/b/a ADVENTHEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00010 (M.D. Fla., January 4, 2026) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants ("Data Breach"). The complaint relates that as part of its business, Advent receives and maintains the Sensitive Information of thousands of current and former patients. Plaintiff Tatum received care from Advent. As a condition of treatment with Advent, Plaintiff Tatum provided it with his Sensitive Information. Advent provided Cerner with Plaintiff's Sensitive Information. Thus, Cerner was granted access to and custody of Plaintiff's Sensitive Information. According to the complaint, Cerner informed Advent in March 2025, that Advent's current and former patients may have been affected by the Cerner Data Breach, which occurred as early as January 22, 2025. On October 31, 2025, Cerner provided Advent with a "list of patients whose information was included in the files involved in the incident." The types of personal information exposed included names, Social Security numbers and information typically found in a medical record, such as medical record numbers, diagnoses, medications, test results, images or treatment details. The complaint alleges that the Defendants deprived Plaintiff of the earliest opportunity to guard himself against the Data Breach's effects by continuing to fail to notify him promptly. As a result of the Breach, Plaintiff spent time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which includes time spent verifying the legitimacy of the Data Breach, self-monitoring his accounts and credit reports to ensure no fraudulent activity has occurred. Plaintiff Tatum has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from his Sensitive Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties and possibly criminals. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendants' possession. Plaintiff Carrington Tatum received care from and is an Advent patient. Cerner Corporation is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations. Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation is a large not-for-profit health care system that offers patient-centric clinical support services and access to coordinated, high-quality and cost-effective care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com CERNER CORP: J.S. Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ J.S., J.P., and T.S., by their parent and natural guardian, TONIQUE PROCTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION and CHILDREN'S NATIONAL HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04495 (D.D.C., December 23, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiffs' and all others similarly situated's highly sensitive personal and medical information entrusted to their electronic health record and data-hosting systems. According to the complaint, Cerner provided the EHR platforms and related data-hosting services used by Children's National Hospital, while Children's National collected, transmitted, and entrusted its patients' highly sensitive personal and medical information to those systems in connection with the provision of healthcare services. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to implement reasonable and industry-standard cybersecurity safeguards, failed to adequately monitor their networks, and failed to maintain sufficient protocols to secure Plaintiffs' and the Class' private information. These failures placed that information in a dangerously vulnerable position, rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals, says the suit. Cerner Corp. is a healthcare information-technology company that provides EHR platforms, data-hosting, and related services to healthcare institutions throughout the United States. Children's National Hospital is a healthcare provider headquartered in the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com CERNER CORPORATION: Magliozzi Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christian Magliozzi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., MedStar St. Mary's Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital of St. Mary's County, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10748 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01002 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3088 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: (206) 802-1272 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com - and - Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. 377 Northwest Patch Court Lee's Summit, MO 64081 Phone: (816) 656-1690 Email: vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com CHEWY INC: Loughry Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maryann Loughry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHEWY, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-4712 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-07426. On behalf of herself and a putative class, the Plaintiff asserts claims against Chewy for one count of Violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”). The Plaintiff alleges that Chewy unlawfully wiretapped her and other customers by “intercepting, capturing, and observing” their activities on Chewy’s online services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ezra D. Church, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007 Phone: (215) 963-5000 Fax: (215) 963-5001 Email: ezra.church@morganlewis.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL: McCoy Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. The case is styled as Jeremy McCoy, son behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02853 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- https://www.chipotle.com/home -- is an American multinational chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos, and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Jasso Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN JASSO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-10 (C.D. Cal., January 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of business, Chipotle receives the Private Information from individuals, such as Plaintiff and the Class, that seek employment at Chipotle. As a result of Chipotle's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected employee Workday accounts on or between October 9, 2025 and October 26, 2025, and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. The types of PII accessed and/or acquired in the Data Breach included highly sensitive information such as: Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and banking account numbers and routing numbers. Now, the Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems proper. Plaintiff Christian Jasso is a citizen of Joliet, Illinois. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is a fast casual Mexican restaurant chain that has more than 4,000 locations in the United States and employs tens of thousands of people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. Kevin S. Dicker, Esq. FORST LLP 10960 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 Facsimile: (424) 60-8504 E-mail: chris@forstllp.com kevin@frostllp.com CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Court Tosses Goldovsky Suit w/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX GOLDOVSKY, GLYNN FRECHETTE, JOHN KRUPEY and KRISTIN SCHARF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK, Case No. 4:25-cv-00923-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Brann entered a judgment granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant. The Defendant alleges a variety of defects in the Plaintiffs' complaint, including that it is barred by the statute of limitations; that Pennsylvania law should govern instead of Texas law; and, substantively, that the claim is deficient under either Pennsylvania or Texas law. The Court need not delve into the more substantive issues, as the complaint is barred by the Pennsylvania statute of limitations. The Court is sitting in diversity, as Plaintiffs' claims are brought under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiffs assert that the Court should not apply Pennsylvania's statute of limitations, pointing to a smattering of cases in other jurisdictions. The proper time to file suit in Pennsylvania would have been no later than May 3, 2024. The Plaintiffs instead filed the complaint on May 23, 2025, over two years later. Hence, the claim is untimely. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant for aiding and abetting violations of the Texas Securities Act. Citizens is a small regional bank. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u3FQ98 at no extra charge.[CC] CITIZENS & NORTHERN: Goldovsky Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX GOLDOVSKY, GLYNN FRECHETTE, JOHN KRUPEY and KRISTIN SCHARF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK, Case No. 4:25-cv-00923-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Brann entered an order: -- Granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss; -- Dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against Citizens & Northern Bank; and -- Dismissing as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. Citizens is a small regional bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8yOmlu at no extra charge.[CC] CNHI LLC: Mahaffey Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MAHAFFEY and IAN LAFARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CNHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01010 (M.D. Ala., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 27, 2025, and May 17, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. CNHI, LLC is a company that owns and operates local news, information, and advertising solutions businesses based in Montgomery, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, PC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Rabinowitz Files Suit Over Toothpaste's False Ad ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANA RABINOWITZ, SHANA DENNY, and YOLANDA PITRE, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY AND TOM'S OF MAINE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06996 (E.D.N.Y., December 19, 2025) arises from Defendants' false advertising claims on the packaging and labeling of their Tom's of Maine toothpaste. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs specifically relied upon representations made by Defendants that the product was "naturally sourced," "good for you," and created with "rigorous ingredient and packaging standards." However, the Plaintiffs did not receive the promised benefits or the total value of their purchase. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased the product had they known it was contaminated. They have been economically injured by Defendants' misrepresentations, which induced them to purchase the product at a premium. The Plaintiffs would purchase the product again if they were assured it was not contaminated by mold or bacteria, says the suit. Colgate-Palmolive Company manufactures, packages, distributes, markets, advertises, labels, and sells various consumer over-the-counter products throughout the United States, including toothpastes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Catherine H. Friesen, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 331-0100 E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com cfriesen@denleacarton.com - and - William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Ext 229 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com COLLARS & COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Collars & Company, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-04797 (D. Minn., Dec. 30, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.collarsandco.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers men’s clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, polos, sweaters, shirts, blazers, bottoms, outerwear, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com COUNTY TREE SERVICE: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Esteban Rodriguez Reyes, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. COUNTY TREE SERVICE, INC., an Illinois corporation, and NEDELJKO MIJIC, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-15771 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 30, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Based on his schedules, Plaintiff Rodriguez regularly worked between 55 and 75 hours in individual workweeks during the months of March through October, 2024. The Defendants paid Plaintiff Rodriguez on an hourly basis at the rate of $33.00 per hour with off-payroll company checks all at his straight-time hourly rate of pay. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other tree climbers, tree trimmers, drivers and non-exempt laborers at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in individual work weeks. The Defendants paid Plaintiff’s overtime compensable hours at his straight-time hourly rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a tree climber and tree trimmer at Defendants' tree care business from March, 2024 through October, 2024. The Defendant is engaged in selling and providing tree care services including, among other things, tree trimming, tree removal and disposal, land clearing, and related services to residential and commercial customers throughout the Chicago Metropolitan area including Cook, DuPage and Will Counties in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com COVENANT HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Information, Pineau Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GERARD PINEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVENANT HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10032 (D. Mass., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including personally identifiable information ("PII") like names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, and protected health information ("PHI") like health insurance information, medical record numbers, and treatment information, such as diagnoses and dates/types of treatment (PHI and PII together, "Private Information"). The complaint relates that by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Covenant assumed a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information with which it was entrusted against unauthorized access and disclosure through adequate security measures. Covenant is also aware that PII and PHI are highly valuable to cybercriminals, making it foreseeable that Covenant would be the target of a cyberattack. Despite Covenant's duty to safeguard the PII and PHI with which it was entrusted, and the foreseeability of a data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information stored by Covenant was accessed and acquired when it experienced a cyber security incident beginning on May 18, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach was not discovered until May 26, 2025, and it led to unauthorized access to Covenant's computer systems. The complaint alleges that Covenant did not report the Data Breach until July 2025, when it notified the Maine Attorney General's Office that it had experienced a breach resulting in the unauthorized access of the PII and PHI of 7,800 individuals. On December 31, 2025, Covenant updated its notification, revealing that the Data Breach actually impacted over 478,000 individuals. As a direct and proximate result of Covenant's failure to implement and follow basic, standard security procedures, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered harm and remain at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal activity--risks 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, says the suit. Plaintiff Gerard Pineau is a resident and citizen of the state of Maine. Defendant Covenant Health, Inc. is a Massachusetts-based health network that offers a broad spectrum of care and services. It operates three care hospitals, two independent living facilities, four assisted care facilities, ten skilled nursing facilities, 100 physician practices and clinics, and employs over 5,500 individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 970-8181 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CRATEJOY INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Phyllis Hampton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cratejoy, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-15757 (E.D. Wis., Dec. 30, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://cratejoy.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase subscription box offerings for lifestyle categories such as food and drink, beauty, wellness, children’s products, home, hobbies, and gifts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law DELTA AIR: Agrees to Settle Jet Fuel Dump Class Suit for $78.75MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Delta Air Lines has agreed to a $78.75 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the pilot of Delta Flight DL89, while enroute from LAX to Shanghai, jettisoned approximately 15,000 gallons of jet fuel in response to an emergency mechanical problem over a densely populated area of California on January 14, 2020. The Delta Air Lines settlement agreement received preliminary approval from the court on November 13, 2025, and covers anyone who owned, resided in, or rented one of the properties listed as affected residences in a list prepared by John A. Kilpatrick, a named plaintiff and "Class real estate expert," per the case. The court-approved website for the Delta class action settlement is DL89Settlement.com. According to the settlement website, Delta Air Lines settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment, which will be calculated based on the total number of valid claims. Per settlement documents, class members with a valid claim form must provide documentation proving they were either the owner or resident of a 1-4 unit residential property on January 14, 2020. The settlement fund will be divided between property owners and residents, the agreement outlines, with approximately 67 percent distributed to property owners and 33 percent to residents. Consumers who are unsure if they are included in the Delta settlement may use this tool provided on the settlement site to view a map of covered areas and look up their address to determine eligibility. Those who have any difficulty determining their eligibility, or who have other questions about the settlement, may also contact the settlement administrator to receive more information. Settlement class members can elect to receive their settlement payout via electronic payment, a prepaid credit card, or a check, which must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration, the agreement says. To submit a claim form online, class members can head to this page of the settlement website and select the applicable claim type for their filing. Notably, only those submitting owner claims need the unique claim ID and PIN found in the settlement notice, and those submitting residential settlement claims may proceed without a login ID. Class members who prefer to submit a claim by mail can download the claim form as a PDF here, complete it, and return it to the address of the settlement administrator provided on the first page of the document. All Delta settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 6, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the Delta settlement at a hearing on May 18, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed after the settlement receives final approval and all appeals are resolved. The Delta Air Lines class action lawsuit alleged that on January 14, 2020, Delta Flight DL89 expelled approximately 15,000 gallons of jet fuel onto a residential area after a compressor stalled in one engine shortly after takeoff. The complaint argued that "(t)he decision to dump the fuel at a low altitude over a highly populated area is highly unusual, and uncalled for." A study commissioned by Delta in March 2025 revealed that the soil in the residential areas sustained "far less than the maximum amount" of jet fuel exposure deemed environmentally safe and that any contaminants dispatched by DL89 in January 2020 would not have been detectable in the soil within an hour after release. [GN] DIRECTTOU LLC: $1.58M Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Jan 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that DirectToU LLC has agreed to a $1,577,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the company shared consumers' personal information with Meta, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The DirectToU class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 22, 2025. The class action settlement covers all United States residents who purchased a video or video game from DirectToU, or signed up to receive updates about videos or video games from DirectToU, and about whom information that identified them as having requested or obtained specific video materials from DirectToU may have been disclosed to a third party between August 8, 2022 and September 22, 2025. The court-approved website for the DirectToU class action settlement can be found at VPPASettlement.com. Settlement class members who received notice about the deal and submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a pro rata (equal share) one-time cash payment from the settlement fund of approximately $60 to $145. Settlement documents explain that the final amount awarded to each class member will be determined after the number of valid claims is tallied. In addition to cash payments, the settlement agreement also requires DirectToU to modify the Meta Pixel settings on its website so that specific products and customer transactions are no longer shared with Facebook. Furthermore, DirectToU must cease sharing any information about customer transactions with third parties except as permitted under the VPPA, court documents relay. To submit a DirectToU claim form online, class members can go to this page on the settlement website and enter their unique notice ID and confirmation code, as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Class members who prefer to file a claim form by mail can download the claim form and mail it to the contact address listed on the settlement website. All DirectToU settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 20, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the DirectToU settlement at a hearing on January 28, 2026. Settlement benefits typically begin to be distributed to eligible class members after a deal has received final court approval and any appeals are resolved. The DirectToU class action lawsuit alleged that customers' transaction activity and identifying information were transmitted to Facebook by a Meta Pixel embedded in its website, in violation of the VPPA. The VPPA prohibits video and video game merchants from disclosing personally identifying information about consumers without their explicit consent. [GN] DOLLAR TREE: Mendez Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JESUS MENDEZ on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dollar Tree, Inc., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV479544, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-10896 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Mendez seeks to represent a nationwide class comprised of "All United States residents who accessed the Website and had their identifying information and website behavior data collected by the Trackers without consent and/or despite declining consent two years prior to the filing date of this Complaint through the date of an order granting class certification and/or a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement." Dollar Tree, Inc. formerly known as Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason D. Russell, Esq. Hillary A. Hamilton, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 E-mail: jason.russell@skadden.com hillary.hamilton@skadden.com - and - James Y. Pak, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 525 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 470-4500 Facsimile: (650) 470-4570 E-mail: james.pak@skadden.com DYSON DIRECT: Fact Discovery in Tevis Suit Due June 26 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY ELLEN TEVIS, v. DYSON DIRECT, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00821-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed no later than June 26, 2026. The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than July 17, 2026. By Feb. 27, 2026, all parties shall file with the Court a brief Joint Mid-Discovery Statement summarizing the current status of discovery proceedings. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before Oct. 30, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Dec. 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before May 21, 2027 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than July 8, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. The final pretrial conference is set for Sept. 30, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. Dyson manufactures vacuum cleaners and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8FZ8hn at no extra charge.[CC] EIDP INC: Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery as to DuPont Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS RYAN, et al., v. EIDP, INC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-40026-MRG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Guzman entered an order granting DuPont Entities' motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional discovery as to the DuPont Entities. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden on establishing this Court's personal jurisdiction over the DuPont Entities, and the motion to dismiss, is granted. As the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, it declines to reach the merits of the DuPont Entities' motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, the Court finds that jurisdictional discovery is not warranted in this matter, and Plaintiffs' motion as to the DuPont Entities is denied. The Plaintiffs, residents of Westminster, MA, bring this putative class action lawsuit to recover damages for the contamination of their groundwater, which was allegedly caused by the decades long improper disposal of wastes containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances and their constituents (collectively referred to as "PFAS") at the MassNatural recycling and composting facility in Westminster, Massachusetts. PFAS are used in many commercial products due to their ability to repel water, dirt, oil, and grease, resist heat and protect surfaces. PFAS also resist biodegradation and are water soluble, making them mobile in groundwater and the environment. EIDP is a multinational chemical corporation. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hx6kxc at no extra charge.[CC] EIDP INC: NEFCO Defendants Bid to Dismiss Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS RYAN, et al., v. EIDP, INC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-40026-MRG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Guzman entered an order granting in part and denying in part NEFCO's motion to dismiss. -- The motion is granted as to Synagro for both lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; accordingly, such dismissal is on the merits, with prejudice on all counts. -- As to the remaining NEFCO entities, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. - The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) is denied. - The Court rules as follows regarding the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6): - The motion is denied as to Count XVII (medical monitoring) and Count XVIII (negligence). - The motion is granted with prejudice as to Count XIX (private nuisance), Count XX (public nuisance), and Count XXI (willful/wanton conduct). - The motion is granted without prejudice as to Count XXII (Chapter 21E § 5). Finally, the Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery as to the NEFCO entities is denied. The Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Synagro was involved or otherwise assumed liability for NEFCO's alleged conduct during the relevant timeframe. Accordingly, the Court also GRANTS with prejudice Synagro's motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6) as to all counts. The Plaintiffs, residents of Westminster, MA, bring this putative class action lawsuit to recover damages for the contamination of their groundwater, which was allegedly caused by the decades long improper disposal of wastes containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances and their constituents (collectively referred to as "PFAS") at the MassNatural recycling and composting facility in Westminster, Massachusetts. The present action ("Ryan II") is the second lawsuit in a related action stemming from the same underlying facts, see Ryan v. The Newark Grp., Inc., Case¸No. 4:22-cv-40089 ("Ryan I"), and the two actions have been consolidated for case management purposes. PFAS are used in many commercial products due to their ability to repel water, dirt, oil, and grease, resist heat and protect surfaces. They also resist biodegradation and are water soluble, making them mobile in groundwater and the environment. EIDP is a multinational chemical corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lb0U9s at no extra charge.[CC] EL CAMINO ASPHALT: Zuniga Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leopoldo Zuniga, individually and for others similarly situated v. EL CAMINO ASPHALT PAVING CORP. a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01528318-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02878. The Complaint asserts one cause of action for alleged PAGA violations for Defendant's alleged failure to adhere to specific requirements under the Cal. Labor Code including: Labor Code 510, 1194 and 1198 for Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with overtime and minimum wages; Labor Code 226.7, 512, and 1198 for Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with all required meal periods or with one hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation for each meal period that was not provided; Labor Code 226.7, 512, and 1198 for Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with all required rest breaks or with one hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation for each rest period that was not provided; Labor Code 226, 226.3, 1174.5, and 1198 for failure to maintain records and provide accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees; and Labor Code 203 for Defendant's failure to pay all wages upon termination, resignation, or end of employment as a result of failure to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked and meal and rest period penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erick J. Becker, Esq. Garrett M. Fahy, Esq. Hwui Lee, Esq. CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP 2424 S.E. Bristol Street, Suite 300 Newport Beach CA 92660-0764 Phone: (940) 852-1800 Facsimile: (949) 852-8510 Email: ebecker@cwlawyers.com gfahy@cwlawyers.com hlee@cwlawyers.com - and - Eric A. Welter, Esq. WELTER LAW FIRM, P.C. 20130 Lakeview Center Plaza, Suite 400 Ashburn, VA 20147 Phone: (703) 435-8500 Fax: (703) 435-8851 Email: eaw@welterlaw.com EMBLEMHEALTH INC: APA Files Class Action Over Ghost Networks ------------------------------------------------------------ The American Psychiatric Association filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against EmblemHealth, Inc., and EmblemHealth Plan, Inc., on behalf of both APA members and a proposed class of impacted patients and families. The complaint alleges that EmblemHealth has harmed New Yorkers by offering a "ghost network" of behavioral health providers: a directory with inaccurate listings and unavailable clinicians. Ghost networks mislead individuals and obstruct their ability to find in-network care, forcing many to pay more for out-of-network care, or to delay or forgo mental health treatment altogether. The complaint alleges that Emblem's inaccurate and misleading provider directory constitutes unlawful deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and violations of statutory and regulatory requirements. It also alleges that their provider directory violates federal trademark law by falsely advertising and misusing the names, identities and reputations of mental health clinicians. EmblemHealth is the state's largest health care plan, serving three million individuals. In 2023, the New York Attorney General issued a report entitled "Inaccurate and inadequate: Health plans' mental health provider network directories," which documented that while New Yorkers were struggling with a behavioral health crisis, many health insurance plans, among them EmblemHealth, were providing out-of-date and inaccurate clinician listings to their customers. The complaint cites several cases of individuals who sought mental health care in New York through EmblemHealth for months or even years unsuccessfully, while attempting to utilize their provider directories for in-network care. The complaint also alleges that EmblemHealth misrepresents nurse practitioners as psychiatrists, repeats the same names/entities multiple times to enhance the number of clinicians, and includes clinicians who have not agreed to be part of their network. "When insurance companies use ghost networks, they are not only reaping profits by misleading consumers, but they are also hurting people who are in need of mental health care," said APA President Theresa Miskimen Rivera, M.D. "So often we hear heart-wrenching stories of people calling through insurance provided clinician lists for weeks or months and reaching dead ends, unable to secure timely access to necessary psychiatric treatment. Rest assured that the APA will continue to advocate on this front." In addition to impacting patient access, the complaint alleges that EmblemHealth is harming clinicians' reputations by listing them in provider directories when they do not accept the plan's insurance or do not practice at the locations where they are listed. In some cases, clinicians are unaware of their listing in the directories and have not consented to inclusion. "The impact of ghost networks is widespread and harmful," said APA CEO and Medical Director Marketa M. Wills, M.D., M.B.A. "Not only does this practice hurt patients and families who are seeking care, but it also harms clinicians dedicated to helping these individuals. They get phone calls asking for help and then have to explain that they are not, in fact, part of the Emblem network." APA is joined in this lawsuit by New York State Psychiatric Association and Milen Byene, Valeria Calderon, Elizabeth Canty, Bonnie Doris Elliott, Daniel Riccobono, and Nimrod Shimrony, and is being represented by Sarah Haviv Mark of Mark Health Law PLLC, Caroline E. Reynolds and Jason Cowart of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, D. Brian Hufford of The Hufford Law Firm, PLLC, and Raphael Janove of Janove PLLC. American Psychiatric Association The American Psychiatric Association, founded in 1844, is the oldest medical association in the country. The APA is also the largest psychiatric association in the world with more than 39,200 physician members specializing in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and research of mental illnesses. APA's vision is to ensure access to quality psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. For more information, please visit www.psychiatry.org. [GN] FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Sued Over Loan Originator Kickback Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for MPA Mag, reports that a loan originator allegedly steered customers to her husband's construction company while working at the lender financing those same deals. That is the crux of a federal class action filed late last month against Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation and Hallmark Home Mortgage, painting a picture of an alleged years-long scheme that left roughly 100 families with unfinished homes and mortgages on properties that may never be completed. The lawsuit, filed December 29, 2025, in the Middle District of Florida, centers on Catalina Rebolledo, a mortgage loan originator at Hallmark. According to the allegations, Rebolledo processed construction loans for customers sent her way by Steel X Homes, a company run by her husband, Richard Rivera, and his partner Paavo Salmi. The marital connection, the lawsuit claims, was deliberately hidden from borrowers. The arrangement worked like this: Steel X marketed itself as a builder capable of delivering prefabricated homes in under a year, despite never holding a construction license. Prospective buyers were pointed toward Hallmark as the "preferred lender" and offered a 6% discount for using the company. But according to the lawsuit, Hallmark quietly inflated loan amounts by that same 6% and kicked the difference back to Steel X, a practice the plaintiff argues ran afoul of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The allegations do not stop there. Hallmark allegedly released construction draws to Steel X even when required building milestones had not been met. Rebolledo and other employees, the lawsuit claims, knew the benchmarks were fabricated but approved the disbursements anyway. Kaye Flanagan, then a Senior Vice President at Hallmark, is also named in the suit. In one instance, Flanagan allegedly directed contractors to strip steel materials from one job site and move them to another, then told the affected homeowners to file an insurance claim for the "stolen" goods. The scheme has already claimed at least one professional casualty. Alejandro Marriaga, the attorney who handled closings for these transactions, was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court in September 2025 after regulators found he transferred funds to Steel X without buyer authorization and concealed his ties to the company. When projects stalled, Hallmark allegedly gave borrowers a stark choice: refinance at higher rates and waive all claims, or face foreclosure. The lawsuit characterizes this as a final squeeze on already victimized customers. Fairway enters the picture through its acquisition of Hallmark in June 2025. The plaintiff argues Fairway inherited liability for its predecessor's conduct, while the deal allegedly left the original Hallmark entity unable to pay its debts. The case remains in its early stages, with no court rulings on the merits. But the allegations underscore what can go wrong when conflicts of interest go undisclosed and internal controls fail to catch fabricated construction benchmarks. Fairway operates nearly 50 branches across Florida. The proposed class includes all borrowers who obtained Hallmark loans tied to Steel X construction contracts. [GN] FANATICS INC: Faces Koester Suit Over Patron Protection Exclusion ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KOESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANATICS INC. and its SUBSIDIARIES, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-14106-FKB-APP (E.D. Mich., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Michigan Administrative Code Rules and all similar statutes in Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, and New York, breach of contract, statutory conversion, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Electronic Fund Transfers Act. The case arises from the Defendants' systemic failure to abide with internet sports and casino gambling in various states. According to the complaint, the Defendants chose not to include legally mandated patron protections within their online gaming platform which caused the Plaintiff's established limits and protections functionally useless. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit. Fanatics Inc. is an online gaming operator, headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. FARMERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Private Information, Nolan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAURA JUNE NOLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-12317 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to hold Defendants responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and over 1.1 million others due to Defendants' egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties (the "Data Breach"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their personal identifying information ("PII") to Defendants with the understanding that Defendants would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. On May 30, 2025, Farmers discovered that one of its third-party vendors--Salesforce--alerted it to suspicious activity involving an unauthorized actor accessing one of Salesforce's databases containing Farmers' customer information. The actual Data Breach occurred on May 29, 2025. The exposed data included PII, like names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information"). Exacerbating the injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants failed to provide timely notice to Plaintiff and Class Members, depriving them of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for years to come and now must constantly monitor their financial and other accounts for unauthorized activity, says the suit. Plaintiff Laura June Nolan is a resident and citizen of Glendale, California. Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Group, Inc. (together, "Farmers") offers several types of insurance, including homeowners insurance, auto insurance, and commercial insurance throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com - and - Daniel DeSantis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN CALIFORNIA LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 757-6022 Facsimile: (213) 757-6199 E-mail: DeSantisTeam@forthepeople.com FERMI INC: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Leading international securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fermi Inc. (NASDAQ: FRMI), certain of the Company's senior executives and directors, and underwriters of Fermi's Initial Public Offering after a significant stock drop resulting from potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Fermi, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/fermi-inc-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until March 6, 2026, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Fermi securities, as well as claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Fermi common stock pursuant and traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Lupia v. Fermi Inc., et al., No. 1:26-cv-00050. Why is Fermi Being Sued for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws? Fermi is an energy and AI infrastructure company that purportedly intends to build multiple, large scale nuclear reactors to support its own network of large, grid-independent data centers powered by nuclear and other energy to power AI companies. Fermi's first project is Project Matador, its flagship, first-of-its kind energy and AI infrastructure campus designed to provide dedicated power for AI workloads. Fermi completed its IPO in October 2025. In the IPO Registration Statement, Fermi represented that it "entered into a letter of intent . . . with an investment grade-rated tenant (the 'First Tenant') to lease a portion of the Project Matador Site . . . for an initial lease term of twenty years." The Company also represented there was strong demand for Project Matador and that construction of the facility would be funded by "tenant payments" and "lease agreements." Following the IPO, Fermi announced that the First Tenant entered into an Advance in Aid of Construction Agreement, through which it would advance up to $150 million to Fermi to fund Project Matador construction costs. As alleged, in truth, Fermi overstated tenant demand for Project Matador and misrepresented the agreement with the First Tenant. Why did Fermi's Stock Drop? On December 12, 2025, Fermi disclosed that "[o]n December 11, 2025, the First Tenant notified the Company that it is terminating the [Advance of Aid of Construction Agreement]" after "[t]he exclusivity period set forward in the letter of intent expired." Fermi also stated that it had "commenced discussions with several other potential tenants" and "continue[s] to negotiate the terms of a lease agreement at Project Matador" with the First Tenant. This news caused the price of Fermi stock to drop $5.16 per share, or more than 33%, from a closing price of $15.25 per share on December 11, 2025, to $10.09 per share on December 12, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/fermi-inc-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Fermi, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis; there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/fermi-inc-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Adam McCall, Esq. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP (212) 789-3619 adam@bfalaw.com Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/fermi-inc-class-action-lawsuit [GN] FIRST FOUNDATION: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to FirstSun ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- First Foundation Inc. (NYSE: FFWM) related to its sale to FirstSun Capital Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Foundation shareholders will receive 0.16083 of a share of FirstSun common stock for each First Foundation common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-foundation-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Exact Sciences Corporation (NASDAQ: EXAS) related to its sale to Abbott Laboratories. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Exact Sciences shareholders are expected to receive $105.00 per common share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 20 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/exact-sciences-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- The Brand House Collective, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBHC) related to its sale to Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Brand House shareholders are expected to receive 0.1993 shares of Bed Bath & Beyond common stock for each Brand House share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/the-brand-house-collective-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 21, 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 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC: Preston Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Orthopaedic Associates, P.A. The case is styled as Nancy Preston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Florida Orthopaedic Associates, P.A., Case No. 2025-14761-CIDL (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., Dec. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Florida Orthopaedic Institute -- https://www.fl-ortho.net/ -- is one of the largest and most respected orthopedic practices in the country providing comprehensive musculoskeletal care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA One West Las Olas Blvd Ste 500 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Ext 215 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC: Smith Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Orthopaedic Associates PA. The case is styled as Kristene Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Florida Orthopaedic Associates PA, Case No. 2025-14738-CIDL (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., Dec. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Business Tort." Florida Orthopaedic Institute -- https://www.fl-ortho.net/ -- is one of the largest and most respected orthopedic practices in the country providing comprehensive musculoskeletal care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com FLYING FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sanchez Due July 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILIAN SANCHEZ, v. FLYING FOOD GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09739-MWC-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a civil trial order as follows Trial: June 14, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. Final Pretrial Conference, Hearing June 4, 2027 at 1:30 on Motions in Limine: p.m. Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Feb. 20, 2026 Pleadings or Add Parties: Last Date to File Class Certification July 8, 2026 Motion: Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Dec. 18, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 22, 2027 Flying Food is a U.S. based and owned company providing authentic meals as well as logistics and digital services to the travel and retail industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1B2QUG at no extra charge.[CC] FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Herrera Files Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fyzical Acquisition Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fyzical Acquisition Holdings, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-03551 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Fyzical Acquisition Holdings, LLC is a leading franchisor and operator of physical rehabilitation centers specializing in balance therapy and wellness programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Appeals Motion to Remand Order to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN EWALT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to remand n the lawsuit entitled John Ewalt, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, is filed against the Defendants challenging three aspects of their subscriptions to the Columbus Dispatch, which is owned by GateHouse Ohio: (1) that their subscriptions were shortened based on premium-edition charges; (2) that the premium editions they received were, in their opinion, not sufficiently "premium" to justify their price; and (3) that subscribers who received paper bills (as opposed to those who received electronic bills or enrolled in EZ Pay) were charged paper-statement fees. On Mar. 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which Judge Michael H. Watson denied on Sept. 17, 2025. On Oct. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay pending petition to appeal denial of motion to remand, which Judge Michael H. Watson granted on Oct. 20, 2025. The appellate case is entitled John Ewalt, et al. v. Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., Case No. 25-4015, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on December 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN EWALT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd H. Neuman, Esq. ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN & ASHTON 10 W. Broad Street, Suite 2400 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-8500 Defendant-Appellee GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC. is represented by: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 GENERAC POWER: Court Narrows Claims in Dawson Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES W. DAWSON, JR., and EDMOND C. HILL, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., and GENERAC HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-02412-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order as follows: 1. The defendants' request for oral argument is denied. 2. The defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. 3. The plaintiffs' claims for Breach of Implied Warranty (Count II), Negligent Misrepresentation (Count III), Fraudulent Concealment and/or Misrepresentation (Count IV), Negligence (Count V), and Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count VI) are dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs' claims for Violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (Count VII), Violation of the Louisiana Consumer Protection Act (Count VIII), and Violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act (Count IX) are dismissed without prejudice. 4. This matter will proceed only on Count I (Breach of Express Warranty), only for the named Florida plaintiffs listed in paragraphs 18–56 of the Amended Complaint, only as to the 22kW and 24kW standby generator models, and only against the Defendant Generac Power Systems, Inc. The Clerk is directed to terminate the Defendant Generac Holdings, Inc. from this action. 5. The plaintiffs' Motion for reconsideration of the order staying discovery is denied as moot. The parties are directed to file an amended Case Management Report no later than Jan. 9, 2025. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Generac Power Systems, Inc., and Generac Holdings, Inc., alleging that defendants marketed and sold them defective generators. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action based on the alleged defects in Generac's generators and, under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), seek to certify both a nationwide class and individual state subclasses of "Owners and purchasers of standby generators models ranging from 18Kw to 48Kw in Generac’s product series ('Class Members'), which are supposed to provide consumers with automatic backup power to their homes, that were manufactured, designed, marketed, warranted, and/or sold to consumers from 2020 to 2024 (the 'Class Generators')." Generac is a corporation that designs, manufactures, markets, and sells commercial and residential generators and power supply products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v03RSk at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL DYNAMICS: Class Cert Discovery Continued to April 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA B. LOPEZ and CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC. and DAVID AIMILIOS, Case No. 3:24-cv-01743-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to continue discovery cutoff and the Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification. The Court orders as follows: 1. The deadline to complete discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, is continued from March 13, 2026, to April 22, 2026; and 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification, is continued from April 10, 2026, to May 20, 2026. General is a technology and professional services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BsbNjZ at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL DYNAMICS: Lopez Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA B. LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01743-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. The deadline to complete discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be continued 40 days from March 13, 2026, to April 22, 2026; and 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification, shall be continued 40 days from April 10, 2026, to May 20, 2026. The Defendant is technology and professional services company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0edeAy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Sean P. Hardy, Esq. Andrew Weaver, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 3 55 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-21 E-mail: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com sean.hardy@thesentinelfirm.com andrew.weaver@thesentinelfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. Hailey A. Phelan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: (714) 830-0600 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com hailey.phelan@morganlewis.com GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Suit Over Air Filled Cereal Boxes ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that General Mills has deceived consumers by packaging its Fruity Cheerios cereal in oversized boxes containing bags that are filled mostly with air, known as "slack-fill." The 13-page false advertising lawsuit contends that General Mills has scammed consumers by selling a product packaged with more empty space and less cereal than buyers are led to believe. Specifically, in the case of the Fruity Cheerios box bought by the plaintiff, the suit relays that the product's internal plastic bags are filled to only a "little [sic] more than half of their capacity" with cereal. This is because the packaging contains a significant amount of "slack-fill," the case continues, which consumers cannot see or feel as the outer cardboard box is stiff and opaque. Consumers, the complaint explains, rely heavily on product packaging and labeling before the point of purchase, and often make the fair assumption that the size of a product's container will be proportionate to the amount of product they will receive. Because General Mills used a box much larger than necessary for the amount of cereal within it, the case claims, consumers were preyed upon as they believed the package would be full. "Even if consumers had a reasonable opportunity to review, prior to the point of sale, other representations of quantity, such as net weight or serving disclosures, they did not and would not have reasonably understood or expected such representations to translate to a quantity product meaningfully different from the size of the package," the case argues. Though there are statutory exceptions to slack-filled products as far as product protection and insulation purposes, the complaint relays that the empty space in the Fruity Cheerios box is "nonfunctional" as the contents of the product would not be damaged or affected in its absence. The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased a box of Fruity Cheerios out of a genuine desire to try the cereal and because they are a consumer rights tester who investigates products to ensure compliance with California law. The General Mills slack-fill class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who purchased Fruity Cheerios in California during the four years prior to filing of the lawsuit. [GN] GENFOOT AMERICA: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Genfoot America, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15789 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://us.kamik.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Youngren and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Youngren has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. Youngren wanted to purchase durable outdoor footwear and decided to explore stores that offer rubber boots available for online order. On July 4, 2025, during his search, Youngren came across the Defendant's Website, which is known for offering durable and weather-resistant footwear designed for outdoor use. After reviewing the company's positive ratings and reading customer reviews praising the comfort, waterproof quality, and long-lasting durability of its products, Youngren decided to explore the website's outdoor footwear collection with the intent to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website using his screen reader, Youngren encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his ability to proceed. These access barriers that Youngren encountered have caused a denial of Youngren's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Youngren on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Website in the future, adds the complaint. Youngren seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Dustin Youngren is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Genfoot America, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase to explore a variety of winter boots, rain boots, snow boots, waterproof shoes, sandals, slippers, and footwear accessories for men, women, and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law GEODIS LOGISTICS: Villalobos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SORIFER VILLALOBOS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. GEODIS LOGISTICS LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company; VENUS STAFFING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2532546, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03502 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Unfair Competition Law. Geodis Logistics LLC provides supply chain management solutions. The Company offers solutions including transportation, warehousing, customs brokerage, freight forwarding, and import and export consulting services.[BN] Defendant Geodis Logistics LLC is represented by: Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. Peter J. Choi, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: trusche@mcguirewoods.com pchoi@mcguirewoods.com GERBER LIFE: Bid to Decertify Class Tossed ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE, et al., v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 7:20-cv-03254-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Karas entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to decertify, and denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file a reply . The Clerk of Court is directed to close the pending motions. Because no new development since the Court's order certifying the class justifies decertification, and the Court's predominance determination remains appropriate, the Court denies the motion. Even if the summary judgment order introduced a new development that merited revisiting the Court's certification order, the voluntary payment doctrine or allegations about this advertising scheme would not preclude a finding of predominance here. The Plaintiffs allege two of Defendant's insurance policies—the Grow-Up Plan and the College Plan (the "Plans")-were deceptively marketed to consumers, violating New York's General Business Law and constituting fraudulent inducement. The Court certified a class of certain holders of the Plans on September 27, 2024. The Defendant sought interlocutory review from the Second Circuit, which the Circuit denied on March 28, 2025. Gerber provides juvenile and family life insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w6EK0O at no extra charge.[CC] GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Harris Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Detwan Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 25CV152940 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-11106. The Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant violated the California Labor Code involve various rights that “exist solely as a result of the CBA” and/or are “inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract.” Allis-Chambers. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks damages and statutory penalties under the California Labor Code, based on the following alleged violations: failure to provide compliant meal periods; failure to provide compliant rest periods; failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to pay all overtime owed; suitable seating violations; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com - and - Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com GIG PHARMACY: Gioules Files Class Suit Over FLSA Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Nick Gioules on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. GIG PHARMACY INC. d/b/a Gig Pharmacy, MOSHOLU PHARMACY INC. d/b/a Mosholu Pharmacy, PEACE PHARMACY INC. d/b/a Peace Pharmacy, RX SOLUTIONS PHARMACY INC. d/b/a RX Solutions Pharmacy, Samuel Obeng, Jeffrey Sarkodie, Kwasi Sarkodie, and Linda Boampong, Defendants, Case No. 800108/2026E (Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., N.Y., January 3, 2026) is a class action seeking employment claims and wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint alleges that a network of pharmacies operating as joint employers violated labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, maintain proper payment records and circumvent wage requirements through split payment methods. Plaintiff Nick Gioules worked for Defendants. Defendants GIG PHARMACY INC., MOSHOLU PHARMACY INC., PEACE PHARMACY INC., and RX SOLUTIONS PHARMACY INC. operate pharmacies in New York. Defendants Samuel Obeng, Jeffrey Sarkodie, Kwasi Sarkodie, and Linda Boampong are alleged to be high‑ranking officials of the defendant pharmacies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355, US Telephone: +1 718-762-1324 GOLD STAR: Recalls FDA-Regulated Products Due to Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Gold Star Distribution Inc. is recalling all products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that are held at its facility. Why: The recall is due to potential contamination from rodents and birds. Where: The recall affects products distributed in Minnesota, Indiana and Illinois. Gold Star Distribution has issued a recall for all FDA-regulated products stored at its Minneapolis facility due to potential contamination from rodents and birds. The FDA recall, announced on Dec. 26, 2025, involves a wide range of products, including drugs, such as Advil, medical devices, cosmetics, dietary supplements, human food and pet food. The FDA identified insanitary conditions at the facility, including rodent excreta and bird droppings, which pose a significant risk of contamination with harmful microorganisms. The recall affects products distributed to various stores across Minnesota, Indiana and Illinois. According to the FDA, the presence of rodent and avian contamination can lead to serious health risks, including Salmonella infection. "Products held under insanitary conditions may become contaminated through contact with contaminated surfaces or exposure to airborne particulates associated with animal waste," the recall states. Contamination risks prompt urgent recall of FDA-regulated products Gold Star is advising consumers and retailers to destroy the affected products immediately and provide proof of destruction to receive refunds. Consumers who have the affected products should discontinue use immediately and return them to the place of purchase or discard them, the recall notice says. The company is also urging consumers to contact their healthcare providers if they experience any adverse reactions after using the recalled products. Gold Star Distribution is actively working to address the issue by recalling all affected products and ensuring that consumers are informed about the potential risks. The company has provided a contact number for inquiries and is offering refunds upon request. Consumers can reach Gold Star at 612-617-9800 for more information. Gold Star Distribution says it has not received any reports of illness related to the recall so far. The company is not currently facing legal action over the recall, but Top Class Actions monitors recalls closely as they sometimes lead to class action lawsuits. [GN] HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Robinson Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ ROBIN ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-4308 (D. Md., December 31, 2025) arises out of the Defendant HCIactive's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The complaint relates that a data breach occurred on the Defendant's network between July 8, 2025 and July 12, 2025. On July 22, 2025, HCIactive became aware of suspicious activity related to its computer network. However, despite apparently learning of the Data Breach and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices to the victims of the Data Breach until December 9, 2025. Defendant's Notice specifically states that the Data Breach includes: name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, email address, health insurance information, and/or medical data. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included current and former clients' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's. The Plaintiff's and Class members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief from Defendant. Plaintiff Robin Robinson is a recipient of HCIactive's health administration & insurance services. Defendant Healthcare Interactive, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that empowers insurers to accelerate policy-to-market, deliver more innovative plans, and maximize customer retention.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com - and - 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 HERRMAN & HERRMAN: Joseph Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herrman & Herrman, PLLC. The case is styled as Anthony Joseph, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Herrman & Herrman, PLLC, Case No. 25-3807-CV-E (Tex. Dist. Ct., Guadalupe Cty., Dec. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Injury or Damage." Herrman & Herrman, PLLC -- https://www.herrmanandherrman.com/ -- is a full-service personal injury law firm serving those who have been injured through no fault of their own in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com HOMELIGHT INCORPORATED: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HomeLight Incorporated. The case is styled as Gina Johnson, Jessica McCammon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HomeLight Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-04981-DWL (D. Ariz., Dec. 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. HomeLight -- https://www.homelight.com/ -- is a real estate platform that helps you to purchase and sell homes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Kruzyk, Esq. Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq. PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Ste. 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Phone: (737) 310-3210 Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com HOYT ARCHERY: Controls Archery Equipment Prices, Goodall Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTEN GOODALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC D/B/A BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS, INC. D/B/A JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; NEUINTEL, LLC D/B/A/ PRICESPIDER F/K/A ORIS INTELLIGENCE; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; TRACKSTREET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-14094-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive agreement to artificially raise and maintain prices of archery equipment. According to the complaint, the Defendants colluded to implement and enforce minimum advertised pricing policies to create and maintain a supra-competitive price floor for all of their equipment. The Plaintiff and Class members have sustained injury to their property and suffered damages by having paid higher prices for archery equipment than they would have absent the Defendants' illegal, anticompetitive conduct. Hoyt Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. Bowtech, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Eugene, Oregon. Mathews Archery, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Sparta, Wisconsin. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc. is an archery equipment company with its primary place of business in Tucson, Arizona. Cabela's LLC is a retail company with its primary place of business in Sidney, Nebraska. DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. BPS Direct, LLC, doing business as Bass Pro Shops, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Springfield, Missouri. Jay's Sports, Inc., doing business as Jay's Sporting Goods, is a retail company with its primary place of business in Clare, Michigan. Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc. is a retail company with its primary place of business in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc. is an archery distributor with its primary place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Archery Trade Association is a trade group focused on the sports of archery and bowhunting with its primary place of business in New Ulm, Minnesota. TrackStreet, Inc. is a software provider with its primary place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. NeuIntel, LLC, doing business as PriceSpider, formerly known as Oris Intelligence, is a software provider with its primary place of business in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Wasvary, Esq. MARK K. WASVARY, PC 2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-5668 Email: mark@wasvarylaw.com - and - Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Email: jlichtman@lchb.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94101 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Will Hanna, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: whanna@hausfeld.com - and - David W. Kesselman, Esq. Abiel Garcia, Esq. Amy T. Brantly, Esq. KESSELMAN, BRANTLY, STOCKINGER LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 400 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 307-4555 Email: dkesselman@kbslaw.com agarcia@kbslaw.com abrantly@kbslaw.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. Julia C. Varano, Esq. GRABER LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com jvarano@grabarlaw.com HUGO BOSS: Asks 9th Circuit to Revive Bid to Dismiss Dilanyan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ HUGO BOSS FASHIONS, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Nikolay Dilanyan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05093-JLS-BFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending telemarketing messages at unlawful times. The appellate case is captioned Dilanyan v. Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc., Case No. 25-7951, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 19, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent NIKOLAY DILANYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Peng Shao, Esq. R23 LAW APC West Fifth Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (888) 533-2948 Defendant-Petitioner HUGO BOSS FASHIONS, INC. is represented by: Michael Dominic Meuti, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 4900 Cleveland, OH 44114 - and - Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Devalkeneer Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Beth Devalkeneer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES, INC., and HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 25CI05662 was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Westmoreland County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06189. The Plaintiff asserts a claim against Huntington for allegedly “wiretapping of electronic communications of visitors to Huntington’s website, www.huntington.com (“Website”), and all of the Website’s subpages.” The Plaintiff asserts claims against Huntington for violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act (the “PWA”) and the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Karla Johnson, Esq. McGUIREWOODS LLP Tower Two-Sixty 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 667-6057 Facsimile: (412) 402-4187 Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Theft Class Suit for $4.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that as part of a deal with 34 states and the District of Columbia, Hyundai and Kia have agreed to a $4.5 million settlement offering financial and repair benefits to individuals affected by the sale of vehicles that apparently lacked industry-standard theft technology. The Hyundai and Kia multistate immobilizer settlement covers all individuals who own or lease an eligible Hyundai or Kia vehicle and have experienced a theft or theft attempt after getting anti-theft software installed or while having an appointment scheduled for installation. The court-approved website for the Hyundai/Kia settlement can be found at HKMultiStateImmobilizerSettlement.com. To receive benefits from the deal, eligible class members must file a claim form online or by mail by March 31, 2027. According to the settlement website, the deal covers Hyundai and Kia models not equipped with engine immobilizers, including: -- 2018-2022 Hyundai Accent; -- 2011-2022 Hyundai Elantra; -- 2013-2020 Hyundai Elantra GT; -- 2013-2014 Genesis Coupe; -- 2018-2022 Hyundai Kona; -- 2020-2021 Hyundai Palisade; -- 2013-2022 Hyundai Santa Fe; -- 2013-2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport; -- 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe XL; -- 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata; -- 2011-2022 Hyundai Tucson; -- 2012-2017 Hyundai Veloster; -- 2019-2021 Hyundai Venue; -- 2014-2021 Kia Forte; -- 2021-2022 Kia K5; -- 2011-2020 Kia Optima; -- 2012-2021 Kia Rio; -- 2011-2021 Kia Sedona; -- 2021-2022 Kia Seltos; -- 2011-2022 Kia Sorento; -- 2020-2022 Kia Soul; and -- 2011-2022 Kia Sportage. To submit a Hyundai/Kia settlement claim form online or check a vehicle's eligibility, settlement class members can visit this page and enter their vehicle identification number (VIN), which the settlement website says is located "on a small placard on the top of the dashboard and is visible through the driver's side corner of the windshield or on a decal inside the driver side door jamb." The VIN also appears on the vehicle's title, registration card and likely on the vehicle insurance card, the site adds. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF claim form here for Kia owners and here for Hyundai owners, fill it out and return it by mail to the settlement administrator. Per the settlement website, consumers who experienced theft of a qualifying Hyundai or Kia vehicle are eligible to receive up to $4,500 for a total loss or $2,250 for a partial loss. Consumers who experienced an attempted theft of a qualifying vehicle are eligible to receive up to $375 for reasonable expenses incurred in response to the incident, the site relays. The website notes that to qualify, a theft or attempted theft must have occurred on or after April 29, 2025 but before March 31, 2027 or the date the vehicle received a free zinc sleeve installation, whichever is earlier. "Funds are limited and will be disbursed on a rolling basis until the limited fund is exhausted," the site stresses. "Once the funds are exhausted, no further claims will be paid, so please do not wait to submit your claim." A total loss has occurred when the qualifying vehicle has been wrecked, destroyed or damaged so severely by the theft that it would be impractical and prohibitively expensive to repair the car, settlement documents relay. The documents add that class members who have experienced a theft and are unable to recover the vehicle within three months are also covered under this category. Settlement documents define a partial loss as any uncompensated damage to an eligible Hyundai or Kia vehicle that does not qualify as a total loss. The Hyundai/Kia settlement claim form shares that class members seeking reimbursement after experiencing theft must provide documentation establishing proof of vehicle ownership, proof of a qualifying theft and proof of a total or partial loss. The website says that on top of reimbursement benefits, the deal provides class members with the opportunity to bring their vehicle to any authorized Hyundai or Kia dealership for free installation of a zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protector as a theft-prevention measure. Vehicles must be brought in for installation before the claim deadline of March 31, 2027. The Hyundai/Kia vehicle theft settlement was reached in the wake of a viral TikTok "challenge" involving users demonstrating how easy it was to steal certain Hyundai and Kia models. The Attorneys General of Vermont, 33 other states and the District of Columbia claimed that the vehicles at issue lacked critical anti-theft components, such as engine immobilizers and zinc sleeves. [GN] ISLANDWIDE SEAMLESS: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- MELVIN ANTONIO ROSA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISLANDWIDE SEAMLESS GUTTER & LEADER SYSTEMS, INC., and JEFFREY SILVERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06982 (E.D.N.Y., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a repair worker and laborer, while performing other miscellaneous duties, from in or around November 2017 until in or around October 2025. Islandwide Seamless Gutter & Leader Systems, Inc. is a company specializing in custom-fit gutter installation, repairs, cleaning, and screening in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 JAGUAR LAND: Must Pay $6.6MM Atty's Fee to Class Counsel -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORETTA FLYNN-MURPHY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-14464-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Arleo entered a judgment that Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representative service awards is granted as modified. The Defendants are ordered, in accordance with the Parties' settlement agreement, to pay Class Counsel $6.6 million in attorneys' fees, $171,502.81 for reimbursement of expenses, and $40,000 for class representative service awards The Court finds that the "size of the fund," as understood in light of the Parties' competing interpretations, does not undermine the reasonability of the requested attorneys' fees award. Other Gunter and Prudential factors also support the award's reasonability. The percentage-of-recovery cross-check therefore further supports the reasonability of the Fee Award. This is a consumer class action lawsuit related to defective turbochargers in certain vehicles sold, designed, marketed, and/or manufactured by the Defendants. The defective turbochargers can cause damage to the Class Vehicles' turbochargers and engines, requiring expensive repairs. The Settlement Class is defined as "All Persons who, as of the date of the execution of the settlement agreement, are current or former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle sold and registered in the District of Columbia or one of the fifty (50) states of the United States." Jaguar operates as an automotive company. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Dec. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Le57ZI at no extra charge.[CC] JP MORGAN: Kostiner Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- David Kostiner, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and DOES 1-50, Case No. 25STCV33918 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Marin, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-11120. On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Action to initiate proceedings in state court (the “State Court Action”). On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff served the Complaint on Chase via an authorized agent for service. Accordingly, Chase has timely filed this Notice of Removal within 30 days of service.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Arjun P. Rao, Bar No. 265347 Marcos Sasso, Bar No. 228905 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109 Phone: +1.310.907.1000 Fax: +1.310.907.1001 Email: arjun.rao@morganlewis.com marcos.sasso@morganlewis.com - and - Christina Chen, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: christina.chen@morganlewis.com JUSTANSWER LLC: Pappas Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as MICHAEL PAPPAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUSTANSWER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25SL-CC11896, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Twenty-First Judicial Circuit, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on December 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01865 to the proceeding. JustAnswer is an online service platform that connects users with experts across a range of fields to answer questions and provide information on a wide variety of topics. The Plaintiff is an alleged JustAnswer user who seeks to certify a class of all citizens of the State of Missouri who paid JustAnswer to answer a question and were automatically enrolled into a recurring monthly subscription. JustAnswer LLC, founded in 2003 and headquartered in San Francisco, California, operates in the Internet and eCommerce industry. The company provides a platform where users can connect with verified experts across various fields, such as law, medicine, veterinary care, and more, to get answers to their questions 24/7.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. Jeffrey R. Hoops, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com jhoops@dowdbennett.com KENVUE BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Baby Oil Labeling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Michael Douma is suing Kenvue Brands LLC, doing business as Johnson & Johnson. Why: Douma claims the company misrepresents the ingredients of its Johnson's Shea & Cocoa Butter Oil. Where: The Johnson's class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Kenvue falsely advertises its Johnson's Shea & Cocoa Butter Oil as being made from actual shea and cocoa butter oil. Plaintiff Michael Douma filed the class action complaint against Kenvue Brands d/b/a Johnson & Johnson on Dec. 3 in New Jersey federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Kenvue advertises its shea and cocoa butter oil product as being made primarily from shea and cocoa butter oil. However, the product actually contains less than 1% of these ingredients, with the majority of the product being composed of mineral oil, a petroleum byproduct, Douma says. Douma argues that Johnson & Johnson markets the shea and cocoa butter oil as a moisturizing baby oil, even though the product allegedly contains only trace amounts of the moisturizing agents. Consumers misled by Johnson's Shea & Cocoa Butter Oil, lawsuit claims Douma says Kenvue's misrepresentations are material to consumers, who specifically seek out products containing shea and cocoa butter for their moisturizing properties. As a result, consumers are misled into purchasing a product that does not deliver the promised benefits, the class action lawsuit claims. The lawsuit argues that Kenvue's labeling practices are unlawful under both state and federal law. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibits cosmetics from being misbranded, meaning the label contains a statement that is “false or misleading in any particular.” Similarly, Maryland law prohibits the misbranding of cosmetics and drugs, the class action lawsuit says. Douma is looking to represent anyone who purchased Kenvue's shea and cocoa butter oil product in Maryland during the four-year period preceding the filing of the complaint. The class action lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief to prevent Kenvue from continuing its allegedly deceptive labeling practices. In other litigations against Johnson & Johnson, a Minnesota jury has awarded a mother of three $65.5 million in a lawsuit over claims the company's talc products exposed her to asbestos and contributed to cancer in her abdominal lining. The plaintiff is represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC. The Kenvue class action lawsuit is Douma v. Kenvue Brands LLC d/b/a Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 2:25-cv-18129, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] LEASE CRUTCHER: Vesikuru Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOSIAH VESIKURU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEASE CRUTCHER LEWIS WA, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-13645-6, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma on December 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06145 to the proceeding. The complaint arises out of Plaintiff Vesikuru's employment with the Defendant, and alleges, among other things, causes of action for Defendant's: (a) failure to pay wages; (b) failure to ensure rest periods in violation of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act; and (c) failure to provide meal periods in violation of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act. Lease Crutcher Lewis WA, LLC provides construction services for a variety of commercial and institutional projects.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Darren A. Feider, Esq. Han Lee, Esq. SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES 15375 SE 30th Pl., Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98007 Telephone: (425) 454-4233 E-mail: dfeider@sbj.law hlee@sbj.law LES SCHWAB: Robles Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- The case JUSTIN ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2530864, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on December 19, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03471 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Central California, LLC is a company that sells tires, wheels, and offers auto services across the U.S., including California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq. Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 830-7200 Facsimile: (916) 561-0828 Email: bblackburn@littler.com njenkins@littler.com - and - Hovannes G. Nalbandyan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 Email: hnalbandyan@littler.com LIMITED RUN: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit for $2.72MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Limited Run Games agreed to a $2.72 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing consumer data with Meta. The Limited Run Games settlement benefits consumers who watched a pre-recorded video or purchased a video game containing cut scenes from Limited Run Games between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 20, 2025. Limited Run Games is a video game company that sells physical copies of digital games. The company also hosts video content on its website. According to a class action lawsuit, Limited Run Games violated the VPPA by sharing consumer data with Meta. The VPPA prohibits video providers from sharing information about what videos consumers watch without their consent. Limited Run Games has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.72 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Limited Run Games settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid for videos or video games containing cut scenes. Exact payment amounts will vary. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 20, 2026. The final approval hearing for the data privacy settlement is scheduled for March 11, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 20, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who, between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 20, 2025, accessed the Limited Run Games service and watched a video or purchased a video game containing a cut scene. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Claimants will need to provide their Limited Run Games account information, if known, and/or the Limited Run Games service URL of the video that was watched or the Limited Run Games service URL of the video game that was purchased, if known. 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 01/20/2026 Case Name Carbone, et al. v. Limited Run Games Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08861-AMD-JRC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Final Hearing 03/11/2026 Settlement Website LimitedRunGamesSettlement.com Claims Administrator Carbone v. Limited Run Games Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5931 (833) 621-6124 Class Counsel Adrian Gucovschi GUCOFSCHI ROZENSTEYN PLLC Mark S. Reich Michael N. Pollack LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP Defense Counsel Stanton R. Gallegos MARKOWITZ HERBOLD P.C. [GN] LYON REAL ESTATE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $637,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Lyon Real Estate has agreed to pay a $637,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging the real estate company failed to adequately safeguard personal client information from a targeted data breach between April 2023 and May 2023. The Lyon Real Estate class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 3, 2025 and covers approximately 7,287 individuals whose personally identifying information may have been compromised during the data breach, including those who received written notice of the breach from Lyons. The court-approved website for the Lyon Real Estate data breach settlement can be found at LyonDataIncidentSettlement.com. Per the settlement website, Lyon Real Estate settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form documented proof of out of pocket losses are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $10,000, the site relays. The settlement agreement explains that covered losses must have been incurred as a result of the 2023 data breach, and reimbursable expenses include costs related to credit monitoring, identity theft, and fraud. The settlement website states that class members may also elect to receive compensation for up to 10 hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach at a rate of $25 per hour, which is subject to the $10,000 cap outlined in the documented-loss reimbursement option. Further, class members who lived in California during the data breach may also receive an additional one-time cash payment of approximately $250 due to state-specific disclosure mandates, the agreement explains Finally, per the settlement website, class members are eligible to receive in addition to any monetary benefits an enrollment code for five free years of identity theft and fraud monitoring, which includes services such as three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. To submit a Lyon Real Estate 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 of the claim form from the settlement site to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator on the first page of the document. All Lyon Real Estate claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by February 2, 2026. A hearing to determine whether the court will grant final approval to the Lyon Real Estate settlement is scheduled for March 13, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval and any appeals are resolved. The Lyon Real Estate class action lawsuit claimed that the real estate company failed to implement reasonable security measures to prevent an April and May 2023 data breach that allegedly exposed the personal information of some clients, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. [GN] LZ77 LLC: Faces Gomez Suit Over Disabled People's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LZ77 LLC and PORTO SALVO CAFE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10552 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their property and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking and exterior routes, access to goods and services, and restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. LZ77 LLC is a commercial property owner and operator in Bronx, New York. Porto Salvo Cafe LLC is a commercial property owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria-Costanza Barducci, Esq. BARDUCCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 5 West 19th Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 433-2554 Email: MC@BarducciLaw.com MDL 3153: Lemon Suit Consolidated in Coinbase Data Breach Row ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Lemon v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al.," (C.A. No. 4:25-04172) from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Coinbase Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3153. The Plaintiff moved to vacate the order while defendants Coinbase Global, Inc., and Coinbase, Inc., opposed the motion and support transfer. In its order establishing MDL No. 3153, the panel held that the Southern District of New York was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions concerning allegations that a cybersecurity incident affecting Coinbase compromised Coinbase customers' personally identifiable information. Plaintiff in Lemon is a Coinbase customer who was tricked by cybercriminals into transferring his cryptocurrency assets from his Coinbase account into wallets controlled by the cybercriminals. Plaintiff alleges that he could not have been scammed but for the cybersecurity event affecting Coinbase. The panel concludes that the plaintiffs' allegations "raise common questions of fact, such as how and when the breach occurred, the sufficiency of Coinbase's data security practices, how and when Coinbase notified breach victims, and the nature of the alleged damages." The Plaintiff had argued that his action does not belong in the MDL because it involves unique facts. For example, he, unlike many of the MDL plaintiffs, can show actual financial loss. But this factual difference does not preclude transfer, rules the panel. Plaintiff's allegation that the Coinbase cybersecurity breach led to him getting scammed ultimately centers on the same factual core underpinning the claims in the MDL, the panel notes. Plaintiff's concession that his action shares common questions of fact with the actions in the MDL also mean that the action falls squarely within the MDL's ambit, adds the panel. The Plaintiff raised several procedural objections but none of which weigh heavily against transfer, states the panel. Lastly, the Plaintiff argued that transfer is unnecessary because discovery from the MDL can simply be reproduced to him. "That arrangement does not minimize the risk of duplicative discovery nearly so much as transfer does," the panel concludes. A full-text copy of the court's December 12, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3153-Transfer_Order-12-25.pdf MICHAEL KORS: Agrees to Settle False Advertising Suit for $1.99MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDEPOT reports that consumers who made a purchase at a Michael Kors Outlet store between May 10, 2019, and Nov. 14, 2025, may be eligible to claim a merchandise certificate worth $30 off a future in-store purchase from a class action settlement. Michael Kors (USA) Inc. agreed to pay up to $1.99 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in misleading advertising practices at its outlet stores. Who are the class members? The class includes all individuals in the United States who made a qualifying purchase at a Michael Kors Outlet store between May 10, 2019, and Nov. 14, 2025, that advertised discounts influenced. They also must not have received a refund or credit for the purchase. There are two main categories of class members: -- California or Oregon KORSVIP authorized claimants: These are KORSVIP account holders with a California or Oregon mailing address on file with Michael Kors who made a qualifying purchase at a Michael Kors Outlet store in California or Oregon during the class period. -- Nationwide authorized claimants: These are individuals who made a qualifying purchase at a Michael Kors Outlet store during the class period but do not meet the criteria for the California or Oregon KORSVIP category. How much is the Michael Kors payout? Eligible class members can receive a$30 merchandise certificate, which they can use toward a single purchase at any Michael Kors Outlet store. They can combine the certificate with other discounts available to the general public but cannot use it for cash, to purchase gift cards or combined with other merchandise certificates. It expires 90 days after issuance and has no residual value if used for a purchase less than $30. Here are the details for each category: -- California or Oregon KORSVIP authorized claimants: Automatically receive one $30 merchandise certificate if they do not opt out or object -- Nationwide authorized claimants: Must submit a valid claim form to receive one $30 merchandise certificate How to claim a merchandise certificate Nationwide authorized claimants can file a claim online or download, print and complete a PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: McCall et al., v. Michael Kors (USA) Inc., Case No. 25CU041352N, c/o Simpluris, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799. California or Oregon KORSVIP authorized claimants do not need to take any action; they will automatically receive their certificate if they do not exclude themselves or object. Required claim form information -- All claimants must provide their contact information, including their name, address, telephone number and email address, including information associated with any KORSVIP account they hold or held since May 10, 2019. -- All claimants must also attest that they made a qualifying purchase at a Michael Kors Outlet store during the class period and did not receive a refund or credit for the purchase. The settlement administrator or Michael Kors may verify claims. Payout options The settlement administrator will send merchandise certificates to eligible claimants. Those with an email address on file with Michael Kors will receive their certificate via email; all others will receive their certificate via mail. Certificates expire 90 days after issuance. Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will cover: -- Attorneys' fees and costs, class administration costs and named plaintiff settlement awards: Up to $2,000,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: The total amount of merchandise certificates distributed to the settlement class shall not exceed $7,600,000. Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: March 6, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: March 6, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: March 27, 2026 When is the Michael Kors Outlet settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute merchandise certificates 60 days after the final settlement approval date or April 1, 2026, whichever is later. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged that Michael Kors (USA) Inc. engaged in misleading advertising by promoting improper discounts at its outlet stores. The company denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability. Both sides agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of trial and to provide relief to class members sooner. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $30 merchandise certificate Deadline: March 6, 2026 [GN] MICROF LLC: Olivero Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- EDILBERTO OLIVERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROF LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07464-MHC (N.D. Ga., December 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable and financial information ("PII") of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: name and Social Security number. The complaint relates that in the course of its business, Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. On June 15, 2025, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's computer network, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information ("Data Breach Incident"). The full extent of the types of sensitive personal information, the scope of the breach, and the root cause of the Data Breach Incident is all within the exclusive control of Defendant and its agents, counsel, and forensic security vendors at this phase of litigation. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until December 23, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered actual and imminent injuries as a direct result of the Data Breach, including: (a) theft of their PII; (b) costs associated with the detection and prevention of identity theft; (c) costs associated with time spent and the loss of productivity from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate, mitigate, and deal with the consequences of the Data Breach Incident; (d) invasion of privacy; (e) the emotional distress and anguish, stress, and annoyance of responding to, and resulting from, the Data Breach Incident; (f) the actual and/or imminent injury arising from actual and/or potential fraud and identity theft posed by their personal data being placed in the hands of the ill-intentioned hackers and/or criminals; (g) damages to and diminution in value of their personal data entrusted to Defendant with the mutual understanding that Defendant would safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII against theft and not allow access and misuse of their personal data by others; and (h) the continued risk to their PII, which remains in the possession of Defendant, and which is subject to further breaches, so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The Plaintiffs, at the very least, are entitled to nominal damages, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Edilberto Olivero is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant Microf LLC provides HVAC system and water heating lease-to-own financing services to class members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A 520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com MICROF LLC: Yukna Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------- KRISTEN YUKNA, behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROF LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07434-MHC (N.D. Ga., December 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII") including their names, Social Security numbers, and/or financial information (e.g., account numbers and/or credit or debit card numbers) (collectively, "Private Information") from cybercriminals, resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving services, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Microf assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration. Despite this knowledge, Microf failed to implement adequate data security measures, resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. According to the Defendant's Notice Letters, Microf became aware of unusual activity on its systems on June 19, 2025. It was only after an investigation that Microf learned that its network was accessed without authorization between June 15, 2025, and June 19, 2025, and that files containing Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members may have been viewed or copied by an unauthorized actor. On December 23, 2025, roughly six months after the Breach occurred, Microf finally began to notify the victims that its investigation determined that their Private Information was potentially viewed and/or stolen. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Microf's negligent conduct, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or stolen during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Kristen Yukna is a citizen of Antioch, Illinois who has received a Notice Letter from Defendant dated December 23, 2025, notifying her that her name and Social Security number were compromised in the Data Breach. Defendant Microf LLC is a financial services firm specializing in lease-to-own solutions for HVAC and water heater systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: kbrian@sirillp.com MISSISSIPPI: Victims of Water Crisis Attempt to Revive Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Tynes of Courthouse News Service reports that residents of Jackson, Mississippi, fought to revive their class action against the city at the Fifth Circuit on Thursday, claiming they were denied due process in dealing with contaminated drinking water and inflated bills. The case stems from the city's long-running water crisis, which forced customers to endure lead contamination, low pressure, and outages while paying full rates and buying potable water from other sources. In the lawsuit, filed on behalf of potentially thousands of Jackson residents, they claim violations of procedural due process under the 14th Amendment and state breach of contract laws. Plaintiffs Clifton Jackson, Helen Noel, and William Noel initially said the city deprived them of a protected property interest by charging for undrinkable water without adequate hearings to address quality issues. U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate dismissed the case in March 2025, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing because their water service was never terminated and that administrative processes for billing disputes were sufficient. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend the Ronald Reagan appointee erred by ignoring concrete injuries like economic losses from buying alternative water and by denying leave to amend the complaint to include new facts from federal EPA interventions. Attorney Brent Hazzard, representing the plaintiffs, opened arguments by reserving time for questions and emphasizing candor. He said that, based on current understanding, the EPA and Jackson's water management have improved the water quality since the lawsuit was filed, underscoring the plaintiffs' injury, as ethical rules require revealing material facts only when real harm exists. Hazzard also stressed the case's ties to broader municipal mismanagement, including a failed $90 million contract with Siemens for meter upgrades that led to inaccurate billing. He referenced over 300 boil-water notices between 2020 and 2022, contaminants like E. coli, lead, and copper, and federal oversight that placed the system under a third-party manager. The appellants sought to add both the government and the manager as defendants in an amended complaint, which the district court rejected as futile. Hazzard noted the city's counsel did not oppose adding these parties and pointed to a recent ruling in a related case before Wingate, where intervenors delayed proceedings due to evolving EPA plans. "Three years ago, no one knew how EPA or Jackson Water was going to work because this was unprecedented," he said. Responding to questions from U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson about the adequacy of administrative hearings, Hazzard argued the processes were limited to billing errors and excluded water quality complaints. "Jackson residents have faced not only problems with inaccurate billing, but also with the quality of drinking water, issues such as lead contamination, aging infrastructure and serious disruptions," Hazard said. Yet, he claimed, the lower court applied improper evidentiary standards under, ignoring accusations in the complaint. "The administrative judge had nothing to do with that." Hazard also detailed the plaintiffs' experiences: Rev. Clifton Jackson faced a $5,000 bill and termination notice, partially forgiven but not fully refunded, while the Noels received a $1,159 credit after a hearing that ignored quality issues. Hazzard argued this violates precedents that protect against utility deprivations without process. He analogized contaminated water to moldy bread, implying customers at a bakery would not be obligated to purchase a similarly defective product. For the city of Jackson, attorney Drew Martin countered by focusing on the complaint's specifics, urging the court to stick to procedural due process rather than substantive issues in other litigation. He described the claims as a "moving target," noting the original complaint centered on billing, where plaintiffs succeeded in hearings — one getting a leak-related credit, the other unspecified relief. Martin argued no deprivation occurred without service termination, as required by precedent. "There wasn't ever a termination of water, there wasn't ever a termination of utility services," he noted, dismissing quality complaints as customer disputes, not constitutional violations. "The plaintiffs paid their water bills voluntarily. They paid it for utility service. They received utility service, and that's all it is. The rest of this, frankly, is customer disputes." Addressing Higginson's hypothetical about lead-contaminated water like in Flint, Michigan, Martin conceded potential tort or contract claims but insisted the plaintiff's complaint lacked specifics. "What we don't have here is specific factual pleadings beyond brown water and metal flecks were found in the filter," Martin said. "They said it was not drinkable, but they didn't say why." He noted plaintiffs never filed complaints to public works or tested their water, while the utility's quarterly reports voluntarily provided contaminant info. "There is no constitutional property interest in a perfect utility being provided," Martin concluded. "Power goes out, water services get disrupted. It happens, and it happened in Jackson." In rebuttal, Hazzard reiterated the amended complaint's details: "undrinkable water, water with contaminants, water with disease causing organisms." He highlighted efforts to inspect plumbing, canceled by the lower court judge, and argued the termination notice to Jackson satisfied standing thresholds. Higginson is an appointee of Barack Obama. The panel also included U.S. Circuit Judges Priscilla Richman and Andrew Oldham, appointees of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively. No decision was issued; the court will rule later. [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Hunter Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louisa Hunter, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-528 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: Jones Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale --------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Jones, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-500 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: Levi Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Levi, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-492 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: McCarthy Sues Over Negligent Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- Anita McCarthy, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-518 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: Morrison Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Morrison, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-478 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: Muir Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Muir, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-484 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: Nagy Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Nagy, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-472 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: Navales Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Navales, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-509 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: Nienkamp Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- William Nienkamp, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-533 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: Sued Over Negligent Advertising of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffery Williams, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-474 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: Whalen Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Suzanne Whalen, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-471 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: Wheeler Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Wheeler, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-494 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: Williams Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Williams, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-532 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 MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Haff Poultry Suit Transferred to D. Utah --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, James Michael Mercer, Jonathan Walters, Marc Mcentire, Karen Mcentire, Daniel W. Gaines, Jr., and all others similarly situated v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., and ALLEN HARIM FOODS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01215 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Dec. 31, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01172-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Sherman-Clayton Act. Mountaire Farms Inc. -- https://mountaire.com/ -- is a family-owned and operated vertically integrated poultry company founded in 1914.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 800 N West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 691-9545 - and - Erika A. Inwald, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Ste 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 518-9125 Email: einwald@hausfeld.com NANO NUCLEAR: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) ("NANO Nuclear" or "the Company"), a leading advanced nuclear micro modular reactor (MMR) and technology company focused on developing clean energy solutions, announced January 10 that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted NANO Nuclear's motion to dismiss the putative securities class action lawsuit filed against Nano Nuclear and certain of its officers and directors. The lawsuit, captioned Hongui Xie v. Nano Nuclear Energy, et al., 1:24-CV-6057-JMF, made sprawling claims challenging statements about the qualifications of NANO Nuclear's team and NANO Nuclear's prospects for microreactor development, among others. In its Order dated January 8, 2026, the Court dismissed all claims against all defendants. The dismissal of this lawsuit follows the dismissal of a related shareholder derivative lawsuit NANO Nuclear announced in April 2025. "I am proud of NANO Nuclear's core values and of the team's commitment to leveraging their world-class expertise to advance micro modular reactor technologies for the North American market and eventually the world," said Jay Yu, Founder and Chairman of NANO Nuclear. "We remain laser focused on executing our strategy and delivering on the commitments we have made to our stakeholders. Everyone at NANO Nuclear is dedicated to our mission and to delivering meaningful progress in the development of next-generation advanced nuclear microreactors, including the KRONOS MM Energy System. I am pleased to see the Company move forward with clarity, confidence, and an unwavering work ethic. We thank our legal team at Ellenoff Grossman & Schole for helping us achieve this result." NANO Nuclear does not know if the plaintiff in the case will attempt to re-plead her claims, but is highly confident in its defense and will vigorously defend against all claims should an amended complaint be filed. [GN] NEBRASKA: Rodriguez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, v. ROB JEFFREYS, Director of Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States; DAREN MARGOLIN, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review; TODD LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PETER BERG, Director, St. Paul ICE Field Office; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, and OMAHA IMMIGRATION COURT, Case No. 8:25-cv-00714-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Buescher  entered an order denying in its entirety the Petitioner Jorge Alberto Rodriguez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The conclusion that the Maldonado Bautista court lacked jurisdiction to enter an injunction that applied to Alberto Rodriguez is sufficient standing alone to deny Alberto Rodriguez's central claim for habeas relief. Thus, Alberto Rodriguez was properly detained under section 1225(b)(2), and his first, second, and fifth causes of action fail as a matter of law. In this action for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241, Petitioner Jorge Alberto Rodriguez, an undocumented alien who has lived in the United States since 2006, requests that the Court find that he is unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pending the completion of his removal proceedings. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WR6GuI at no extra charge.[CC] NESTLE SA: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Nestle S.A. (OTC: NSRGY) resulting from allegations that Nestle may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Nestle securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50364 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On January 6, 2026, Reuters published an article entitled "Nestle recalls infant formula batches in 25 countries over toxin risk." The article stated that Nestle "said it was recalling some batches of its infant nutrition products, including SMA, BEBA and NAN formulas, mostly in Europe, due to possible contamination with a toxin that can cause nausea and vomiting." On this news, Nestle American Depositary Shares ("ADS") fell 1.2% on January 6, 2026, and a further 2.49% on January 7, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by Law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW YORK: Jenner & Block Files Suit Over OCFS Solitary Confinement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jenner & Block, in partnership with The Legal Aid Society, has filed a federal class action lawsuit challenging the New York State Office of Children and Family Services' (OCFS) practice of subjecting youth to solitary confinement. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that OCFS routinely confines children alone in cells for up to 24 hours per day, sometimes for weeks or months, while denying them access to education, programming, and basic necessities. The complaint argues these practices violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to end these practices and ensure youth in OCFS custody receive humane, age-appropriate care. The Jenner team is led by Partners Jeremy Creelan, Jacob Alderdice and Damian Williams with support from Associates Marielle Sanchez, Alex Ussia, Owen Keiter, Anne Warnke, Niki Wasserman, Lauren Hackett, Benjamin Rhind, and Jane Mezzino, and paralegal Anastasia Swetz. [GN] NEXFUND LLC: Berger Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- HUGH CHARLES JOSE BERGER, JR., individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXFUND, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00460-JAR (E.D. Okla., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates the law by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express invitation or permission. Nexfund, LLC is a limited liability company headquartered in Irvine, Orange County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Alison, Esq. INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC 233 S. Detroit, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 347-6169 E-mail: matthew@iaelaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com OPPENHEIMER & CO: Appeals Class Certification Order in Liberty Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04822, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover damages arising out of the Defendants' unlawful conduct related to their Advantage Bank Deposit Program (ABD Program). Under the ABD Program, the Defendants automatically invested customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at program banks selected by the Defendants. On Oct. 21, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 8, 2025. The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court hereby grants Liberty's motion for class certification as to Counts One, Two, and Six. The Court hereby certifies the proposed class, appoints Liberty as class representative, and appoints Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel. As to Count Three, the Court denies Liberty's motion for class certification without prejudice to renewal of that motion if, no later than December 22, 2025, Liberty moves to amend the complaint by joining as a named plaintiff at least one class member with Article III standing to bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, the Court denies as moot Liberty's request that it exclude the reports of Oppenheimer's experts. The appellate case is entitled In Re: Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Case No. 25-3201, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Douglas Wilens, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Defendant-Petitioner OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. is represented by: Grant MacQueen, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 PERMIRA HOLDINGS: Phyllis Sues Over Misused of ABS for Unjust Gain ------------------------------------------------------------------ PHYLLIS HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES, LLC and NATALIE THORSEN HARRIS and JEFFREY DANIEL HARRIS, a married couple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERMIRA HOLDINGS LIMITED; AXIOM GLOBAL, INC.; AXIOM ADVICE & COUNSEL LLC; DAVID McVEIGH and DOE McVEIGH, a married couple; CATHERINE KEMNITZ and WILLIAM KEMNITZ, a married couple; ASHLIN QUIRK and DOE QUIRK, a married couple; LYNDA SHELY and ROBERT SHELY, a married couple; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CV2025-066941 (Ariz. Super., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for racketeering/conspiracy to commit racketeering, common law fraud/fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, wage theft, wrongful termination, violations of State Whistleblower Act, unjust enrichment, accounting, and piercing the corporate veil/declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' attempt to use Arizona's court-regulated Alternative Business Structure (ABS) framework as a profit center, treating a licensed law firm as a business unit rather than a professional enterprise, and then abruptly shutting it down when it failed to generate the targeted returns. The Defendants knowingly misused the ABS regime and breached the ethical and contractual commitments that made ABS licensure possible. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been harmed. Phyllis Hawkins & Associates LLC is a legal recruiting and consulting firm, with its principal place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona. Permira Holdings Limited is a private equity company headquartered in United Kingdom. Axiom Global, Inc. is a legal services provider doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. Axiom Advice & Counsel LLC is a law firm doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Ryan, Esq. Richie J. Edwards, Esq. FR LAW GROUP PLLC 4745 N. 7th Street, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 566-7425 Email: sryan@frlawgroup.com redwards@frlawgroup.com PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Appeals Judgment Order in Paschal FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LIMITED, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Candice Paschal, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Perry's Restaurants, Limited, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Nov. 10, 2025, Judge Robert Pitman entered final judgment in this case. The appellate case is captioned Paschal v. Perry's, Case No. 25-51041, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on December 19, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CANDICE PASCHAL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Pamela Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW PLLC 801 Cherry Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Defendants-Appellants PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LIMITED, et al. are represented by: Jamila Marie Brinson, Esq. JACKSON WALKER, LLP 1401 McKinney Street Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 752-4356 - and - Matt Dow, Esq. JACKSON WALKER, LLP 100 Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 236-2000 PHILADELPHIA, PA: Flacco Appeals Class Cert. Order to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Flacco, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Danielle Outlaw, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-4374-MAK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and their duty to implement and effectuate Civil Service Regulation (CSR) 31.06 for the benefit of Philadelphia Police Department Captains, Staff Inspectors, Inspectors, and Chief Inspectors. On Sept. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Mark A. Kearney denied on Nov. 7, 2025. On Nov. 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Nov. 7 Order, which the Court granted in part on Dec. 15, 2025, for the limited purpose of considering the additional evidence but decline to modify its original Order. The appellate case is captioned Christopher Flacco, et al. v. Danielle Outlaw, et al., Case No. 25-8043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 - and - Patricia V. Pierce, Esq. GOLDSHAW GREENBLATT PIERCE Two Penn Center, Suite 1230 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 978-9090 - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine Mitchell Duffy, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Defendants-Respondents DANIELLE OUTLAW, et al. are represented by: Shannon D. Farmer, Esq. Mia Kim, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 864-8221 Email: farmers@ballardspahr.com kimmi@ballardspahr.com POM MEDICAL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Manzano Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ POM MEDICAL, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Mayra Manzano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. POM Medical, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00993-ODW-SSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On June 2, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied on Dec. 4, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Manzano v. POM Medical, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-8040, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 23, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 29, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 2, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MAYRA MANZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nazo L. Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Defendants-Appellants POM MEDICAL, LLC, et al. are represented by: Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 POPILUSH LLC: Walsh Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POPILUSH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-50005 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has visited the Website multiple times, most recently on June 11, 2025, using a screen-reader. Specifically, she wanted to purchase a dress. She was searching for a dress for everyday wear that would provide comfort and support, as she preferred clothing that offered both style and practicality. While exploring online options, she came across the Defendant's Website, which specializes in shapewear-integrated dresses designed to provide a flattering fit while maintaining comfort. After reading positive customer reviews that described the quality and functionality of the products, she considered the Website a trustworthy source for her needs. The complaint alleges that despite her efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do, the complaint says. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CAITLIN WALSH is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant POPILUSH, LLC owns, operates and controls the website, www.popilush.com, which specializes in shapewear-integrated dresses designed to provide a flattering fit while maintaining comfort.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Acosta Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LORENZO ACOSTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for age discrimination and retaliation and for Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff, putative collective members, and putative class members, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, putative collective members, and putative class members are current and former non-exempt employees, including live-in superintendents, handymen, and maintenance workers employed by Defendant at the various residential and commercial properties under its management. The Defendant required them to work scheduled hours exceeding 40 hours per week, yet systematically failed to compensate them for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, Defendant required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work a regular schedule of45 hours per week but paid them for only 40 hours, resulting in five unpaid overtime hours each week. Additionally, Defendant required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to remain on-call beyond their regular schedule, work weekends and federal holidays, and perform additional tasks including painting and apartment renovations without proper compensation. On at least a dozen occasions, Defendant completely failed to compensate Plaintiff for overtime hours worked, including specific incidents where Plaintiff worked emergency weekend shifts, performed renovation work, and completed painting projects for which he was never paid despite explicit wage agreements. Similarly situated employees experienced similar failures to remit all owed payments, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendant: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, (2) liquidated damages, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff LORENZO ACOSTA is a resident of the State of New York, Kings County. Defendant PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT INC. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York that operates and manages residential properties throughout New York City. Upon information and belief, Defendant manages over 50 buildings throughout the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, including 65 commercial stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madeline Howard, Esq. Diego Barros, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: madeline@employeejustice.com PROSPER FUNDING: Hurd-Pride Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON HURD-PRIDE, MELISSA DUNN, GEORGE MARDIKIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, and PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10846 (N.D. Cal., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/wantonness, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on or about September 1, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Prosper Funding, LLC is a financial services provider based in California. Prosper Marketplace, Inc. is a financial services provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com QUANTUM BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC") and Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"), as well as their broker-dealer subsidiaries (the "Defendants") on behalf of investors who sold the securities of Quantum Biopharma Ltd., formerly known as FSD Pharma, Inc. ("Quantum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QNTM) between January 6, 2021 and October 15, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you sold Quantum securities during the Class Period and have suffered losses, you may visit link: https://www.kaplanfox.com/case/quantum-biopharma-ltd/?utm_source=NewMediaWire&utm_medium=Press+Release&utm_campaign=Quantum+Biopharma&utm_id=Quantum+Biopharma&utm_term=QNTM+NMW You may also contact Kaplan Fox by emailing mail@kaplanfox.com or dhall@kaplanfox.com, or by calling (800) 290-1952. DEADLINE REMINDER: If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than February 23, 2026, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the purported class. If you have losses, we encourage you to contact us to learn more about the lead plaintiff process. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. The complaint alleges that "spoofing" is a manipulative and illegal trading practice that involves submitting and then cancelling buy or sell orders without any genuine intent to execute them. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly entered thousands of spoofed sell orders designed to create the false impression in the market that Quantum's stock price was falling and that these manipulative orders were calculated to (and successfully did) deceive or induce other investors to sell their holdings at artificially low prices. Further, the complaint alleges that Defendant's purchased shares at these artificially depressed levels and positioned themselves to profit at the same time that investors were baited into selling shares at artificially depressed prices. WHY CONTACT KAPLAN FOX - Kaplan Fox is a leading national law firm focusing on complex litigation with offices in New York, Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey. With over 50 years of experience in securities litigation, Kaplan Fox offers the professional experience and track record that clients demand. Through prosecuting cases on the federal and state levels, Kaplan Fox has successfully shaped the law through winning many important decisions on behalf of our clients. For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our website at www.kaplanfox.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. If you have any questions about this Notice, your rights, or your interests, please contact: CONTACT: Donald R. Hall, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 687-1980 dhall@kaplanfox.com Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 772-4704 lking@kaplanfox.com [GN] RAC ACCEPTANCE: Agrees to Settle Unlawful Fees Suit for $14-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that RAC Acceptance East has agreed to a $14,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the lease-to-own company wrongfully issued a $45 processing fee to California consumers who signed rental-purchase agreements. The RAC Acceptance East class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 31, 2025 and covers all individuals in California who entered a rental-purchase agreement with RAC and were charged a processing fee between December 11, 2016 and June 30, 2021. The court-approved website for the Acceptance Now class action settlement can be found at https://www.AcceptanceNowClassAction.com/. According to the website, RAC settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive their cash payout, which will be a unique, calculated share of how much remains in the settlement fund after the payment of attorney's fees, settlement administration costs, and lead plaintiff service awards. All RAC class members may elect to receive their payout via check or electronic payment. Per the settlement agreement, checks will be sent automatically to a class member's address and must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. Should a class member prefer to receive an electronic payment, they can head to this page and enter the class member ID and code found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who did not receive a copy of the settlement notice or who have any other questions about the settlement agreement may contact the settlement administrator. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the RAC 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 RAC Acceptance East class action lawsuit claimed that the rent-to-own leasing company exploited California consumers by unlawfully charging "processing fees" on top of agreed-upon monthly rental payments for furniture, appliances, electronics and other household goods. [GN] REGENCE BLUESHIELD: $3M Settlement Claim Forms Submission Set Feb 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Regence BlueShield agreed to a $3 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it discriminated against enrollees with hearing loss by excluding hearing aids from coverage. The Regence BlueShield settlement benefits individuals insured under a Regence BlueShield health insurance plan in Washington between Oct. 30, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2025, who incurred out-of-pocket expenses for hearing aids and associated services. According to a hearing aid class action lawsuit, Regence BlueShield discriminated against enrollees with hearing loss by excluding hearing aids from coverage. Plaintiffs in the case say this exclusion violated federal health insurance anti-discrimination laws. Regence BlueShield is a health insurance company that operates in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Utah. The company is part of the larger BlueCross BlueShield network. Regence has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Regence BlueShield settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to hearing aids and associated services, such as fittings, repairs and batteries. Claimants will receive a pro rata payment based on the value of their claim. No payment estimates are available at this time. Class members who have previously submitted claims to Regence for denied hearing aids or services do not need to resubmit their claims. These class members can access an online pre-populated claim form. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 6, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Regence BlueShield hearing aid settlement is scheduled for March 20, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 3, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals insured under a Regence BlueShield health insurance plan in Washington between Oct. 30, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2025, who incurred out-of-pocket expenses for hearing aids and associated services. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Claimants must provide the date(s) they received hearing aids and/or associated services, the names and contact information of the providers who sold them the hearing aids and/or provided associated services, the unreimbursed charges or debt incurred and documentation showing the payments made or debt incurred for the hearing aids and/or associated services. 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 02/03/2026 Case Name E.S. v. Regence BlueShield, Case No. 2:17-cv-01609, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Final Hearing 03/20/2026 Settlement Website WAHearingAidSettlement.com Claims Administrator E.S. v. Regence BlueShield Settlement Claims Processing P.O. Box 2287 Portland, OR 97208-2287 info@WAHearingAidSettlement.com (877) 706-9538 Class Counsel Eleanor Hamburger Richard E. Spoonemore Daniel S. Gross SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC Defense Counsel N/A [GN] RESERVEBAR HOLDINGS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RESERVEBAR HOLDINGS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-50004 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.reservebar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff has visited the Website multiple times, most recently on May 18, 2025, using a screen-reader. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a bottle of wine. The Plaintiff was searching for a reliable source to order premium wine online, as she wanted a product suitable for a special occasion. During her search, she came across ReserveBar, a platform frequently referenced for its curated selection of luxury spirits and wines. This led her to explore the Website and identify options that matched her intended purchase. Despite her efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, asserts the complaint. These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CAITLIN WALSH is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant RESERVEBAR HOLDINGS CORP. owns, operates and controls the website reservebar.com, a premium marketplace for wine, champagne, and spirits, offering customers access to a wide range of high-quality products, gift sets, and limited editions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES: Gucciardo Sues Over FMLA Rights Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE GUCCIARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES LLC and COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15439 (N.D. Ill., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff based on her disability and retaliated against her for engaging in a protected activity under the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks redress for the Defendants' interference with the Plaintiff's FMLA rights and retaliation after she requested and used her FMLA rights. Restaurant Associates LLC is a member of Compass Group USA, located at 320 N Morgan St., Chicago, Illinois. Compass Group USA, Inc. is a foodservice and support services company, located at 2400 Yorkmont Rd., Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yasmeen Elagha, Esq. Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 581-5456 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 Email: yelagha@atlaslawcenter.com mbadwan@atlaslawcenter.com SALLIE MAE: Zappia Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ZAPPIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLM CORPORATION a/k/a SALLIE MAE, JONATHAN W. WITTER, and PETER M. GRAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18834 (D.N.J., December 19, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that invested in SLM securities between July 25, 2025 and August 14, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. According to the complaint, investors and analysts were reassured by Defendants' statements that rising delinquency rates for SLM's private education loans were attributable to, inter alia, purportedly "normal seasonal trends" and minor refinements to SLM's loan offerings, as well as reassured by Defendants' statements touting the effectiveness of SLM's purportedly "enhanced" loss mitigation and new loan modification programs. The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SLM's business, operations, and prospects that artificially inflated the prices of SLM's securities during the Class Period. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SLM was experiencing a significant increase in early stage delinquencies; (ii) accordingly, the Defendants overstated the effectiveness of SLM's loss mitigation and/or loan modification programs, as well as the overall stability of the Company's PEL delinquency rates; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements made a materially false and misleading impression regarding SLM's business, operations, and prospects at all relevant times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, asserts the complaint. SLM, more commonly known as Sallie Mae, primarily originates and services private education loans to students and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Calandra, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: bcalandra@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Telephone: (845) 290-6818 Facsimile: (718) 504-3773 E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Le Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY LE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10579 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract for restitution, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on November 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. SitusAMC Holdings Corp. is a provider of specialized technology, data, advisory, and outsourcing solutions based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Ian J. Engdahl, Esq. Kira Hessekiel, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com iengdahl@hausfeld.com khessekiel@hausfeld.com SNAPCOMMERCE HOLDINGS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Ferrell Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SNAPCOMMERCE HOLDINGS, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration and administrative motion for evidentiary hearing in the lawsuit entitled Amber Ferrell, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SnapCommerce Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-03160-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs Amber Ferrell and Sara Schneider, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed this action on April 8, 2025, regarding the Defendants' alleged practice of sending text message solicitations and making commercial telephone calls to consumers who have placed themselves on the National Do Not Call Registry in violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On June 9, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. On July 7, 2025, the Defendants filed an administrative motion for an evidentiary hearing on the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Court concludes that because the Defendants have not shown that their website and app provided reasonably conspicuous notice of terms of service, the Defendants have not carried their burden to show that a user entering a phone number on their website or app constitutes contract formation. The Court therefore declines to reach any subsequently-presented questions, including whether the Plaintiffs actually entered their phone numbers into their website or app. Because the Court resolves the motion without relying on any disputed facts, the Court also denies the administrative motion for an evidentiary hearing. The appellate case is captioned Ferrell, et al. v. SnapCommerce Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-7959, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 19, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 24, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 28, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 27, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AMBER FERRELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW, LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 - and - Rebecca Davis, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY LLP 1939 Harrison Srtreet, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Defendants-Appellants SNAPCOMMERCE HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as Super.com, et al. are represented by: Sarah E. Gallo, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 SYNGENTA CROP: Rodgers Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------ CYNTHIA RODGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-468 PQT (Del. Super., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for strict product liability and negligence. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. As a result of being exposed to Paraquat, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals developed Parkinson's disease, says the suit. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a manufacturer of crop protection products, doing business in Delaware. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a subsidiary of the global energy company, Chevron Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com TCL NORTH: Intercepted Private Communications, Raimondi Says ------------------------------------------------------------ VIVIANA RAIMONDI and NOSA OKUNBOWA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TCL NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10945 (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of every person in the United States whose website communications were intercepted through Defendant's use of tracking code in the TCL browser, and seek all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to actual, statutory, and punitive damages, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, TCL encourages TCL Browser users, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, to use the TCL Browser to access the full Internet. Unbeknownst to them and to third-party websites and without their consent, TCL was collecting all TCL Browser users' web browsing activity, including exact text typed into search bars. The Defendant's conduct directly violates the Federal Wiretap Act, which bars the interception and recording of private communications without prior consent of at least one party to the conversation (and neither the users nor the third-party websites consented to Defendant's tracking on the browser), as well as the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which uses an all-party consent standard. The Defendant also intentionally invaded the privacy of Plaintiffs and Class Members, and was unjustly enriched by its use of the tracking code, says the suit. TCL North America Inc. is a consumer electronics company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr.-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: Jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette St. Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4510 E-mail: nlange@fklmlaw.com - and - Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (925) 284-1520 E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com TOMMY BAHAMA: Peterson Suit Over False Emails Removed to D. Md. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case PAMM PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., Case No. C-03-CV-25-004819, was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on December 19, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04213-GLR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Tommy Bahama initiated or conspired to initiate the transmission of emails to her and similarly situated residents. Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. is a fashion and lifestyle company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Curran Jr., Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1301 K. Street NW, Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 973-4200 Email: patcurran@dwt.com - and - Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com emilyparsons@dwt.com TRANSUNION LLC: Herships Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD HERSHIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15428 (N.D. Ill., December 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach that started on July 28, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TransUnion, LLC is a global credit reporting agency, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Keller, Esq. Rebecca Trickey, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com rtrickey@dicellolevitt.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Wheeler Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH WHEELER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC and ST. ANTHONY'S PHYSICIAN ORGANIZATION HOSPITALIST SERVICES L.C. d/b/a MERCY CLINIC SOUTH HOSPITALISTS, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01888 (E.D. Mo., December 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint states that TriZetto stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about their patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI, asserts the complaint. In the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails, text messages and phone calls. The Plaintiff fears for his personal financial security and worries about what information was exposed in the Data Breach. Because of Defendants' Data Breach, Plaintiff has suffered--and will continue to suffer from--anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration, alleges the complaint. 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 Joseph Wheeler is a current patient of Defendant Mercy Hospital South and has been for at least 10 years. Defendant TriZetto Provider Solutions LLC is a provider of revenue management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems, based in Earth City, Missouri. Defendant Mercy Hospital South is a hospital in the Mercy healthcare system that provides medical and specialty care to patients in St. Louis and St. Louis County. It is an enterprise client of TriZetto.[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 UNITED AIRLINES: Pimm Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW PIMM, MARIA WYNN, RAMON REILOVA, APRIL GLANDT, and CAROLYN FAITH, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the UNITED AIRLINES CONSOLIDATED WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, Plaintiffs v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., MERCER HEALTH & BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15581 (N.D. Ill., December 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, as fiduciaries, violated their duties with respect to the management and administration of accident, critical illness, and hospital indemnity insurance programs ("Voluntary Benefits Insurance") offered as a plan governed by ERISA (the "Plan"). They allege that as a result of United's failure to exercise reasonable diligence in the administration of the Plan, including by failing to monitor, negotiate, and ensure prudent and reasonable carrier selection, broker commissions, and loss ratios for the Voluntary Benefits Insurance, Plaintiffs as participants of the Plan paid excessive and unreasonable premiums. The Plaintiffs further assert that United and Mercer, both fiduciaries of the Plan, engaged in self-dealing regarding the Plan, and that each was a knowing participant in the self dealing of the other. They also contend that Mercer is liable for disgorgement and other equitable relief as a party-in-interest, knowing participant in, and beneficiary of United's fiduciary breaches. United Airlines, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Airlines Holdings, Inc. with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ruben R. Chapa, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1170 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (630) 919-9301 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: rchapa@uselaws.com - and - Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. Kaitlin Minkler, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com kminkler@uselaws.com UNITED STATES: African Sues Over TPS Termination for South Sudan ---------------------------------------------------------------- AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER; MARY DOE; DAVID DOE; PETER DOE; and JACOB DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13939 (D. Mass., December 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case arises from the Defendants' termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan. According to the complaint, the Defendants' decision to terminate TPS for South Sudan violates the TPS statute and the Administrative Procedure Act because it was made without consulting appropriate agencies; without due consideration of available and objective evidence of South Sudan's dire conditions; in disregard of established DHS practices; and in improper reliance on impermissible factors, as well as being politically influenced. As a result of the termination, South Sudanese TPS holders in the U.S. will lose their protected status as of midnight on January 6, 2026, and face unconscionable harm, suit says. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a U.S. federal agency. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is the sub-agency within DHS. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nargis Aslami, Esq. Golnaz Fakhimi, Esq. Collin Poirot, Esq. Abbey Rutherford, Esq. MUSLIM ADVOCATES 1032 15th Street N.W. #362 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 897-2622 Email: Nargis@muslimadvocates.org Golnaz@muslimadvocates.org Collin@muslimadvocates.org Abbey@muslimadvocates.org - and - Erik Crew, Esq. HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE 4560 Alvarado Canyon Road, Suite 1H San Diego, CA 92120 Telephone: (949) 603-741 Email: ecrew@haitianbridge.org - and - Mark H. Lynch, Esq. Stephen Petkis, Esq. Paul Killebrew, Esq. Ayana M. Lindsey, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Email: MLynch@cov.com SPetkis@cov.com PKillebrew@cov.com ALindsey@cov.com - and - Sarah Leadem, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Email: SLeadem@cov.com - and - Michael E. Cunniff, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 Email: MCunniff@cov.com UNITED STATES: Reed Suit Seeks Full Payment of Damages from FEMA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD K. REED; KRYSTLE R. ALARCON; BUFFY J. HERRERA; QUINN T. HERRERA; DAKOTA M. COURNOYER; DOMINIC D. LACOMBE; JOE MONTANO; CATHERINE FRANCES MONTANO; GRACE E. SANTILLANES; AND DONALD LAWRENCE SANTILLANES, Plaintiffs v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01274-JB-JFR (D.N.M., December 19, 2025) is a class action seeking judicial review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's final determinations of Plaintiffs' claims under the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act (HPFAA). The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs are individuals damaged by the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire, which were started by the federal government. The historic fire, and subsequent flooding, had devastating impacts on residents of New Mexico. The complaint alleges that FEMA has adopted an unlawful Final Rule that categorically excludes noneconomic damages from the HPFAA in violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs have been aggrieved by FEMA's decision because it denies their actual compensatory damages permitted under New Mexico state law, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs now bring this civil action under Section 104(i)(1) to modify or set aside FEMA's decision and award Plaintiffs the full amount of their actual compensatory damages permitted under New Mexico state law. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is an executive agency of the United States government.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Colon, Esq. Jesse Gallegos, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 6501 Americas Pkwy. NE, Ste. 670 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Telephone: (505) 587-3473 E-mail: bcolon@singletonschreiber.com jgallegos@singletonschreiber.com - and - Gerald B. Singleton, Esq. Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq. Jonna Lothyan, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 591 Camino de la Reina, Ste 1025 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 704-3288 E-mail: gsingleton@singletonschreiber.com bsiminou@singletonschreiber.com jlothyan@singletonschreiber.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Pointer Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- TIAA POINTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., PHOENIX EDUCATION PARTNERS, INC., and ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00009 (W.D. Tex., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard approximately 3,489,274 individuals' (including Plaintiff's) personally identifying information ("PII") including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and bank account and routing numbers. Between August 13 and August 22, 2025, an unauthorized third party exploited a vulnerability in Oracle's EBS software to gain access to Oracle's network systems and acquire files containing the PII of Oracle's clients' customers, including Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"). According to the complaint, the Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or sharing PII with third parties that failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, adds the complaint. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Tiaa Pointer, a citizen and resident of Illinois, is a former student of the University of Phoenix. Defendant The University of Phoenix, Inc. is a private, for-profit university, and is a subsidiary of Phoenix Education Partners, Inc. Defendant Oracle Corporation is a technology company offering a variety of products and services for businesses, including its E-Business Suite software ("EBS"). Phoenix Education Partners, Inc. ("UOPX") contracts with Oracle to use its EBS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: 972.387.4040 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312.621.2000 Facsimile: 312.641.5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com VERNON POWELL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Vernon Powell Shoe Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15742 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.vpshoes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Youngren and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Youngren's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Youngren has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On August 28, 2025, Youngren was searching for shoes online and wanted to find a reliable store with a wide selection of high-quality offerings. During his search, Youngren came across the Defendant's website, Vpshoes.com. Positive customer reviews highlighting the quality and variety of products encouraged him to explore the site further. While browsing, Youngren became also interested in men's tops. However, he encountered accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to navigate the website efficiently and complete a purchase. These barriers to access have denied Youngren full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the Website, adds the complaint. Accordingly, Youngren seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Dustin Youngren is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Vernon Powell Shoe Company operates a website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of footwear for men, women, and kids including athletic shoes, casual styles, dress shoes, boots, sandals, slippers, along with apparel such as tops, bottoms, and outerwear, and accessories like hats, gloves, socks, insoles, drinkware, and shoe care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law WACOAL AMERICA: Davis Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Wacoal America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00018 (N.D. Ill., January 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.wacoal-america.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Davis and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Davis' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Davis has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On July 24, 2025, Davis was searching for lingerie for daily wear, offering support, comfort, and style. During her Google search for bras and intimate apparel, Davis came across the Defendant's website, Wacoal-america.com. Positive reviews highlighting product quality and fit encouraged Davis to explore the site with the intent to make a purchase. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from proceeding. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Davis, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States, adds the complaint. Davis seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Nicole Davis is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Wacoal America, Inc. owns and operates the Website which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of bras in different styles and fits, panties, briefs, shapers, and other lingerie.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Suit Over Misleading ESPN Streaming Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Uebelacker, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a pair of wrestling fans are taking industry titan World Wrestling Entertainment to court over the organization's new streaming deal with ESPN, claiming the company falsely assured them they wouldn't have to pay extra for certain WWE events. Michael Diesa and Rebecca Toback -- of New Jersey and New York, respectively -- claim they were misled by a joint 2025 press release from WWE and ESPN that announced their "landmark rights agreement," which moved events from Peacock to ESPN's direct-to-consumer service. The price difference between the services gave many fans pause. Peacock charges as little as $10.99 per month, while ESPN's full plan has a monthly $29.99 price tag. But according to the scrutinized press release from Aug. 6, 2025, viewers would be able to watch even WWE's premium events "whether they subscribe directly or through a traditional pay TV package." WWE executives made similar statements in interviews, then picked up by news outlets covering the flagship deal with ESPN. Diesa and Toback claim this led them to believe that, if they were already ESPN subscribers via their TV providers, then they wouldn't have to pay $29.99 per month for the direct-to-consumer service in order to watch premium WWE events. But they were mistaken, or as they say, knowingly misled by WWE and ESPN. "Conspiring with ESPN, WWE, through its acts and omissions, willfully and/or knowingly misled consumers who had already subscribed to ESPN to believe that they would not have to pay anything more to access ESPN's DTC Service and to watch all WWE [Premium Live Events]," Diesa and Toback claim in the 30-page lawsuit, filed late night of January 8 in Connecticut federal court. "As consumers learned when they tried to sign up for the new DTC Service -- many on the eve of the first WWE PLE to stream on the service -- WWE's (and ESPN's) material representations, which were likely to (and did) mislead consumers, simply were not true," the pair continued. "They were a 'bait and switch': The majority of consumers who already had subscribed to ESPN in another manner and expected to receive access to the new service for free instead were required to pay in full for it." As a result, thousands of wrestling fans were forced to shell out for ESPN's streaming service, lacking the benefit of full disclosure, according to Diesa and Toback. Both Diesa and Toback were among the affected -- they claim they're both ESPN subscribers who were forced to pay the $29.99 monthly fee after assuming they'd get WWE premium events at no extra cost. They're seeking to establish a class of WWE fans who subscribed to ESPN's direct-to-consumer service between Aug. 6, 2025, and Sept. 20, 2025, even though they were already ESPN subscribers via another means." The plaintiffs lobbed similar accusations at ESPN, but the Disney-owned sports giant is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit. A footnote in the complaint acknowledges that ESPN's subscriber agreement includes an arbitration provision and a class-action waiver that prevents these claims. "Those adhesive provisions, however, only apply -- at most (if at all) -- to disputes between subscribers and Disney, ESPN, and/or Hulu," Diesa and Toback claim. "They have no application or relevance as to WWE." A representative for ESPN declined to comment. WWE didn't immediately respond to requests seeking a statement. Many WWE events are available for free on standard TV packages. But their biggest shows -- previously referred to as pay-per-views, now premium events -- require subscriptions. ESPN landed the rights to stream WWE's premium events in a five-year, $1.6 billion agreement last August. [GN] [] New Federal Court Ruling Fuels Digital Tracking Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baker Donelson reports that businesses across all industries continue to face an onslaught of class action lawsuits asserting novel liability theories under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) in connection with the use of cookies, pixels, and similar online tracking and analytics tools, making this a critical concern for any company operating a website. The most recent (and ongoing) wave of CIPA class action litigation contends that digital tracking technologies violate CIPA Sec. 638.51's prohibition on the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices. In addition to background on CIPA and a review of relevant cases, this alert provides key next steps for companies with websites to ensure strict compliance with CIPA's statutory requirements and manage outsized legal risk and liability exposure. In a recent decision that could reshape the CIPA litigation landscape, Camplisson v. Adidas Am., Inc., 2025 WL 3228949 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2025), a California federal court rejected several recent decisions dismissing substantively identical CIPA pen register/trap and trace claims. The court held that allegations of Adidas installing tracking pixels on website visitors' browsers that recorded their personally identifiable information (PII) were sufficient, without more, to plausibly allege use of a pen register device and therefore to avoid dismissal at the pleading stage. Following Camplisson, businesses are likely to see yet another substantial uptick in the already high volume of CIPA pre-suit demand letters and class action lawsuits, which have continued to plague website owners and operators for several years now. More than that, the decision highlights the significant uncertainty that persists with many of the core issues at the heart of CIPA disputes, while underscoring the need for companies to work proactively with privacy counsel. Background of CIPA Enacted in 1967 in response to concerns over eavesdropping and telephone surveillance, CIPA makes it illegal to intercept communications or aid and abet third parties in doing so. In addition, under Penal Code Sec. 638.51 (CIPA Sec. 638.51), CIPA prohibits the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices without a court order or user consent. The law provides for the recovery of statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, even in the absence of any actual injury or harm, as well as attorney's fees in certain instances. Historically, pen registers and trap and trace devices were used by law enforcement while conducting telephone surveillance, with pen registers capturing the phone numbers of outgoing calls and trap and trace devices doing the same for incoming calls. CIPA defines pen register as "a device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, but not the contents of a communication." The critical distinction between pen registers and other devices is that the former is designed to capture information about a communication, but not the content of the communication itself. Camplisson v. Adidas Am., Inc. In Camplisson, website visitors brought a putative class action against Adidas, alleging it violated CIPA Sec. 638.51 through its website's use of two "tracking pixels," the TikTok Pixel and Microsoft Bing, installed on the visitors' web browsers without their consent. According to the plaintiffs, the trackers purportedly collected IP addresses, browser information, unique identifiers, and other PII and addressing information. The plaintiffs also alleged the trackers used so-called "device fingerprinting," a process that associates information collected through the trackers with other PII to facilitate specific device activity tracking. Adidas moved to dismiss, arguing (among other things) the trackers did not meet the statutory definition of a pen register, thus precluding the plaintiffs' CIPA Sec. 638.51 claim as a matter of law, because: 1. The trackers only captured specific outgoing information, as opposed to all outgoing communications, from a given device; and 2. The information collected through fingerprinting was substantive, rather than mere dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information. The court rejected both arguments. Relying on CIPA's purportedly "intentionally broad language," it found that limiting pen registers to a process that collects all information would "take away from CIPA's purpose of protecting privacy, making it underinclusive." Additionally, according to the court, "most cases in this and other districts have also recognized that website-based trackers can plausibly constitute a pen register." Turning to the dispute before it, the court held the plaintiffs' allegations that the trackers recorded their PII, including the information contained in an IP address, were sufficient to plausibly allege use of a pen register and, in turn, avoid dismissal at the pleading stage. Adidas also argued that the plaintiffs' consent barred their CIPA claims as a matter of law. The court disagreed, finding the website did not: 1. Make Adidas's online terms and conditions sufficiently conspicuous, as website visitors were required to find the details of the terms and Adidas's privacy policy by scrolling down to the footer of its site; or 2. Offer a pop-up window or similar method for visitors to affirmatively demonstrate their assent to Adidas's online terms. Accordingly, the court held the plaintiffs were not put on notice of the terms and privacy policy outlining Adidas's use of the trackers and, thus, did not consent to the use of pen registers on their web browsers. Analysis & Takeaways The seminal CIPA pen register/trap and trace decisions, which opened the floodgates to the current wave of class action filings, are Greenley v. Kochava, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (S.D. Cal. 2023), and Moody v. C2 Educ. Sys., Inc., 742 F. Supp. 3d 1072 (C.D. Cal. 2024). In Greenley, the court latched onto CIPA's supposedly "expansive" and "vague" definition of pen register to reach the conclusion that software which identifies consumers, gathers data, and correlates that data through unique fingerprinting could constitute a pen register. Shortly thereafter, in Moody the court declined to "foreclose the possibility that software may qualify as a pen register or trap and trace device under California law, at least at the motion to dismiss stage." The plaintiff's bar used these two decisions as a springboard to launch their newest campaign of class action filings for purported violations of CIPA Sec. 638.51. In the early stages of these cases, defendants had considerable difficulty in achieving dismissals at the pleading stage. However, last year multiple courts issued defendant-favorable rulings dismissing CIPA Sec. 638.51 class actions, including Price v. Headspace, Inc., 2025 WL 1237977 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 1, 2025), Kishnani v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 2025 WL 1745726 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2025), Mitchener v. Talkspace Network LLC, 2025 WL 1822801 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2025), and Mitchener v. CuriosityStream, Inc., 2025 WL 227413 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2025), all of which held the TikTok Pixel definitionally does not fall under the ambit of CIPA Sec. 638.51. More importantly, these opinions called this particular CIPA liability theory into question altogether, indicating a potential shift in the trajectory of pen register/trap and trace disputes. That sliver of hope may be short-lived if additional courts follow the reasoning of Camplisson, which squarely rejected Headspace, Royal Caribbean, Talkspace, and CuriosityStream. Importantly, Camplisson illustrates the significant uncertainty that persists as to the precise scope and contours of CIPA pen register/trap and trace claims. Looking ahead, courts will likely continue to issue conflicting decisions on CIPA's applicability and scope, with businesses remaining subject to substantial legal risk and liability exposure tied to the use of digital tracking tools for the foreseeable future. What to Do Now: Strategic Compliance and Risk Mitigation Measures While the CIPA legal landscape remains in flux, it is imperative that all companies that have a website work with experienced privacy counsel to evaluate their current practices and implement risk mitigation strategies as part of their comprehensive privacy compliance programs. Doing so ensures compliance with CIPA's statutory requirements and helps manage the considerable legal risk and associated potential liability arising from the high volume of privacy- and technology-related class action filings focused on cookies, pixels, and other digital tracking tools -- which will only increase as time progresses. As an initial roadmap, companies should prioritize the following action items. Affirmative, Meaningful Consent. Regardless of liability theory, consent has, and will continue to serve, as the strongest defense to CIPA class action claims. Accordingly, effective, dependable methods and mechanisms must be in place for securing affirmative, meaningful consent from website visitors. Clickwraps, which require visitors to take a clear, affirmative action -- such as clicking a button or ticking a box -- after being presented with an online agreement or privacy disclosure to signify their assent, should be used, as courts regularly uphold their validity. Consent mechanisms should be tested prior to initial deployment to confirm no cookies or similar technologies "drop" or "fire" until consent has been affirmatively manifested. Privacy Disclosures. Privacy policies, notices, and other external-facing disclosures must clearly and conspicuously disclose all tracking technologies in use on any digital property. Disclosures should also provide detailed descriptions of all other tools that may collect, use, or share PII, such as through session replay software or the deployment of video content. Online terms and similar agreements may need to include arbitration and class action waiver provisions. All disclosures must be accurate and reflect actual data practices. Digital Audits. Regularly assess and evaluate all digital tracking tools and how they collect and process PII. In particular, closely evaluate whether PII is shared with third parties, as this has become an increasingly significant target of plaintiffs' attorneys and privacy regulators alike. At the same time, audit all tracking tools deployed by third parties to ensure they are compliant with applicable law and contractual obligations. Vendor Agreements. Ensure that vendor agreements where PII is implicated by way of digital tracking tools contain language: (a) requiring vendor compliance with applicable law governing the use of digital tools and PII; (b) limiting vendor data use to what is necessary for performance under the agreement; (c) barring any vendor sharing or disclosure of PII for any reason without prior express consent; and (d) requiring vendor indemnification for any claims, losses, expenses, and fees (including attorney's fees) arising from any actual or alleged legal noncompliance or contractual breach relating to the handling of PII. Demand Letter Response Playbooks. Be prepared with demand letter response playbooks containing documentation that conclusively establishes legal and regulatory compliance, as well as pre-scripted negotiation strategy guidance. Where feasible, consider maintaining digital audit analyses and reports that are generated by the same tools used by plaintiffs' attorneys. The Final Word In today's digital world, companies with even a small digital footprint face mounting legal risks and liability exposure stemming from the extremely common (and often unknown) use of cookies, pixels, and other digital tracking tools. Implementing strategic compliance and risk mitigation measures as part of comprehensive compliance programs can directly address and mitigate the threats posed by the high volume of CIPA and similar privacy class action filings, which will only continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As we begin 2026, now is the perfect time to consult with experienced privacy counsel, who can review and audit current compliance practices and assist in remediating any gaps to minimize the risk of being targeted with CIPA or other wiretapping class action claims. Robust, comprehensive compliance measures, such as those discussed above, can also arm companies with formidable defenses in the event they find themselves on the receiving end of a tenuous CIPA demand letter or class action complaint. For more information or assistance, please contact David Oberly, Matt White, AIGP, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPT, CIPM, PCIP, or another member of Baker Donelson's Data Protection, Privacy and Cybersecurity, Digital Marketing, AdTech, and Consumer Privacy Compliance, or Privacy Litigation Teams. [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 ***