260119.mbx

260119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 19, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 13 Headlines 700 CREDIT: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Schneider Says 79 GOURMET DELI: Faces Xar Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. AGILON HEALTH: Vandersluis Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ANGEION GROUP: Barclay Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ANGEION GROUP: Barrett Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ANGEION GROUP: Dendy Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ANGEION GROUP: Tennery Suit Transferred to D. Columbia APPLE INC: Coronavirus Appeals Reconsideration Order to 9th Circuit AUTONEUM NORTH: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class in Graham Stayed AW DISTRIBUTING: Kendrick Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit BARI HOME: Laduca Seeks More time to File Class Cert Bid BIOGEN INC: Shash Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Parties Seek to Modify Oct. 30 Sched Order BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response BREAKING BREAD: Faces Ortega Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. C&H SUGAR: Bello-Lafrades Seeks Conditional Cert of Action CAL-MAINE FOODS: Ryan Sues Over Fresh Shell Egg Price-Fixing CAR-MART INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims CARVANA LLC: Must Produce Consumer Metrics in Jennings Suit CATWIG LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Torgerson Says CENTURION OF DELAWARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 31, 2027 CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of O'Donnell Class Suit CHOICEPOINT LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 5 CREDIT ONE: Faces Snyder Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended DELTA DENTAL: Walsh Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge DELTA DENTAL: Walsh Sues Over Deceptive Dental Care Service Policy DONALD TRUMP: Court Stays NYIC Class Suit DORIS CHEN: Faces Sohon Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 2 FLAGSTAR BANK: Seeks Denial of Class Cert Bid in Amended Complaint FUEGO SMOKE: Dial Seeks More Time to File Class Certification GREG ABBOTT: Jefferson Seeks Leave to File First Amended Complaint HAAS AUTOMATION: Lopez Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court HAPPY HOUR: Class Cert. Specific Discovery Due Feb. 22, 2027 HOMELAND SECURITY: South Sudan TPS Termination Put on Hold INTEGRO HEALTHCARE: Miller Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Seal Lord & Abbett Class Cert Info IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Serna Says JARED POLIS: Peters Seeks to Certify Class Action JEFF RUBY: Agrees to Settle Tip, Wage Class Action for $1.5MM JM SMUCKER: Court OK's Settlement in Arellano JOHNSON & WALES: Class Settlement in Moore Suit Gets Initial Nod JOHNSON & WALES: Class Settlement in Springer Gets Initial Nod JULIET CHARRON: Ramon Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice KAHOOT! AS: Requests for Writ of Mandamus to the Federal Circuit KAISER PERMANENTE: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $10.5MM KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Bid for Class Cert. in Fammons Suit Due June 30 KRUA THAI: Court Schedules "Juarez" Final Conference for April 9 LEADPOINT INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid LIME ROCK: Colton Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 8th Circuit LIVE NATION: Appeals Class Certification Order in Heckman Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Jan. 29 LT PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Villalobos Says MANAGED CARE: Court Extends Time to File Complaint Response MAPLEBEAR INC: New York AG Demands Information About Price Tests MCKESSON INC: Chris Appeals Dismissed Motion to Stay to 11th Cir. MDL 2566: Court Junks Oral Argument in Telexfree Suit MDL 3035: Class Cert Bid in AME Church Fund Litigation Partly OK'd MELINDA EDDY: Burnside Files Bid for Class Certification META PLATFORMS: Kadrey Seeks OK of Bid for Class Discovery MIDLAND NATIONAL: Reply to Class Certification Due Feb. 19 MIXX LIFESTYLE: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Partly OK'd MONSANTO COMPANY: Rudnick Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Shorey Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Siguenza Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution NATIONAL GRID: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims NCAA: Class Action Settlement in Ray Suit Get Initial Nod PG&E CORP: Labaton Secures $100MM Settlement in Securities Suit PHILIP MORRIS: Friedman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid PHILIP MORRIS: Kelly Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid PHILIP MORRIS: Lendinara Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. PHILIP MORRIS: Palmer Seeks Extension of Interim Deadlines PRECISION HEATING: Class Cert Bid in Picon Extended to March 29 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Trading Fees Suit for $2MM ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Class Certification Scheduling Order Amended RTX CORP: Jacob ERISA Suit Seeks Class Certification SAN JOSE: Faces BHS Law Suit Over Termination of Water Service SANTOS JERKY: Tomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SCHMIDT BAKING: 2nd Cir. Vacates Arbitration Order in Silva Suit SCOOT EDUCATION: Faces Dyer Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. SECURIX LLC: Divine Bid for Class Certification Tossed SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Wins Bid for Class Certification SHASTA BEVERAGES: Filing Class Cert. Bid Moved to May 28 SNAP-ON INC: Moore ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Nizar Ayoub Appointed as Lead Plaintiff STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Junco Files Securities Fraud Claims in S.D.N.Y. SUPERIOR COURT: Files Petition in Watts Suit to Cal. Ct. of Appeal SWEEPSTEAKS LTD: Ridley Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Platform TIPS EAST: Faces Turner Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses TOPPS COMPANY: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Lanzarin Alleges U.S MEAT PROCESSING: Underpays Meat Packagers, Rosales Suit Says UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Allowed to File Second Amended Complaint UNITED NETWORK: Class Cert Hearing in Randall Continued to Feb. 12 UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Powers v. VA UNITED STATES: Denial of Class Certification in Ablan Suit Upheld UNITED STATES: Nielsen Appeals Final Judgment Order to D.C. Cir. UNITED STATES: Nonprofit Seeks to Halt Warrantless Arrests in Ore. VARONIS SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit VERMONT BREAD: Sullivan Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir. WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks Continuance of Default Judgment Bid ********* 700 CREDIT: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Schneider Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 700 CREDIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13963-SKD-KGA (E.D. Mich., December 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers stored within its network systems following a data breach in October 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. 700 Credit, LLC is a provider of credit reports, soft pull credit data, identity verification, fraud detection and compliance solutions, headquartered in Southfield, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 874-4505 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com 79 GOURMET DELI: Faces Xar Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- LUIS EDUARDO LOPEZ XAR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 79 GOURMET DELI INC. (D/B/A YORK DELI), and ALI SUBJAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10775 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2025) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide with a written wage notice, failure to furnish wage statements, and failure to reimburse costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of the trade" required to perform Plaintiff's job. Plaintiff Lopez was employed as a delivery worker and dishwasher at the deli from January 20, 2025 until on or about October 27, 2025. 79 Gourmet Deli Inc. owns, operates, and controls a deli, located in New York under the name "York Deli." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 AGILON HEALTH: Vandersluis Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY VANDERSLUIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGILON HEALTH, INC., STEVEN SELL, and JEFFREY SCHWANEKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07167 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Agilon securities between February 26, 2025 and August 4, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made statements that were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants recklessly issued guidance for 2025 that they knew or should have known was not going to be achieved, given material industry headwinds of which they were aware; (2) Defendants materially overstated the immediate positive financial impact from "strategic actions" taken by Agilon to reduce risk; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Agilon's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Agilon Health, Inc. provides healthcare services for seniors through primary care physicians in the communities of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com ANGEION GROUP: Barclay Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Robert Barclay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Angeion Group LLC; Epiq Systems, Inc.; JND Legal Administration; Tremendous LLC; Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.; Digital Settlement Technologies LLC doing business as: Digital Disbursements Payments; Huntington National Bank; Western Alliance Bank; Does 1-20, Case No. 5:25-cv-06514 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04519-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Angeion Group International LLC -- https://www.angeiongroup.com/ -- is a technology-enabled legal services business..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Barger, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 ANGEION GROUP: Barrett Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jennifer Barrett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Angeion Group LLC; Epiq Systems, Inc.; JND Legal Administration; Tremendous LLC; Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.; Digital Settlement Technologies LLC doing business as: Digital Disbursements Payments; Huntington National Bank; Western Alliance Bank; Does 1-20, Case No. 4:25-cv-00891 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04515-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Angeion Group International LLC -- https://www.angeiongroup.com/ -- is a technology-enabled legal services business.[BN] ANGEION GROUP: Dendy Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Scott Dendy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Angeion Group LLC; Epiq Systems, Inc.; JND Legal Administration; Tremendous LLC; Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.; Digital Settlement Technologies LLC doing business as: Digital Disbursements Payments; Huntington National Bank; Western Alliance Bank; Does 1-20, Case No. 5:25-cv-01936 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04516-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Angeion Group International LLC -- https://www.angeiongroup.com/ -- is a technology-enabled legal services business..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas A. Dellaccio, Jr., Esq. 2131 Magnolia Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 ANGEION GROUP: Tennery Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Brooke Tennery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Angeion Group LLC; Epiq Systems, Inc.; JND Legal Administration; Tremendous LLC; Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.; Digital Settlement Technologies LLC doing business as: Digital Disbursements Payments; Huntington National Bank; Western Alliance Bank; Does 1-20, Case No. 2:25-cv-01982 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04517-JDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for the Racketeering (RICO) Act. Angeion Group International LLC -- https://www.angeiongroup.com/ -- is a technology-enabled legal services business..[BN] APPLE INC: Coronavirus Appeals Reconsideration Order to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CORONAVIRUS REPORTER CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Coronavirus Reporter Corporation, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08660-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Mar. 30, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for sanctions. On July 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion leave to file motion for reconsideration. On July 30, 2025, Judge Edward M. Chen entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for sanctions and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file. The Court finds that none of the documents concern the application of res judicata, the basis for the Court's dismissal. Thus, the Plaintiffs do not offer a valid basis to seek reconsideration. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied. The appellate case is entitled Coronavirus Reporter Corporation, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 25-8111, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 5, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 9, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CORONAVIRUS REPORTER CORPORATION, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Keith Mathews, Esq. AMERICAN WEALTH PROTECTION 1000 Elm Street, Suite 800 Manchester, NH 03101 Defendant-Appellee APPLE INC. is represented by: Julian Kleinbrodt, Esq. Rachel Susan Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 AUTONEUM NORTH: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class in Graham Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graham v. Autoneum North America, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-12805 (E.D. Mich., Filed Oct. 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge Robert J. White entered an order granting motion to stay briefing of motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Autoneum is an auto parts manufacturer.[CC] AW DISTRIBUTING: Kendrick Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENDRICK is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Michael Kendrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AW Distributing, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-CV-02287-JWB-ADM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants for strict products liability, negligence, wrongful death, survivorship, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and punitive and/aggravating circumstances. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge John W. Broomes granted on Dec. 1, 2025. The motion to strike is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Kendrick v. AW Distributing, et al., Case No. 25-3227, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL KENDRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sarah Bradshaw, Esq. Ruth Anne French, Esq. Ryan C. Hudson, Esq. Macy Grace Marlett, Esq. Rex Sharp, Esq. SHARP LAW 4820 West 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 - and - Brian Forrest McCallister, Esq. MCCALLISTER LAW FIRM 917 West 43rd Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 931-2229 Defendants-Appellees AW DISTRIBUTING, INC., et al. are represented by: John G. Schultz, Esq. FRANKE SCHULTZ AND MULLEN 8900 Ward Parkway, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64114 Telephone: (816) 421-7100 - and - Tyler M. Waugh, Esq. SANDBERG PHOENIX 4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 - and - Jared Harpt, Esq. Patrick D. Murphy, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 299-4242 - and - Alan L. Rupe, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 1605 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 609-7900 - and - Blaine Patrick Smith, Esq. Matthew A. Tate, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO 10401 Holmes Road, Suite 220 Kansas City, MO 64131 - and - James C. Morris, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 211 North Broadway, Suite 2150 St. Louis, MO 63102 - and - Kristen A. Cooke, Esq. Christopher T. Sheean, Esq. SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 321-9100 - and - Marcie J. Vantine, Esq. SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL 800 Market Street, Suite 2100 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 494-5700 - and - Rose J. Hunter Jones, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN 1372 Peachtree Street Northeast Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 793-1763 - and - Jonathan G. Musch, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN 6 Cardinal Way, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 464-3391 BARI HOME: Laduca Seeks More time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LADUCA et al v. BARI HOME CARE, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07970-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of the Jan. 15, 2026, deadline to seek leave to move for class certification. The Parties have been proceeding with pre-class certification discovery. On Aug. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs served their Amended First Set of Discovery Demands on Defendants. On Dec. 30, 2025, the Defendants served their Second Set of Demands on the Named Plaintiffs and fifteen Opt-In Plaintiffs in accordance with the December 19, 2025. Bari is a New York-based home healthcare provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=El6Vns at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paige Piazza, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: ppiazza@vandallp.com BIOGEN INC: Shash Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADIA SHASH and AMJAD KHAN Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, ALFRED W. SANDROCK, JR., and SAMANTHA BUDD-HAEBERLEIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-10479-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class of investors comprised of: "All persons and entities, other than the Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded Biogen Inc. securities between July 22, 2020 and Nov. 6, 2020, inclusive." Excluded from the class are the Defendants, all officers and directors of Biogen, their immediate family members and any entity over which an excluded person exercises control or owns more than 10%. 2. Appointing PolyCon Solutions LLC and Nadia Shash, its sole managing member, Amjad Khan, and Albert Aftoora as class representatives. 3. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, Laurence M. Rosen, Jonathan Horne, Brian B. Alexander, Joshua Baker, and Sara Fuks of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as class counsel. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3JcwYT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Jonathan Horne, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. Sara Fuks, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 100016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com jhorne@rosenlegal.com balexander@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com sfuks@rosenlegal.com BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Parties Seek to Modify Oct. 30 Sched Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA HILLS and OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS, INC., VIMAL MEHTA, RICHARD STEINHART, and ROBERT RISINGER, Case No. 3:23-cv-00915-SVN (D. Conn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the Scheduling Order dated Oct. 30, 2025 to allow for expert discovery and reports in conjunction with Lead Plaintiffs' upcoming motion for class certification. Having met and conferred on these issues, the parties request permission to submit expert report(s) relating to class certification issues with their respective briefs. Consequently, on Feb. 6, 2026, Lead Plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification along with their expert report. The Defendants will then take whatever expert discovery is necessary (including deposition) and file their opposition to Lead Plaintiffs' motion on March 20, 2026, along with any expert report(s) in response. The Lead Plaintiffs will file their reply on April 17, 2026, with a rebuttal report, if necessary. BioXcel is a biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=acerev at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com - and - Abe Alexander, Esq. Vincent Potrello, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: cmoyna@gelaw.com aforgione@gelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah A. Tomkowiak, Esq. Colleen C. Smith, Esq. Michele D. Johnson, Esq. Meryn C. N. Grant, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 E-mail: sarah.tomkowiak@lw.com colleen.smith@lw.com michele.johnson@lw.com meryn.grant@lw.com BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE DIXON, et al., v. BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00029-JRR (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending their time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class against the Defendants, appoint named Plaintiffs as class representatives and appoint Class Counsel to Feb. 19, 2026. On Dec. 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify a Class against Defendants, Appoint Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Appoint Class Counsel. The current deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion is Jan. 5, 2026. Blibaum is a law firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UErWxy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: George F. Ritchie, Esq. Lauren E. Lake, Esq. GORDON FEINBLATT LLC 1001 Fleet Street, Suite 700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 576-4131 Facsimile: (410) 576-4131 E-mail: gritchie@gfrlaw.com llake@gfrlaw.com BREAKING BREAD: Faces Ortega Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- LUZ SANCHEZ ORTEGA, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. BREAKING BREAD SI INC. dba BREAKING BREAD RESTAURANT, and NICHOLAS R. CAMMARATO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07180 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, minimum wages, and overtime compensation; (2) unpaid "spread of hours" premiums for each day he worked more than ten (10) hours; (3) tips improperly misappropriated by Defendants; (4) wages and tips withheld by Defendants; (5) liquidated damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act; (6) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (7) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Ortega was employed by the Defendants in Richmond County, New York, as a waiter, cleaner and general helper at Defendants' restaurant known as "Breaking Bread," continuously from April 2021 through November 30, 2025. Breaking Bread SI Inc., doing business as Breaking Bread Restaurant, is a domestic business entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com C&H SUGAR: Bello-Lafrades Seeks Conditional Cert of Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey Bello-Lafrades, et al., v. C&H Sugar Company, Inc., American Sugar Refining, Inc., and ASR Group Commodities (US), LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-07006-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying as a collective action and facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs also request appointment of Jeffrey Bello-Lafrades and Otis Brown as Collective Action Representatives, and designation of Plaintiffs' Counsel as collective action counsel. An order for conditional certification and facilitated notice is appropriate in this case to provide "similarly situated" potential plaintiffs with information on the existence of this collective action lawsuit filed against Defendants, to advise them how their rights may be affected by this lawsuit, and to instruct them on the procedure for participating in this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay overtime owed to the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals for time spent performing pre-shift and post-shift duties, first by employing an improper time-rounding practice and then by requiring employees to work off-the-clock. The Plaintiffs include Jeffrey Bello-Lafrades, Otis Brown, Keith Lederer, Gary Pedro, Darren Abeyta, Bryan Adams, Miguel Ahumada, Ruben Alvernaz, Amando Antonio, Cristian Aparicio-Aldana, Timothy Aung, Dominic Austin, Harinder Bains, Timothy Ballard, Michael Baluyut, Christian Barajas, Shawn Batey, Clodualdo Bello Jr., Joe Bello, Mario Benoit, John Best, Vinod Bhagirath, D’maree Bonner, Mario Bonner, Greg Bradley, Kimiyante Bryant Sr., Chuck Burke, Paul Burnett, Kevin Buss, Legival Cabansag, Guadalupe Camarillo, Courtney Camper, Paul Mark Tauyan Cantiller, Francisco Ceja, Marco Cerna, Ruben Cervantes, Abey Chanhsombath, Lana Chapman, Patricia Childress, Deepak Chopra, Vincent Cipponeni, Paul Bernard Cleary Jr., Don Cooper Jr., Lisa Cornista, Justin Crow, Eduardo Cruz, Fernando Cruz, Anthony Dauer, Wendell De Chavez, Clayton DeAmaral, Larry Delgado, Eric Diaz, Ryan Doan, Billy Joe Downs, Isiah Edwards, Gilbert Elvira Jr., Roberto Escobedo, Kyerra Evans-venson, Sylvia Farr, Mark Flanary, Mark Flynn, David Frye, Asser Garcia, Cesar Garibay, Nirmal Singh Gill, Jose De Jesus Gonzalez, Martin Gonzalez, Melody Goodrow, Irvin Green, Mauricio Green, Ian Guidry, Gregory Gutierrez, Sofiane Hachemi, Kevin Hardy, Mason Harrington, Jacqueline Hazlewood, Steven Hendrix, Connie Hill, Jerry Hill, Vanessa Hill, Antonio Hodges, Sandip Hundal, Melvin Jarvis Jr., Dylan, Jimenez, Patrick Jimenez, Jaspreet Singh Johl, Ronald Jorvina, Romeo Jumangit, Michael Keegan, Keith Lawson, Christopher Lee, David Lemley, Shawn Lesky, Ethan Lewis, Gregory Lindke, Daniel Clyde Little, Samuel Locastro, Emmanuel Loera, Steven Loera, Michael Long, Jerome Luckett, Keith Lusetti, Robert Lynn, Travis Dean Mallonee, Andy Marfoldi, Ricky Marquez, Davonte Martinez, Ryan Martinez, Daryl Mason, Edsel Maybituin, Gregory McAroy, Kim Quincy McConico, Darlene McDade, Ronald McLen, Frank McMillan, Jordan McPherson, Jose Medina, Aron Meraz, Jowan Michael, Alejandro Mijangos, Cynthia Miramontes, Stephanze Mitchell, Falana Montgomery, Edgar Murillo, Ryan Murphy, Tasha Nelson, Kevin Nicholas, Ashley Nicks, Joshua Normandeau, Russell Obee, David Ollison, Calvin Orellana, Roberto Orellana Jr., Orion Oyedeji, Rey Padilla, Anthony Paige, Scott Paradis, Paul Pastori, Javis Payne, Kyle Pecoraro, Lucas Pecoraro, Michael Pelton, Tony Phan, Dave Phanh, Rudy Phipps, Robin Pittman, Arthur Pompa Jr., Richard Porter Jr., Andrew Prather, John Price, Kimberly Price, Baljit Purewal, Brent Quade, Jason Quiles, Adrian Quintana, Roberto Quintana, Paul Rakkar, Richo Richardson, Collins Rivers, Michael Robinson, Robert Rockdaschel, Roxanne Rodriguez, Thomas Rohrbacher, Ryan Rollins, Pedro Romo, Danny Umana, Jovan Rush, Jagdish Sahota, Vicky Saini, Rupinder Samra, Surjit Sandhu, Baljeet Sangha, Dilbar Sangha, Damian Santa Ana, Christopher Schoenrock, Justin Sellers, Deepak Sharma, Mike Sharma, Yuvraj Sharma, Lorenzo Shaw, Larry Shields, Luchiana Short Houston, David Simpkins, Bulwinder Singh, Charanpreet Singh, Dilramnik Singh, Inderjit Singh, Jasbir Singh, Jaslok Singh, Jiwan Singh, Manpreet Singh, Mohinder Singh, Robert Slack, Kendra Sparks, Demetrus Spears, Bertha Spencer-Johnson, Matthew Storck, Anthony Stralla, Tracy Strickland Smith, Raymond Strong, Charles Surman, Karan Tewari, Ravinder Tewari, Shawinder Tewari, Larussell Thomas, Edgar Thompson Jr., Jemar Thompson, Toriano Thompson, Ravati Tiwari, Noel Tostado, Gracen Trinidad, Kerry Trosclair III, Ryan Turnage, Eddie Turner Jr., Charles Uoo, Antonio Valenzuela, Addison Vaughn, Eduardo Velarde, Richard Wallace, David Webb, Damian West, Dominic West, Nicholas Whitmire, Walter Whitt, John Wieckowski, Ayana Williams, Veante Williams, Roger Wilson, Marcus Woodring, Claudia Zamora Madrigal, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Beatrice Coombs, Manuel Furtado, Carl Jiles Sr. Michael Podplesky, and Dev Takher. C&H is an American sugar processing and distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ogubVb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq. Amanda R. Mccarthy, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C. 1912 I Street Sacramento, CA 95811-3151 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com tdavies-mahaffey@mastagni.com amccarthy@mastagni.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Ryan Sues Over Fresh Shell Egg Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN P. RYAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC, ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.; OPAL FOODS, LLC; 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 d/b/a EGG FARMERS OF AMERICA; and JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00999-FJG (W.D. Mo., December 30, 2025) arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs from at least as early as January 1, 2022, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist. Starting as late as February 1, 2022, the Defendants and their co-conspirators used Urner Barry (now called "Expana") to collusively fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the supply and price of shell eggs sold in the United States above competitive levels, asserts the complaint. Urner Barry is a publisher that collects, analyzes, and disseminates detailed and current information to its customers in the egg, poultry, meat, seafood, plant protein, and related segments of the food industry. As part of their unlawful agreement, the Egg Producer Defendants reported inflated "assessments" of egg prices to Urner Barry, which then published price quotes using the subjective information provided by its subscribers, including the Egg Producer Defendants. It also incorporated transaction prices from an online spot market provided by Defendant ECI -- a private, members-only spot market for buying and selling eggs. The Defendants' conspiracy caused Plaintiff and members of the Classes to pay supracompetitive prices for shell eggs during the Class Period, says the suit, the complaint alleges. During the Class Period, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the price of eggs soared from under $2 per dozen to as high as $6.22 per dozen in March of 2025. To provide a remedy for the injury suffered as a result of Defendants' conspiracy and illegal actions, the Plaintiff bring this case on behalf of end purchasers of shell eggs against Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman, state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and under common law for unjust enrichment. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is an American fresh egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. Hans D. Hodes, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com hhodes@midwest-law.com CAR-MART INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of America's Car-Mart, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRMT) resulting from allegations that America's Car-Mart may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased America's Car-Mart 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=46025 https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39889 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 September 4, 2025, during market hours, Benzinga published an article entitled "America's Car-Mart Stock Plunges After Sales Volume Dip, Delinquency Uptick." The article stated that America's Car-Mart, Inc. stock was trading "lower after the company reported first-quarter results. The company reported a first-quarter loss of 69 cents per share, compared with a net loss of 15 cents per share in the year-ago period." On this news, America's Car-Mart's stock fell 18.2% on September 4, 2025. 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. Contact Information: 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] CARVANA LLC: Must Produce Consumer Metrics in Jennings Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNINGS, et al., v. CARVANA, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-05400-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Perez entered an order that the Motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. The Defendants shall produce, within 30 days of the date of this Order, existing Pennsylvania-specific metrics and reporting concerning title and registration processing for Pennsylvania consumers and/or Pennsylvania-titled vehicles. This production shall include any existing reports, dashboards, exports, or compilations maintained in the ordinary course that reflect CBD/NCBD status, hold rates, error rates, queue status, completion status, or similar metrics used to monitor title and registration processing. 2. The Defendants shall also produce a limited set of internal issue-tracking records (including JIRA tickets or their equivalent) reflecting Pennsylvania title and registration processing problems. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the production shall be limited to tickets created between Nov. 1, 2019 and the present. 3. The Plaintiffs' request for blanket identification of all putative class members by name and/or contact information is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may renew such a request after class certification or upon a particularized showing that the information is necessary to resolve a specific class-certification issue and cannot be obtained through less intrusive, proportional means. 4. The Plaintiffs' request that the Defendants produce all executed Pennsylvania RISCs for the full proposed class period is denied as currently framed as disproportionate at this stage. 5. The motions to seal the briefing pertaining to these issues are granted. Carvana operates as an online used car retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n0SLmI at no extra charge.[CC] CATWIG LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Torgerson Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD TORGERSON and CHRISTOPHER LUTHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CATWIG LLC d/b/a VICTORY DISABILITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00016 (E.D. Pa., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals' personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") including, inter alia, individuals' name, contact information including, address, email, or telephone number, Social Security number, date of birth and/or medical information, such as diagnosis, treatment, medications, and lab results. The complaint relates that as a condition of providing its services, Defendant receives, creates, and handles the PII and PHI of Plaintiffs and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, and storing Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and PHI, the Defendant assumed equitable and legal duties to safeguard and keep confidential Plaintiffs' and Class Members' highly sensitive information, to only use this information for business purposes, and to only make authorized disclosures. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard PII and PHI, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive information was exposed to unauthorized third parties during a massive data breach that took place from October 27 to November 12, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). While Victory began to notify affected individuals of the Data Breach on December 12, 2025, it revealed very little information. To date, it is still unknown just how many individuals' PII and PHI was implicated as a result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and PHI is now in the hands of cybercriminals as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Class Members are now 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 mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiffs and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and the Class as defined herein, bring claims for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Donald Torgerson is a citizen of the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff Christopher Luther is a citizen of the State of Maine. Defendant Catwig LLC is a law firm specializing in assisting U.S. veterans with Social Security and disability claims.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. Street NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202)470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com CENTURION OF DELAWARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 31, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jenail Brown et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Centurion of Delaware, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00923-JLH (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge entered scheduling order as follows: All written discovery shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before May 1, 2026. All fact discovery depositions shall be initiated so that they will be completed on or before July 3, 2026. All expert discovery depositions shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before Mar. 26, 2027. Class certification motions, an opening brief, and affidavits, if any, in support of the motion shall be served and filed on or before Mar. 31, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5XNW48 at no extra charge.[CC] CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of O'Donnell Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of a putative class action in the lawsuit captioned RYAN O'DONNELL and MICHAEL GOREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF CHICAGO and URT UNITED ROAD TOWING, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-2946 (7th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:23-cv-01192, Andrea R. Wood, Judge). The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., Thomas L. Kirsch II, and Doris L. Pryor. Judge Kirsch wrote the opinion of the Court. The City of Chicago may immobilize, tow, impound, and ultimately dispose of vehicles to enforce compliance with its traffic code. The City disposed of Ryan O'Donnell's and Michael Goree's vehicles pursuant to this graduated forfeiture scheme, without compensating them. O'Donnell and Goree then filed a putative class action against the City and URT United Road Towing, Inc., a towing company that works for the City. They alleged that the City's forfeiture scheme is facially unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and the Illinois constitution and brought a state-law unjust enrichment claim. The district court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Because that court correctly determined that vehicle forfeiture pursuant to the City's traffic code is not a taking, the Court of Appeals affirms. The Panel finds that the City of Chicago's graduated vehicle forfeiture scheme--under which vehicles may be immobilized, towed, impounded, and ultimately disposed of for unpaid traffic violations--does not constitute a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment or the Illinois Constitution. Because there was no constitutional violation, Judge Kirsch holds that the Plaintiffs' related claims against the City and its towing contractor also failed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3pa9r7 from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. CHOICEPOINT LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as I.T., A.K., S.R., and M.G., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CHOICEPOINT LLC d/b/a CHOICEPOINT HEALTH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00193-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered a scheduling order. Event Date The Plaintiffs' class certification motion Oct. 5, 2026 (including any expert reports in support of class certification motion): The Defendants' opposition to the Nov. 5, 2026 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (including any expert reports in opposition to class certification): The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class Dec. 5, 2026 certification motion: Class certification motion hearing: To be set If the case settles, counsel shall notify Courtroom Deputy Diyana Staples via email at KKEcrd@wawd.uscourts.gov as soon as possible. Pursuant to LCR 11(b), an attorney who fails to give the courtroom deputy prompt notice of settlement may be subject to sanctions, the Court says. ChoicePoint is a certified addiction treatment center. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iSCc24 at no extra charge.[CC] CREDIT ONE: Faces Snyder Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH NICOS SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-26172-KMM (S.D. Fla., December 31, 2025) arises from numerous automated telephonic sales calls the Defendant made to Plaintiff promoting its banking services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that Defendant's automated equipment continued to make such calls even after Plaintiff requested that Defendant stop making further calls. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of many individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of persons who received Defendant's calls and/or text messages despite being on the federal Do-No-Call Registry. Credit One Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simeon Genadiev, Esq. THE G LAW GROUP, P.A. 1501 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 501 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 709-8877 Facsimile: (786) 460-8333 E-mail: sgenadiev@theglawgroup.com DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allman, et al., v. Dallas County Texas, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02709 (N.D. Tex., Filed Oct. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend time for filing motion for class certification The Court will set the deadline for filing the motion for class certification in the Court's Scheduling Order. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Dallas County is a county located in the U.S. state of Texas.[CC] DELTA DENTAL: Walsh Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Walsh v. Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10801-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order referring the Walsh action to the Magistrate Judge for the following purposes: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement.) -- Dispositive motion (i.e., motion requiring a report and recommendation). Particular motion: Motion for class certification Delta is an American network of dental insurance companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zK2bCe at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA DENTAL: Walsh Sues Over Deceptive Dental Care Service Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN WALSH, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DELTACARE USA, DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK INC., DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY, INC., ARIZONA DENTAL INSURANCE SERVICE, INC., D/B/A DELTA DENTAL OF ARIZONA, DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF ARKANSAS, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, COLORADO DENTAL SERVICE INC. D/B/A/ DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO, DELTA DENTAL OF CONNECTICUT, DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE, DELTA DENTAL OF IDAHO, INC. D/B/A DELTA DENTAL OF IDAHO, DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS, DELTA DENTAL OF INDIANA, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS INC., DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY, INC., MAINE DENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION, D/B/A DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MAINE, DENTAL SERVICE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC. D/B/A DELTA DENTAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MICHIGAN, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA, DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI, DELTA DENTAL OF NEBRASKA, DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC., DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF NEW MEXICO, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OHIO, INC., DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OKLAHOMA, OREGON DENTAL SERVICE D/B/A DELTA DENTAL OF OREGON, DELTA DENTAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF RHODE ISLAND, DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH DAKOTA, DELTA DENTAL OF TENNESSEE, DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF VERMONT, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF VIRGINIA, DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON, DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN, INC., DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF WYOMING D/B/A DELTA DENTAL OF WYOMING, ABC CORPORATION 1 40, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10801 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf the Plaintiff and all people insured under a Delta Dental insurance plan who paid more for out-of-network dental care than they should have because of Delta Dental's policy of falsely and misleadingly misrepresenting that it would cover a certain percentage of the cost of out-of-network treatment (i.e. 50-100% depending on the service) when it fact it covers far less than the stated percentage. According to the complaint, the practice is common among all Delta Dental entities and is uniform throughout the United States. Delta Dental engages in this unlawful conduct across its various insurance offerings throughout the United States, resulting in Plaintiff and class members paying considerably more for out-of-network dental care than they should have. Delta Dental obfuscates its practices regarding its coverage of out-of-network treatment, does not disclose that it bases its percentages off of undisclosed internal prices, and generally misrepresents the nature of its coverage, it frustrated the appeals process because consumers cannot readily discern that Delta Dental has failed to honor its obligations, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Walsh, through his employer, is enrolled in a Delta Dental PPO plan. On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff Walsh visited an out-of-network provider and underwent three procedures, each involving preventative care and imaging. Delta Dental Plans Association is the not-for-profit national association of 39 independent Delta Dental companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the America, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com DONALD TRUMP: Court Stays NYIC Class Suit ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as New York Immigration Coalition et al., v. Donald J. Trump et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01309-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order that granting motion to stay case because it would greatly serve the interests of the courts and improve judicial efficiency. Accordingly, no other interests outweigh the factors supporting a stay. In particular, while the Court is mindful of the Plaintiffs' claims that they will be subject to imminent harm if Executive Order No. 14160 is enforced, the Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a stay because they are protected by multiple nationwide injunctions against enforcement of the Executive Order issued by courts in other districts, which have remained in place pending the Supreme Court's decision in Barbara. The Clerk of Court is directed to stay this case. On Dec. 5, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, "complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause." Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T767dG at no extra charge.[CC] DORIS CHEN: Faces Sohon Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ ZACARIAS YAXON SOHON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DORIS CHEN FOOD SERVICES INC. (D/B/A WING YUM LIN'S CHINESE RESTAURANT), XINLI LEE, and XIAOLI CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07130 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to pay additional hour's pay at the basic minimum wage rate before allowances for each day Plaintiff's spread of hours exceeded 10 hours; failure to provide with a written wage notice; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; and failure to reimburse costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of the trade" required to perform Plaintiff's job. Plaintiff Yaxon was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer, vegetable cutter, janitor and ostensibly as a delivery worker at Wing Yum Lin's Chinese Restaurant from approximately April 22, 2025 until December 20, 2025. Doris Chen Food Services Inc. operates a Chinese restaurant located in the Richmond Hill section of Queens in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YAMAMOTO, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware Stock Corporation; FEDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06796-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application is granted; 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification is continued from Jan. 29, 2026 to March 2, 2026; and 3. The hearing date and related briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be set in accordance with the Local Rules and the Court's procedures. FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=USp8Wo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmin K. Gill, Esq. Ashlie E. Fox, Esq. Yaffa Yermian, Esq. J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 459-6023 Facsimile: (310) 728-2137 E-mail: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com ashlie@jkgilllaw.com yaffa@jkgilllaw.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Seeks Denial of Class Cert Bid in Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TUNNY SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-24482-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification on the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Tunny Solomon pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(C)(1)(A), or alternatively, striking the Plaintiff's class definition pursuant to Rule 12(c) and (f). Despite the Bank's explanation and the Court's commentary that her proposed class was uncertifiable, the Plaintiff persists in litigating this case as a class action. A class cannot – and should not – be certified under Rule 23. In summary, Plaintiff has not pled a class that could be certified. As a result, her third amended class definition should be stricken. This case should not proceed any longer as a class action, unless and until Plaintiff defines a class that, at least plausibly, could be certified. To date, Plaintiff has not done so. On Dec.5, 2025, Plaintiff proposed a third class definition in this case, amending her proposed class to include: "All people who purchased a certificate of deposit ("CD") from the Bank "and, upon maturity, the Defendant, without authorization from the account holder and/or contrary to the express terms of any written agreement, did not place the funds in an interest bearing post[-]maturity savings account, but instead, placed the funds in a less profitable account or instrument…." Flagstar is an American commercial bank. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9vH3j4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Cardenal, Esq. Jason E. Manning, Esq. Mary C. Zinsner, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 215, East Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (786) 475-6998 E-mail: daniel.cardenal@troutman.com jason.manning@troutman.com mary.zinsner@troutman.com FUEGO SMOKE: Dial Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN DIAL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET P. CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE LLC, MANKI INVESTMENTS LLC, HYWAZE LLC, OUTER LIMITS SALES TWO LLC, A&A SMOKE SHOP LLC, PUFFZILLA LLC, and GIVINGO LLC, individually and as representatives of a defendant class, and PLUTO BRANDS, LLC ,GALAXY GAS, LLC, DIMO HEMP LLC, FUSION INTERNATIONAL TRADING LLC, UNITED BRANDS, INC., SWEET AND SOUR HOLDINGS LLC, MONSTER GAS, INC., and BAKING BAD GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00551-AGM-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification by 90 days, to April 9, 2026. The Plaintiff moves for this extension for two principal reasons: First, until the various motions to dismiss are resolved, the precise contours of the Plaintiff's case remain somewhat uncertain. Parties and the Court can derive deficiencies if the motion for class certification is consistent with the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on Feb. 6, 2025, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. On March 27, 2025, Defendant Galaxy Gas, LLC removed this action to this Court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. sections 1441 and 1446 and the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") Fuego is a retail establishment, specializing in a wide range of smoke and vape products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JFwR9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com GREG ABBOTT: Jefferson Seeks Leave to File First Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JRMAR "JJ" JEFFERSON, v. GREG ABBOTT, (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR), et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03065-L-BN (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint and to add parties, including re-adding Defendant Jasmine Felicia Crockett, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 20(a)(2), and 21. The Plaintiff filed this federal action seeking relief arising from events and decisions surrounding the Plaintiff's candidate status, certification/ballot access, and related conduct by the named officials and political-organization actors. The Defendants include GREG ABBOTT, (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR); JANE NELSON,( IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE); CHRISTINA ADKINS, (IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS); GILBERTO HINOJOSA, CHAIR OF THE TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY (IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY); JASMINE FELICIA CROCKETT, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 30; KARDAL COLEMAN, CHAIR OF THE DALLAS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY (IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY); CRYSTAL GAYDEN, CHAIR OF THE TARRANT COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY (IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. Gregory Abbott is an American politician, attorney, and jurist. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wF24aW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Jrmar JJ Jefferson 3700 Reese Drive Dallas, TX 75210 E-mail: jrmar@jeffersonforcongress.com Telephone: (903) 650-0069 HAAS AUTOMATION: Lopez Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haas Automation, Inc. The case is captioned as ESTEBAN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAAS AUTOMATION, INC., Case No. 2025CUOE055336 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., December 9, 2025). The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. Haas Automation, Inc is an American machine tool builder headquartered in Oxnard, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Potter Handy, LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com HAPPY HOUR: Class Cert. Specific Discovery Due Feb. 22, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA PATRICK, DOUGLAS MORRILL, ROSEANNE MORRILL, LEISA GARRETT, ROBERT NIXON, SAMANTHA NIXON, DAVID BOTTONFIELD, ROSEMARIE BOTTONFIELD, TASHA RYAN, ROGELIO VARGAS, MARILYN DEWEY, PETER ROLLINS, RACHAEL ROLLINS, KATRINA BENNY, SARA ERICKSON, GREG LARSON, and JAMES KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVID L. RAMSEY, III, individually; HAPPY HOUR MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00630-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robart entered an order regarding case schedule and class certification deadlines following remand. -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs' disclosure of experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Sept. 30, 2026 -- Deadline for the Defendants' disclosure of experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Dec. 16, 2026 -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs' disclosure of rebuttal experts upon whom they may rely in connection with class certification: Jan. 18, 2027 -- Deadline to complete class certification specific discovery, including class certification expert discovery: Feb. 22, 2027 -- Deadline for motions relating to class certification, admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification, and/or dispositive motions that any party believes are likely to affect class certification: March 30, 2027 Happy Hour is a full-service advertising agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IAg7kw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory W Albert, Esq. Jonah L Ohm Campbell, Esq. Tallman Harlow Trask, IV, Esq. ALBERT LAW PLLC 3131 Western Ave, Suite 410 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 576-8044 E-mail: greg@albertlawpllc.com jonah@albertlawpllc.com tallman@albertlawpllc.com - and - Roger S. Davidheiser, Esq. FRIEDMAN RUBIN PLLC (SEATTLE-DOWNTOWN) 1109 1st Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 501-4446 E-mail: rdavidheiser@friedmanrubin.com The Defendants are represented by: Jack Lovejoy, Esq. CORR CRONIN, LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 812-0894 E-mail: jlovejoy@corrcronin.com - and - Damon C. Elder, Esq. Kit W. Roth, Esq. Patricia A. Eakes, Esq. Andrew S. DeCarlow, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: patty.eakes@morganlewis.com kit.roth@morganlewis.com damon.elder@morganlewis.com andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com HOMELAND SECURITY: South Sudan TPS Termination Put on Hold ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as 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, Civil Action No. 25-CV-13939-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Angel Kelley of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an administrative stay blocking the termination of Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan. On December 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint based on the Department's decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan, which would impact approximately 232 South Sudanese nationals who currently benefit from those protections, as well as approximately 73 South Sudanese nationals who have pending applications. On December 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Postponement Under 5 U.S.C. Section 705. The Plaintiffs requested either an expedited briefing schedule before the impending cancellation of TPS set for 12:00 A.M. on January 6, 2026, or an administrative stay to allow for full consideration of the merits. The Defendant opposed both options, advocating for full briefing in the ordinary course, which would result in a determination after the policy goes into effect. The Defendant's proposed approach would result in an immediate impact on the South Sudanese nationals, stripping current beneficiaries of lawful status, which could imminently result in their deportation. Further, any gap in immigration status could result in ineligibility for future relief. The Court found that any evaluation of the merits requires a thorough consideration of complex law, as well as a weighing of serious and consequential competing factors, including the legal status of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's ability to administer and control immigration law. Because of the serious consequences at stake, both for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the Court found an administrative stay appropriate, as it would minimize harm, while allowing the assigned District Court Judge the time this case deserves. The Court adopted the parties' proposed briefing schedule with the Defendant's Opposition due on or before Friday, January 9, 2026 and the Plaintiffs' Reply due on or before Tuesday, January 13, 2026. Accordingly, the Court stayed the effective date of the decision issued on November 6, 2025 to terminate the designation of Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan, effective as of 12:00 A.M. on January 6, 2026. During the period of the stay, the termination shall be null, void, and of no legal effect. The legal consequences of being in TPS status shall continue to apply, including being eligible for work authorization and having protection against deportation and detention based on TPS status. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XPjOYL from PacerMonitor.com INTEGRO HEALTHCARE: Miller Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY MILLER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRO HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC and INTEGRO ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01584-UNA (D. Del., December 31, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as various state laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees non-discretionary bonuses and similar remuneration that were not calculated into their regular rates of pay, resulting in underpayment of earned overtime compensation. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at their Westlake, Ohio facility known as Fairmount of Westlake, as a non-exempt hourly Care Manager from January 2025 to December 2025. Integro Healthcare Services is an owner, operator, and manager of senior living communities located in Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Seal Lord & Abbett Class Cert Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND GLAZIERS’ UNION LOCAL No. 27 PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and QUENTIN BLACKFORD, Case No. 3:24-cv-00706-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider whether to seal Lord, Abbett & Co. Llc's information submitted in connection with class certification. The Defendants submit this motion because Defendants' memorandum of points and authorities and one accompanying exhibit contain information that Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC has designated as "Confidential" under the Protective Order. IRhythm is a digital health care company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m1oKGt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kristin Tahler, Esq. Christopher Porter, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Brenna Nelinson, Esq. Amy Shehan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: kristintahler@quinnemanuel.com chrisporter@quinnemanuel.com jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com amyshehan@quinnemanuel.com IROQUOIS MEMORIAL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Serna Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KYLIE SERNA, ROSEZELLA ALLEN, AND CHARLES BITTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE IROQUOIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND RESIDENT HOME d/b/a IROQUOIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-2007 (C.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) arises out of Defendant Iroquois' failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the information collected at Iroquois in order to receive medical services or employment included certain personal or protected health information of current and former employees and patients, including Plaintiffs'. On December 11, 2025, the threat actor "PEAR", one of the most active ransomware groups, successfully breached Iroquois's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive patient data. The incident was publicly reported on DeXpose along with other public reporting sites. As of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has not provided any kind of notice to affected individuals. The types of information that PEAR has routinely exfiltrated in their ransomware attacks include, but are not limited to: names, birthdates, addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance details, medical treatment data, financial records, intellectual property, accounting documents, legal files, personnel and customer information, banking details, and etc. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer other forms of injury and/or harm, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs seek remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Kylie Serna is a citizen of the State of Indiana, residing in the city of Kentland, and is a patient of Iroquois. Plaintiff Rosezella Allen is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in the city of Woodland, and is a patient of Iroquois. Plaintiff Charles Bitten is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in the city of Sheldon, and is a patient of Iroquois. Defendant The Iroquois Memorial Hospital and Resident Home d/b/a Iroquois Memorial Hospital is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 200 E Fairman Avenue, Watseka, Illinois 60970. It is a hospital providing medical services and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiffs and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: lwhite@masonllp.com JARED POLIS: Peters Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina M. Peters (PS) and Michael Lynn Merrival, Jr., v. Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado; Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General of Colorado, Moses A. Stancil, Executive Director of DOC, and Steve Reams, Weld County Sheriff, Case No. 1:26-cv-00033-RTG (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify class action, or an order for appropriate relief to conditionally certify the class. The Petitioners believe there is good satisfaction from what they have presented to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s threshold certification in requirements. The Petitioners do request the opportunity to be heard to amend this motion if needed with the assistance of counsels for the Court to see a pleading by Counsel providing a preponderance of the evidence for the court's analysis. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DXb9Zo at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se. Michael Lynn Merrival, Jr.[CC] JEFF RUBY: Agrees to Settle Tip, Wage Class Action for $1.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- David Ferrara of Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment will pay $1.55 million to settle a class-action lawsuit from former employees. -- The lawsuit alleged the restaurant group failed to pay earned tips and full minimum wage for nontipped work. -- Over 700 servers, bartenders, and server assistants are eligible for a share of the settlement fund. -- The company is settling without admitting any wrongdoing and denies violating labor laws. Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment is settling a class-action lawsuit from former employees who say they were not paid tips they earned. The Cincinnati-based luxury restaurant group will pay $1.55 million toward a settlement fund available to more than 700 servers, bartenders and server assistants, according to a mid-December filing in federal court in Nashville. Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment is settling the suit without admitting wrongdoing and denies violating the law in any respect, according to court documents. Britney Ruby Miller, president and CEO of Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment, did not immediately return a message Sunday, Jan. 11, requesting comment on the settlement. More than 127 employees filed claims as part of the class-action suit, led by Jonathan Lamb, a former Jeff Ruby's server in Lexington, Kentucky, and Jim Belmont, a former server at Carlo and Johnny in Montgomery. Other eligible employees who started working at one of the restaurant group's locations in Ohio from 2021 or Kentucky from 2019 are being notified to file claims for their share of the settlement fund. Some employees claim to be owed as much as $19,000 in unpaid tips and wages, according to court filings. Former servers say they were 'required' to work off the clock, give up some of their tips Lamb and Belmont alleged Jeff Ruby's failed to pay tipped employees the full minimum wage for time spent doing nontipped duties, such as rolling silverware, cleaning booths, slicing bread and other work, according to the lawsuit. One example cited in the lawsuit is that employees typically arrived at their scheduled worktime as early as two hours before the restaurant opened to prep for the dinner service while being paid less than $7.25 an hour. Lamb and Belmont also alleged servers were frequently required to spend time working at the beginning of their shifts without being clocked in. When Lamb, Belmont and other servers were on the clock and receiving tips, they alleged Jeff Ruby's violated federal and state labor laws by paying out some of their tips to back-of-house employees who aren't eligible for tips, according to the lawsuit. While some restaurants can "tip credit" back-of-house employees, there are specific conditions under federal and state laws to do so, which Lamb and Belmont alleged Jeff Ruby's didn't meet. Restaurant group denied allegations after suit filed Ruby Miller denied Lamb's allegations after he first filed his lawsuit, saying in a statement that they "have always and will always stand up for justice in truth." "Today, we were made aware of a lawsuit filed by one disgruntled former employee," Ruby Miller said in 2024. "Our family-owned business is passionately dedicated to our employees. They are not only our greatest asset -- they are family." In a 2024 statement to Enquirer media partner Fox19, one of Lamb's attorneys, Bob DeRose, called it wage theft. "It’s not uncommon for employers to bully employees when they stand up for their wage rights,” DeRose said. DeRose and other attorneys involved in the lawsuit did not immediately return a call from The Enquirer. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville has already preliminarily approved the settlement and, barring any objections, will finalize the settlement in May, according to court filings. [GN] JM SMUCKER: Court OK's Settlement in Arellano --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ARELLANO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOODS, LLC, a limited liability company; SMUCKER FOODSERVICE, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING CO., a corporation; SMUCKER RETAIL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a corporation; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY LLC, a limited liability company; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING COMPANY, a corporation; TRUROOTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01540-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Shubb entered an order granting final certification of the settlement class and approving the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Deal shall be binding upon all participating class members who did not exclude themselves. The Corut further entered an order that the Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement payments: (1) The court certifies the following class: "all persons employed by defendant in California and classified as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for the defendant or defendant's predecessor between Oct. 31, 2018, and April 14, 2025." (2) The court appoints Jose Arellano as class representative and finds that he meets the requirements of Rule 23; (3) The court appoints Justin F. Marquez, Arsine Grigoryan, and Dorota James of the law firm Wilshire Law Firm PLC as class counsel and finds that they meet the requirements of Rule 23; (4) The Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of $116,666.67, and litigation costs up to the amount of $17,000.00; (5) Phoenix Settlement Administrators is entitled to administration costs in the amount of $7,000.00; (6) The Plaintiff Jose Arellano is entitled to an incentive award in the amount of $5,000.00; JM is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tHKMKL at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & WALES: Class Settlement in Moore Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moore v. Johnson and Wales University, Case No. 1:24-cv-00409-JJM-AEM (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John McConnell, Jr. entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Class defined as follows: "All persons on the list of persons to whom Johnson & Wales University arrange to have sent a notice of the "Security Incident," [i.e., the security incident identified in the letter dated Sept. 19, 2024, sent to the Plaintiffs and the subject of the Amended Complaint], excluding those persons identified as being excluded in the Amended Complaint." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendant and the Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Daniella Springer, William Moore, and Ariel Volquez as the Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court finds the following counsel are experienced and adequate counsel and appoints them as Settlement Class Counsel for the Settlement: Leigh S. Montgomery of Ellzey Kherkher Sanford Montgomery, LLP; Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile P.A., and Grayson Wells of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC. Johnson & Wales is a private university with its main campus in Providence, Rhode Island. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=62PbSM at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & WALES: Class Settlement in Springer Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLA SPRINGER, WILLIAM MOORE, and ARIEL VOLQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & WALES UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:24-CV-00399-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John McConnell, Jr. entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Class defined as follows: "All persons on the list of persons to whom Johnson & Wales University arrange to have sent a notice of the "Security Incident," [i.e., the security incident identified in the letter dated Sept. 19, 2024, sent to the Plaintiffs and the subject of the Amended Complaint], excluding those persons identified as being excluded in the Amended Complaint." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendant and the Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Daniella Springer, William Moore, and Ariel Volquez as the Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court finds the following counsel are experienced and adequate counsel and appoints them as Settlement Class Counsel for the Settlement: Leigh S. Montgomery of Ellzey Kherkher Sanford Montgomery, LLP; Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile P.A., and Grayson Wells of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC. Johnson & Wales is a private university with its main campus in Providence, Rhode Island. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XMv2ZN at no extra charge.[CC] JULIET CHARRON: Ramon Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON, by and through next friend, G.C.; THOMAS, by and through next friend, C.G.; CAMERON, by and through next friend, B.E.; ANTHONY; and WENDY, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. JULIET CHARRON, in her official capacity as Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; SASHA O'CONNELL, in her official capacity as Deputy Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; ROSS EDMUNDS, in his official capacity as Administrator, Division of Behavioral Health, Case No. 1:25-cv-00676-AKB (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Brailsford entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are denied. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and/or for provisional class certification is denied without prejudice. In summary, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs have failed to make a clear showing that they have been denied benefits comparable to ACT services, to refute that granting them relief will require IDHW to cut or eliminate programs which will jeopardize the care for other mentally disabled individuals, and to show that each of them will be irreparably harmed. Accordingly, it denies the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs filed this action on November 26, 2025, alleging two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting their ADA and Rehabilitation claims directly and a renewed motion for injunctive relief, including relief on behalf of a class of ACT recipients. The Plaintiffs, however, did not file a motion for class certification at that time. On December 19, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' renewed motion for injunctive relief. Following that hearing, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify "a class of all Medicaid-eligible patients residing in the State of Idaho with serious mental illnesses for whom [ACT] services have been recommended, provided, and reimbursed from July 1, 2024, to date" and for whom IDHW has "stopped providing those services." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bec9BD at no extra charge.[CC] KAHOOT! AS: Requests for Writ of Mandamus to the Federal Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAHOOT! AS, filed on December 29, 2025, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, under Case No. IPR2025-00696, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled In re Kahoot! AS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00727-ADA, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. According to the petition, mandamus is warranted here because the Director's institution of the "settled expectations" doctrine, and his application of this doctrine to deny Kahoot!'s inter partes review (IPR) petition, are arbitrary and contravenes the statutory IPR regime. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner KAHOOT! AS is represented by: Naveen Modi, Esq. Igor V. Timofeyev, Esq. Chetan Bansal, Esq. Maksim Mints, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 551-1700 Email: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com igortimofeyev@paulhastings.com chetanbansal@paulhastings.com maksimmints@paulhastings.com - and - Rudolph Y. Kim, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 1117 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 320-1800 Email: rudykim@paulhastings.com KAISER PERMANENTE: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $10.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, doing business as Kaiser Permanente, has agreed to a $10,500,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Kaiser Permanente TCPA settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 1, 2025 and covers all individuals in the United States who were sent more than one text message from or on behalf of Kaiser Permanente within any 12-month period between January 21, 2021 and August 20, 2025 regarding their services, when the individual had previously indicated they didn't want to receive the messages by texting "STOP" or a similar opt-out instruction. The court-approved website for the Kaiser Permanente class action settlement can be found at KaiserTCPASettlement.com. Settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $75 for each qualifying text message they receive. Per the settlement website, in the event there are valid claims in excess of the amount of money available in the settlement fund, payments to class members will be reduced on a pro rata (equal share) basis. To submit a Kaiser claim form online, settlement class members can go to this page of the settlement website and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Class members who prefer to submit a claim form by mail can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and mail to the settlement administrator listed on the website. All Kaiser Permanente claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 12, 2026. The settlement website specifies that class members may only submit one claim form, which will cover each qualifying text message to any of their telephone numbers. A final approval hearing for the Kaiser TCPA settlement will be held on January 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Kaiser Permanente TCPA class action lawsuit alleged that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, doing business as Kaiser Permanente, sent the plaintiff and other consumers telemarketing text messages after they had already texted "STOP" in response to the texts. According to the complaint, the texts were sent between January 21, 2022 and August 30, 2025. The plaintiff alleged Kaiser's actions violated the TCPA and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. [GN] KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Bid for Class Cert. in Fammons Suit Due June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY FAMMONS, v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02534-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered a scheduling order: Accordingly, the court vacates the initial scheduling conference set for Jan. 12, 2026. The parties shall serve their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than Jan. 9, 2026, which is a date proposed by the parties. Any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by no later than June 30, 2026, a date proposed by the parties. Any opposition to that motion shall be filed by no later than Aug.11, 2026, a date proposed by the parties. Any reply to that opposition shall be filed by no later than Sept. 8, 2026, a date proposed by the parties. KeHE is a national distributor for grocery stores, supermarkets, and online vendors. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IkaKfe at no extra charge.[CC] KRUA THAI: Court Schedules "Juarez" Final Conference for April 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ismael Juarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Krua Thai NYC Corp. d/b/a Chomp Chomp Thai Kitchen, and Nuntaporn Thongwan, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-CV-2736 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order establishing pretrial deadlines and procedures. The Court ordered the parties to submit the Joint Pretrial Order and additional materials by January 30, 2026. These materials include a pretrial memorandum of law, joint proposed voir dire questions, verdict form, and jury instructions, as well as all documentary exhibits. The Court established a briefing schedule for motions in limine, with motions due by February 27, 2026, and responses due by March 10, 2026. The February 12, 2026 conference was cancelled. The parties shall appear for a final pretrial conference on April 9, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1506. The parties are required to discuss settlement for at least one hour no later than April 2, 2026, and may request assistance from Magistrate Judge Willis or a mediator by notifying the Court by January 19, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 6, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zZd90q from PacerMonitor.com LEADPOINT INC: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Leadpoint Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06200-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark Cohen entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs unopposed motion to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is granted. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification shall be set by the Court in the Scheduling Order to be entered in this action. Leadpoint operates as a performance advertising solutions provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JmlKUh at no extra charge.[CC] LIME ROCK: Colton Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 8th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- GREGG B. COLTON is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Gregg B. Colton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lime Rock Resources GP V, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00123-DLH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. Colton brings this case on behalf of himself and Class members pursuant to N.D.C.C. Section 47- 16-39.1, which governs the obligation of an operator arising under an oil and gas lease to pay royalties to mineral owners and a mineral owner's assignees. On Nov. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed a stipulation for entry of judgment, which Judge Daniel L. Hovland adopted on Dec. 4, 2025. On same day, Clerk's judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants. The appellate case is entitled Gregg Colton v. Lime Rock Resources GP V, LP, et al., Case No. 25-3542, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 31, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Appendix is due on February 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 9, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of Appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GREGG B. COLTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON & BURROWS 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 (913) 563-6253 (913) 563-6256 Defendants-Appellees LIME ROCK RESOURCES GP V, LP, et al. are represented by: Zachary R. Eiken, Esq. Paul J. Forster, Esq. CROWLEY & FLECK 100 W. Broadway P.O. Box 2798 Bismarck, ND 58502 Telephone: (701) 223-6585 LIVE NATION: Appeals Class Certification Order in Heckman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled Skot Heckman, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Jan. 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought this class action against the Defendants under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to recover the damages they suffered from paying supracompetitive fees on primary and secondary ticket purchases from Ticketmaster's online platforms. The Defendants have willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power for Ticketmaster in the relevant markets for primary ticketing services for major concert venues and, on information and belief, for secondary ticketing services for major concert venues, says the suit. On Dec. 12, 2025, Judge George H. Wu entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned as Skot Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-8114, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SKOT HECKMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Ethan Henry Ames, Esq. Jessica Breese Beringer, Esq. Warren David Postman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN, LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - William R. Sears, IV, Esq. Kevin Teruya, Esq. Adam Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (339) 223-0526 - and - Brantley Pepperman, Esq. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 21800 Oxnard Street Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Defendants-Petitioners LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., are represented by: Andrew Michael Gass, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. Nicholas Rosellini, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 - and - Roman Martinez, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 11th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 - and - Kristin Cooper Holladay, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 LOS ANGELES, CA: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Jan. 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS PIMENTEL, DAVID R. WELCH, JEFFREY O'CONNELL, EDWARD LEE, WENDY COOPER, JACLYN BAIRD, RAFAEL BUELNA, and all persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 2:14-cv-01371-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order continuing hearing date on the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Hearing on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification be continued from Jan. 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., to Jan. 29, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., the Court says. The Defendant is a sprawling Southern California metropolis famous for the film/TV industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8SP6pn at no extra charge.[CC] LT PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Villalobos Says ---------------------------------------------------------- GUILLEN PICON VILLALOBOS, JOSE YONER DELGADO NAVARRO, FREDDY BILBAO, and JOSE RAUL FRANCIA ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LT PLUMBING SERVICES INC. (D/B/A LT PLUMBING SERVICES), EMPIRE STATE CONTRACTORS CORP. (D/B/A EMPIRE STATE CONTRACTORS), 1 ARBOR LLC (D/B/A 1 ARBOR), PINE BUILDERS CORP. (D/B/A PINE BUILDERS CORPORATION), 170 MONTICELLO LLC (D/B/A 170 MONTICELLO), GABRIEL HENRIQUE PEDRO GONCALVES, SALVATORE NICCHITTA (A/K/A NICCHITTA JR.), JOSEPH EVENHAR, OREN EVENHAR, ALON EVENHAR, DAVID DENIS AND BARRY SEPTIMUS Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10784 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2025) is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation, for the hours that they worked. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees, says the suit. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as plumbers and plumbing assistants. LT Plumbing Services Inc. owns, operates, and controls a plumbing company headquartered in Mineola, New York under the name "LT Plumbing Services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MANAGED CARE: Court Extends Time to File Complaint Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kleinheksel, et al., v. Managed Care of North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-61045 (S.D. Fla., Filed May 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Stay and Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint. The Defendants' response is due within 30 days of the entry of this Court's order on the pending Motion for Class Certification in Donna Crowe, et al. v. Managed Care of North America, Inc., et al, Case No. 23-61065. The nature of suit states Contract. Managed Care is a dental insurance provider.[CC] MAPLEBEAR INC: New York AG Demands Information About Price Tests ---------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Journal reports that New York Attorney General Letitia James demanded information from Instacart on Thursday, January 8, saying it may have violated the state's law requiring online retailers to disclose when they use consumers' information to set prices. The move comes after the online grocery and retail delivery platform faced intense criticism over a study in four U.S. cities by Consumer Reports and other nonprofits. It showed that Instacart displayed different prices to shoppers for the same groceries, resulting in a 7% average cost difference across shoppers for the same grocery list at the same store. Instacart said in December it had stopped price experiments, including those through its Eversight artificial intelligence pricing tool. The tests were randomized and never based on personal data or characteristics, Instacart said. The company nevertheless included a New York-mandated disclaimer that prices were "set by an algorithm using your personal data" on some of its store pages, stating that "certain prices and/or fees may vary based on randomized tests, we use personal information (such as delivery address) to calculate fees, and we offer certain personalized incentives." James said those disclaimers may not be sufficiently clear as required by New York law. "Instacart's pricing experiments raise serious concerns about its use of algorithmic pricing, and I will not hesitate to take action to enforce our laws and protect consumers," James said. She also called on the company to hand over its pricing agreements with retailers and brands, and explain how it chose which customers were included in pricing experiments. An Instacart spokesperson said the company believes it is in full compliance with New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, and looks forward to responding to James' questions "to further clear up any misunderstandings about our prior and current practices." [GN] MCKESSON INC: Chris Appeals Dismissed Motion to Stay to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Chris, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. McKesson, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00189-RSB-CLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On Aug. 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay of proceedings pending decision on 4(i)(3) and substitution motions. On Dec. 10, 2021, McKesson, Inc. filed a motion for protective order relieving its obligation to respond to future filings by the Plaintiffs. On Feb. 10, 2022, Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an Order dismissing as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to stay and McKesson's motion for protective order. This case is stayed pending disposition of the pending motions to dismiss. Parties are free to file any motion they deem appropriate during the pendency of the stay, but the stay shall apply to any opposing party's obligation to respond to that motion. The Court will address the pending motions in accordance with this Order and will then take up the pending motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' remaining non-dispositive motions will be taken up contemporaneously with the motions to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned Chris, et al. v. McKesson, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-14516, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on December 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shannon Challender, Esq. 55 Spoonbill Dr. Richmond Hill, GA 31324 Telephone: (912) 228-5845 Defendants-Appellees MCKESSON, INC., et al. are represented by: Allan Charles Galis, Esq. HUNTER MACLEAN EXLEY & DUNN, PC 200 E. Saint Julian St. Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 236-0261 - and - Christopher R. Jordan, Esq. Randall A. Jordan, Esq. HUNTER, MACLEAN, EXLEY & DUNN, PC 455 Sea Island Rd. St. Simons Island, GA 31522 Telephone: (912) 265-5996 - and - U.S. Attorney's Office 22 Barnard St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box 8970 Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 652-4422 MDL 2566: Court Junks Oral Argument in Telexfree Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Telexfree, LLC et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-40093 (D. Mass., Filed July 3, 2014), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to compel and for spoliation sanctions directed to Allied Wallet, Inc., Ahamd Khawaja and Mohammad Diab. The Court further entered an order denying without prejudice the Request for Oral Argument view of the status of the case and the court's inability to determine whether the remaining plaintiff could have been injured by alleged misconduct of Allied Wallet, Inc. and its principals. The Telexfree suit is consolidated in MDL 2566, Re: TelexFree Securities Litigation. The MDL is a major multi-district litigation case in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts concerning the Ponzi/pyramid scheme operated by TelexFree, involving numerous investor lawsuits. The denial is without prejudice pending a ruling by the First Circuit on the appeal of the court's denial of class certification. The nature of suit states Bankruptcy – Withdrawal. [CC] MDL 3035: Class Cert Bid in AME Church Fund Litigation Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035, Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), the Court appoints the named Plaintiffs as class representatives for the following class of individuals: "All persons who were participants, or were those participants' respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." The Court also appoints Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee as class counsel. The Court certifies the following class claims, issues, and defenses for class action: This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy and other staff of the church and have alleged a number of claims under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged tortfeasors. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jwleyJ at no extra charge.[CC] MELINDA EDDY: Burnside Files Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burnside et al., v. Eddy et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03319-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iYBeXG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appear pro se. META PLATFORMS: Kadrey Seeks OK of Bid for Class Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD KADREY, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' administrative motion for class discovery and class certification briefing schedule. The remaining issue in this case -- Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.'s unprecedented peer-to-peer file sharing of pirated copyrighted works -- is distinct from the question of whether Meta's Generative AI training violates copyrights. But it is equally important, as "piracy and counterfeiting of copyrighted material, the theft of intellectual property, is now a major white collar crime." Through a simple change to its BitTorrent network configurations, Meta could have acquired all of the copyrighted works it torrented from "notorious" online markets for piracy without making available or copying and distributing any of it to others. But it ignored this option. The simple question now before the Court is whether Meta’s avoidable making available, copying, and distribution of mass quantities of pirated copyrighted material constitutes copyright infringement. Adjudicating the legality of Meta's torrenting conduct now is crucial for class members injured by Meta’s piracy and will help ensure that AI companies follow the law in acquiring data. Given the importance of this issue and the massive scale of Meta's torrenting—and the fact that class fact discovery is already virtually complete -- Plaintiffs request leave to complete discovery (including experts) and schedule briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification concurrently with the existing case management schedule. The Plaintiffs have developed a robust factual record on the remaining issues to be tried and can brief class certification without altering the case schedule, it would be appropriate to allow concurrent briefing. Plaintiffs therefore ask that the Court adopt the schedule in the attached proposed order. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=asvlEf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. Rachel Geman, Esq. Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. Betsy A. Sugar, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com dhutchinson@lchb.com rgeman@lchb.com kbyrd@lchb.com bsugar@lchb.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Holden Benon, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com hbenon@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW PC 1920 Hillhurst Avenue #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com - and - David Boies, Esq. Maxwell V. Pritt, Esq. Joshua M. Stein, Esq. Margaux Poueymirou, Esq. Jesse Panuccio, Esq. Jay Schuffenhauer, Esq. David L. Simons, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com mpritt@bsfllp.com jstein@bsfllp.com mpoueymirou@bsfllp.com jpanuccio@bsfllp.com jschuffenhauer@bsfllp.com jischiller@bsfllp.com dsimons@bsfllp.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com mrathur@caffertyclobes.com - and - Amy Keller, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com - and - Scott J. Sholder, Esq. CeCe M. Cole, Esq. COWAN DEBAETS ABRAMS & SHEPPARD LLP 60 Broad Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 974-7474 E-mail: ssholder@cdas.com ccole@cdas.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Reply to Class Certification Due Feb. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veronica L. Taylor, individually and as representative of the Class, v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 5:23-cv-04125-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the Court's December 11 Order granting the Joint Administrative Motion to Modify Case Management Order as to Class Certification Briefing Deadlines to extend the remaining deadlines related to the briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Due to the holidays and despite working diligently to complete the brief, the Defendant states that it needs additional time to prepare its Opposition. The Parties have therefore stipulated and agreed that the remaining class certification briefing deadlines be extended by one week. The Parties do not anticipate that the requested modifications to the schedule will affect the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification set for March 26, 2026. The Parties thus stipulate and agree that good cause exists to modify the Court's December 11 Order and request the Court enter the following modified deadlines: Event Deadline Opposition to Class Certification, Jan.16, 2026 Motions to Exclude Plaintiff Experts: Reply to Class Certification, Motions Feb. 19, 2026 to Exclude Defense Experts: The remaining deadlines as outlined in the Case Management Order would remain in effect. The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on Oct. 27, 2025. On Jan. 5, 2026, the Court reset the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to March 26, 2026. Midland provides life insurance and annuity products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gyngny at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 215-0962 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net akiener@bm.net - and - Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 729 N. Washington Ave., Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Esq. Thomas A. Evans, Esq. Tania L. Kazi, Esq. Samuel J. Park, Esq. William H. Higgins, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 55 Second St., Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 243-1000 Facsimile: (415) 243-1001 E-mail: bo.phillips@alston.com tom.evans@alston.com tania.kazi@alston.com samuel.park@alston.com william.higgins@alston.com MIXX LIFESTYLE: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McRae v. Mixx Lifestyle Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09851-PAE-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order granting in part and denying in part Joint Letter Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines for 60 Days. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=56qXZt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian J. Shenker, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 58 South Service Road, Suite 250 Melville NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 247-0404 Facsimile: (631) 247-0417 E-mail: jacksonlewis.com - and - Thomas Hsien Chih Kung, Esq. JIA LAW GROUP, P.C. 88 Pine St 18th Floor, New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (347) 897-6199 MONSANTO COMPANY: Rudnick Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Rudnick, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-473 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: Shorey Sues Over Negligent Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Shorey, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-531 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: Siguenza Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Siguenza, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-516 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: Smith Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Myron Smith, Jr., and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-510 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 NATIONAL GRID: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of National Grid plc (NYSE: NGG) resulting from allegations that National Grid plc may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased National Grid 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=41344 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 July 2, 2025, Reuters published an article entitled "'Preventable' National Grid failures led to Heathrow fire, findings say." The article stated that a "fire that shut London's Heathrow airport in March, stranding thousands of people, was caused by the UK power grid's failure to maintain an electricity substation, an official report said on Wednesday, prompting the energy watchdog to open a probe." Further, the article stated that the United Kingdom's Energy minister, Ed Miliband, had "called the report "deeply concerning", after it concluded that the issue which caused the fire was identified seven years ago but went unaddressed by power grid operator National Grid[.]" On this news, National Grid American Depositary Shares' ("ADSs") fell 5%, on July 2, 2024. 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 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, 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] NCAA: Class Action Settlement in Ray Suit Get Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (NCAA), an unincorporated association, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Shubb entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. (1) The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate to the members of the settlement class, subject to further consideration at the final fairness hearing after distribution of notice to members of the settlement class; (2) A.B. Data is appointed as the Settlement Administrator; (3) The form and content of the proposed Notices of Class Action Settlement are approved, except to the extent that they must be updated to reflect the dates and deadlines specified in this Order and other information such as website addresses and phone numbers; (4) A final fairness hearing shall be set to occur before this Court on May 11, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. In light of the risks associated with further litigation and the strength of the settlement terms, the court finds that the value of the settlement is within the range of possible approval such that preliminary approval of the settlement is appropriate. The court previously granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in this action, which consists of: "All persons who from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of 'volunteer coach,' as designated by NCAA bylaws." The parties propose a gross settlement amount of $303,000,000, to be paid in three separate installments of $101,000,000 into a common fund over the course of two calendar years. National Collegiate is an organization in the United States that administers intercollegiate athletics. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3LzrgK at no extra charge.[CC] PG&E CORP: Labaton Secures $100MM Settlement in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow has reached a $100 million settlement as Lead Counsel representing investors in a securities fraud class action against the major gas and electric service provider PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and certain officers, directors, and underwriters (together, PG&E or the Company). The suit arises from claims that PG&E made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about safety and compliance practices leading up to the devastating wildfires that ravaged Northern California in October 2017 and November 2018 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company knowingly concealed deficiencies in its wildfire safety practices leading to noncompliant electrical equipment and vegetation management that allegedly started or exacerbated the fires. The action further alleges that PG&E was not only aware that these insufficient safety practices had the potential to allow for dangerous safety violations but continued to make false and misleading statements and omissions regarding them. In January 2019, PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection, and the District Court presiding over the action stayed the action pending the resolution of PG&E's ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. Labaton Keller Sucharow continued to vigorously litigate the matter in the Bankruptcy Court, where the Firm secured notable victories including ultimately overturning the stay in May 2024. Following renewed litigation proceedings in the District Court, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in November 2025. On December 31, 2025, the Parties agreed to a settlement of $100 million that would resolve claims brought forth in the case, and on January 2, 2026, Plaintiffs informed U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California that they would soon seek preliminary approval of the settlement. This landmark settlement reached after seven years of litigation underscores Labaton's unwavering commitment to seeking justice for investors, earning its reputation as an advocate and leading law firm for institutional investors across the world. The case is In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-03509 (N.D. Cal.). Labaton Keller Sucharow represents Lead Plaintiff the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico. [GN] PHILIP MORRIS: Friedman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALANNAH FRIEDMAN, v. PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL, INC., SWEDISH MATCH NORTH AMERICA, LLC, SWEDISH MATCH USA, INC., PHILIP MORRIS GLOBAL BRANDS, INC., and PMI GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-60640-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the interim deadlines governing class certification and expert reports as set forth in the Court's Order dated July 2, 2025 setting Interim Scheduling Deadlines by six (6) months. The Plaintiff contends extension because the Defendants' production has been rolling and remains incomplete, depositions only just began in December, and several material developments—including the Court's recent Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") ruling and a pending motion to compel-fundamentally affect the scope and universe of discovery that will be used as bases for class certification and expert analysis. The consumer class action involves ZYN nicotine pouches, multiple corporate defendants, voluminous discovery and electronically stored information ("ESI"), and class-wide issues related to marketing, addiction, youth appeal, and consumer deception. On July 2, 2025, the Court entered interim deadlines for class certification briefing and expert reports at the Defendants' request. Philip Morris is a tobacco company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQCpLD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Sarah J. Foster, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com sarah@schlesingerlaw.com PHILIP MORRIS: Kelly Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY KELLY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL, INC., SWEDISH MATCH NORTH AMERICA, LLC, SWEDISH MATCH USA, INC., PHILIP MORRIS GLOBAL BRANDS, INC., and PMI GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60437-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the interim deadlines governing class certification and expert reports as set forth in the Court's Order dated July 2, 2025 setting Interim Scheduling Deadlines by six (6) months. The Plaintiff contends extension because the Defendants' production has been rolling and remains incomplete, depositions only just began in December, and several material developments—including the Court's recent Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") ruling and a pending motion to compel-fundamentally affect the scope and universe of discovery that will be used as bases for class certification and expert analysis. The consumer class action involves ZYN nicotine pouches, multiple corporate defendants, voluminous discovery and electronically stored information ("ESI"), and class-wide issues related to marketing, addiction, youth appeal, and consumer deception. On July 2, 2025, the Court entered interim deadlines for class certification briefing and expert reports at the Defendants' request. Philip Morris is a tobacco company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NwEbL5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Sarah J. Foster, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com sarah@schlesingerlaw.com PHILIP MORRIS: Lendinara Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS LENDINARA, v. PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and SWEDISH MATCH NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61371-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the interim deadlines governing class certification and expert reports as set forth in the Court's Order dated July 2, 2025 setting Interim Scheduling Deadlines by six (6) months. The Plaintiff contends extension because the Defendants' production has been rolling and remains incomplete, depositions only just began in December, and several material developments—including the Court's recent Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") ruling and a pending motion to compel-fundamentally affect the scope and universe of discovery that will be used as bases for class certification and expert analysis. The consumer class action involves ZYN nicotine pouches, multiple corporate defendants, voluminous discovery and electronically stored information ("ESI"), and class-wide issues related to marketing, addiction, youth appeal, and consumer deception. On July 2, 2025, the Court entered interim deadlines for class certification briefing and expert reports at the Defendants' request. Philip Morris is a tobacco company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ym2p7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Sarah J. Foster, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com sarah@schlesingerlaw.com PHILIP MORRIS: Palmer Seeks Extension of Interim Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KOVADIS PALMER, v. PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL, INC., SWEDISH MATCH NORTH AMERICA, LLC, SWEDISH MATCH USA, INC., PHILIP MORRIS GLOBAL BRANDS, INC., and PMI GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60522-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the interim deadlines governing class certification and expert reports as set forth in the Court's Order dated July 2, 2025 setting Interim Scheduling Deadlines by six (6) months. The Plaintiff contends extension because the Defendants' production has been rolling and remains incomplete, depositions only just began in December, and several material developments—including the Court's recent Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") ruling and a pending motion to compel-fundamentally affect the scope and universe of discovery that will be used as bases for class certification and expert analysis. The consumer class action involves ZYN nicotine pouches, multiple corporate defendants, voluminous discovery and electronically stored information ("ESI"), and class-wide issues related to marketing, addiction, youth appeal, and consumer deception. On July 2, 2025, the Court entered interim deadlines for class certification briefing and expert reports at the Defendants' request. Philip Morris is a tobacco company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 202, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rFvkJt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Sarah J. Foster, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com sarah@schlesingerlaw.com PRECISION HEATING: Class Cert Bid in Picon Extended to March 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN PICON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRECISION HEATING & AIR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05507-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II entered an order extending the motion for any class certification motion to March 29, 2026. Precision provides HVAC services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jTeSNe at no extra charge.[CC] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Trading Fees Suit for $2MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Robinhood Financial has agreed to a $2,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the online trading and investment platform misled novice investors to make inferior market trades under the pretext of "commission-free" trading. The Robinhood Financial class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 5, 2025, and covers all United States consumers who were customers of Robinhood at any point between September 1, 2016 and September 1, 2018 and placed one or more "qualifying trades" on the platform. These qualifying trades reportedly include market orders (not limit orders or stock orders) for buying and selling stock, wherein: -- The price the order was filed at upon purchase was higher than the National Best Offer at the time the order was routed; and -- The price the order was filed at upon selling was lower than the National Best Bid at the time was routed. Notably, the agreement stipulates that the aggregate difference between the stock buying/ selling execution price and the National Best Offer or National Best Bid must have been greater than $5 in order for a transaction to be considered a "qualifying trade". Court documents indicate that approximately 56,805 individuals are set to be covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the Robinhood class action settlement can be found at RobinHoodOrderFlowSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, Robinhood settlement class members who currently have an active Robinhood account in good standing will automatically receive a one time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $17.60. This the final amount of payment, the agreement explains, will be a share of what remains in the net settlement fund after any taxes, notice and administration costs, and attorneys' fees have been paid out. Settlement class members without an active Robinhood account in good standing must submit a timely, valid claim form to receive their approximately $17.60 cash payout, the site reports. To submit a Robinhood settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form here, complete it, and return it by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the first page of the document. All Robinhood Financial settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by July 13, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the Robinhood settlement at a hearing on May 5, 2026. Compensation will be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Robinhood Financial class action lawsuit alleged that the online trading and investing company took advantage of inexperienced consumers by encouraging them to execute inferior trades under the guise of commission-free trading that actually had hidden backdoor fees. [GN] ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Class Certification Scheduling Order Amended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY VENTLING, in his own right and as representative of a class of persons similarly situated, v. ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00158-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the Court's April 2, 2025 class certification scheduling order to stay class certification briefing pending the resolution of the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for leave to file an amended Complaint. The Parties met and conferred and have stipulated and agreed to the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion for leave to amend: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's motions for leave to file Jan. 15, 2026 an amended complaint: The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's Feb. 19, 2026 motion for leave to file an amended complaint: The Plaintiff's reply in support of its March 12, 2026 motion for leave to file an amended complaint: RoundPoint offers reverse mortgage and insurance. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o9k6HB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen M. Gelinas Simplicio, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Ste. 500 Washington DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 998-2299 E-mail: ksimplicio@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. Denali S. Hedrick, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Ste. 540 Washington DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com dhedrick@baileyglasser.com - and - Kevin K. Kessner, Esq. YONKEE & TONER, LLP 319 West Dow Street Sheridan, WY 82801 Telephone: (307) 674-7451 E-mail: kkessner@yonkeetoner.com The Defendant is represented by: Deborah H. Renner, Esq. Abigail M. Dockum, Esq. Michael E. Harriss, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 768-6700 E-mail: deborah.renner@dentons.com abby.dockum@dentons.com michael.harriss@dentons.com - and - Jeffrey Pope, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 2020 Carey Avenue, Suite 800 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (307) 778-4223 E-mail: jspope@hollandhart.com RTX CORP: Jacob ERISA Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA JACOB et al., v. RTX CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01389-LMB-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following Class: "All participants and beneficiaries of RTX Savings Plan, RTX Corporation Savings Plan, and the UTC Employee Savings Plan (excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan) beginning six years prior to the date of filing and running through the date of judgment ("Class Period")." The Plaintiffs seek certification with respect to the following claims alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint: Breach of ERISA Duty of Loyalty (Count II), Breach of ERISA Duty of Prudence (Count III), Violation of ERISA's Anti-Inurement Provision (Count IV), Failure to Monitor (Count XIII). The Plaintiffs also move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) for the appointment of Adam Levitt and Daniel Ferri of DiCello Levitt LLP and Sharon Almonrode of The Miller Law Firm PC as Class Counsel. The Defendants have stated that they intend to oppose the motion. RTX is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eiIGc3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: stw@websterbook.com - and - Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Elijah G. Savage, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com esavage@dicellolevitt.com - and - Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Taylor L. Ester, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com tle@millerlawpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Prame, Esq. Tom B. Scott-Sharoni, Esq. Hanna M. Stephens, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 E-mail: Tscott-sharoni@groom.com mprame@groom.com hstephens@groom.com SAN JOSE: Faces BHS Law Suit Over Termination of Water Service -------------------------------------------------------------- BHS LAW LLP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY, MICHAEL PAYNE, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-10541-NC (N.D. Cal., December 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and the Tom Bane Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, intentional interference with property rights, and trespass to property interest. The case arises from the Defendants' systemic, unlawful, and arbitrary practices relating to the termination and threatened termination of water service under San Jose Water Company's Cross-Connection Control Program. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed Classes were subjected to identical and uniform practices, including: (a) water shutoff threats and terminations without constitutionally required notice; (b) enforcement based on repealed legal authority (Title 17); (c) misrepresentations about compliance deadlines; (d) inconsistent and arbitrary extension practices; and (e) termination of essential water service despite ongoing compliance. The Plaintiff and the Class seek damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and certification of this action. BHS Law LLP is a law firm in San Jose, California. San Jose Water Company is a privately-owned public utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Song, Esq. BHS LAW CORPORATION 2559 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone: (408) 628-4257 Facsimile: (408) 628-4258 Email: Briansong@SongLeeLaw.com SANTOS JERKY: Tomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE TOMAS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANTOS JERKY, LLC; SONIA SANTOS and JAVIER SANTOS, individually and as managing members of SANTOS JERKY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00284-Z (N.D. Tex., December 30, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The complaint alleges that Defendants employed Plaintiff in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and willfully failed to compensate at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff Tomas commenced his employment with Defendants on or about October 2025 as a non-exempt worker. Santos Jerky, LLC is a domestic limited liability company doing business in the state of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruth M. Willars, Esq. MONTY & RAMIREZ LLP 150 W. Parker Road, 3rd Floor Houston, TX 77076 Telephone: (281) 493-5529 Facsimile: (281) 493-5983 E-mail: rwillars@montyramirezlaw.com SCHMIDT BAKING: 2nd Cir. Vacates Arbitration Order in Silva Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacates and remands the order granting a motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit titled NATHANIEL SILVA, PHIL ROTHKUGEL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SCHMIDT BAKING DISTRIBUTION, LLC, SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-2103-cv (2d Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Second Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Denny Chin, William J. Nardini and Maria Araujo Kahn. Judge Kahn wrote the opinion of the Court. Two commercial truck drivers worked for a baked goods company as W-2 employees through a staffing agency. As a condition of continued work, the company required them to create corporations and execute distributor agreements in their capacities as presidents of the new corporate entities. The agreements contained mandatory arbitration clauses. The drivers filed a putative class action in Connecticut state court alleging violations of wage and hours laws. The company then removed the action to the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Shea, C.J.), which granted the company's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The drivers filed this interlocutory appeal of the district court's order, arguing that they are exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the statute. Judge Kahn notes that the record on appeal unequivocally demonstrates that the companies they were required to create are mere instrumentalities incorporated at the baked goods company's behest through which the parties have contracted "for the performance of work by workers," citing New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105, 116 (2019). As such, the Panel holds that the distributor agreements are "contracts of employment" within the meaning of Section 1. The Court of Appeals, therefore, vacates and remands the judgment of the district court. In granting Schmidt's motion to compel arbitration, the district court (Shea, C.J.) held that the contracts were not "contracts of employment" under 9 U.S.C. Section 1, and, therefore, were not exempt from the FAA (Silva v. Schmidt Baking Distr., LLC, 732 F. Supp. 3d 194, 201–03 (D. Conn. 2024)). The Panel disagrees. Judge Kahn opines that the Agreements are the contracts under which Silva and Rothkugel perform transportation work and are, therefore, "contracts of employment" within the meaning of Section 1 of the FAA. The Panel declines to allow employers to circumvent Congress's exception of transportation workers from the FAA's reach by requiring those workers to take the corporate form. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacates the judgment of the district court and remands for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/25ht5fz7 from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Matthew Thomson -- mthomson@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., in Boston, MA, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Robert F. Friedman -- rfriedman@littler.com -- William J. Anthony -- wanthony@littler.com -- Joshua B. Waxman -- jwaxman@littler.com -- Michael S. McIntosh -- mmcintosh@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in New York, NY, for the Defendants-Appellees. SCOOT EDUCATION: Faces Dyer Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY DYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOOT EDUCATION INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV35980 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, wages not timely paid during employment, untimely final wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee from approximately January 2025 to approximately October 2025. Scoot Education Inc. is a staffing company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com SECURIX LLC: Divine Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY DIVINE, KARL MERCHANT, and COLUMBUS JONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SECURIX, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00196-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden entered an order denying the Plaintiffs Amy Divine, Karl Merchant, and Columbus Jones' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs are directed, on or before Jan. 19, 2026, to show cause in writing whether the Court retains original jurisdiction under CAFA, or whether some other ground for original federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Because there are likely significant variations in state law that have not been addressed by the Plaintiffs, they have not carried their burden of demonstrating that their claims are typical of the class. The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' counsel is competent to handle this litigation, and that there are no conflicts of interest between Plaintiffs and other class members. But the Plaintiffs have not shown that they, as opposed to counsel, are directing the litigation. Nor have they shown that they are sufficiently informed about the case as to manage litigation efforts or that they have a willingness to take an active role in the case. The Plaintiffs challenge the legality of the Defendant's electronic license plate monitoring program, or "Diversion Program," that it operates in Mississippi and other states. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs who were cited by Defendant's program in Mississippi and other states. The Plaintiffs' proposed class includes "All United States residents to whom Defendant sent Tickets alleging a violation of a state’s uninsured vehicle statute." Securix is engaged in the wholesale distribution of electrical apparatus and equipment wiring supplies. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FUFi7l at no extra charge.[CC] SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis Iudiciani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless, Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-MSM-AEM (D.R.I.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties additionally stipulate that, subject to the approval of the Court, they shall submit either jointly agreed, or competing, proposals for class notice within sixty days of the Court's entry of this order. Century is a real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mzyUHe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE & CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. 2 Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone:(401)-728-6060 E-mail: Chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com lpardell@pkglegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Lepizzera, Jr., Esq. Allan W. Fung, Esq. Robert A. D'Alfonso, Jr., Esq. LEPIZZERA & LAPROCINA COUNSELLORS AT LAW, LTD. 117 Metro Center Blvd., Suite 2001 Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 739-7397 Facsimile: (401) 691-3538 E-mail: MLepizzera@LepLap.com SHASTA BEVERAGES: Filing Class Cert. Bid Moved to May 28 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAHANGIR W. AHMAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00212-GW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to continue the Plaintiff's motion filing and proposed briefing schedule. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification filing deadline is now May 28, 2026, the Defendant's opposition is now due July 9, 2026, and the Plaintiff's reply is now due July 30, 2026. The hearing on the motion for class certification is continued to Aug. 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Shasta manufactures soft drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lD1BG2 at no extra charge.[CC] SNAP-ON INC: Moore ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE MOORE, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated participants in the SNAP-ON, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiff v. SNAP-ON, INC., SNAP-ON INCORPORATED RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE, and MERCER (US) LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-07401 (E.D. Pa., December 30, 2025) arises from the Defendants' multiple breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Snap-on, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, their duty of prudence under ERISA, and their other duties under ERISA by: a. maintaining funds as investment options in the Plan; b. failing to monitor the performance of the fund options and replace underperforming funds with better performing funds that were available; and c. employing Mercer (US) LLC, Plan's investment advisor, to provide supposed investment advice, when in fact Mercer provided no real advice and added no real value, instead merely siphoning Plan assets away. The Defendants blatantly failed to fulfill that duty in many ways. That makes Defendants liable to Plaintiff and other Plan participants, says the suit. During the Relevant Time Period, Plaintiff Moore maintained an investment through the Plan in the T. Rowe Price 2035 target date fund. Snap-on, Inc. is a multi-national company that offers a retirement plan, the Snap-on Incorporated 401(k) Savings Plan, to its United States based employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn Anne B. Robinson, Esq. Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Mark R. Sigmon, Esq. LEE SEGUI, PLLC 900 W Morgan St Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: krobinson@leesegui.com mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com msigmon@leesegui.com SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Nizar Ayoub Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN B. CHRISTIANSEN, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated investors, v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS J. RIGA, AND FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, Case No. 1:24-cv-08138-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Caproni entered an order as follows: Nizar Sami Ayoub and Steven Dunkleberger are investors in Defendant Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Following the Court's disqualification of the former lead plaintiff, Steven Christiansen, they move for appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative securities class action. Mr. Ayoub's motion is granted and Mr. Dunkleberger's motion is denied. Mr. Ayoub is appointed lead plaintiff and Kaplan Fox, the law firm that represents him, is appointed lead counsel. Mr. Ayoub's motion to be appointed substitute lead plaintiff, to approve his selection of lead counsel, and to consolidate the action with Ayoub v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case 24-CV-8138, is granted. Mr. Steven Dunkleberger's motion is denied. Mr. Dunkleberger has given the Court no reason to believe that Kaplan Fox, which has significant experience litigating securities class actions, fails to meet that standard. Accordingly, Mr. Dunkleberger has failed to rebut the presumption that Mr. Ayoub is the appropriate choice for lead plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making material misstatements about a drug. Spectrum is a U.S. biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAaVUf at no extra charge.[CC] STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Junco Files Securities Fraud Claims in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder derivative complaint has been filed against StubHub Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as KEVIN JUNCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10208-JMF (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2025). The Plaintiff brings securities fraud claims against the Defendants. StubHub Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of the global live event ticketing marketplace StubHub based in New York. [BN] SUPERIOR COURT: Files Petition in Watts Suit to Cal. Ct. of Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARRYL BERNARD WATTS is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Darryl Bernard Watts, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Superior Court Los Angeles County, et al., Defendants, Case No. YA034891, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The appellate case is captioned as Watts vs. Superior Court Los Angeles County et al., Case No. B351390, in the California Court of Appeal's Second Appellate District, filed on December 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner DARRYL BERNARD WATTS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Respondents SUPERIOR COURT LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., are represented by: Laura C. Ellison, Esq. Torrance Courthouse 825 Maple Ave., Dept. C Torrance, CA 90503 - and - Office of the Attorney General 300 South Spring St., 1st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 - and - Office of the District Attorney 320 W. Temple St. #540 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SWEEPSTEAKS LTD: Ridley Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------ LaShawnna Ridley and Tiffany Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SWEEPSTEAKS LTD. d/b/a STAKE.US, AUBREY DRAKE GRAHAM p/k/a DRAKE, ADIN ROSS, AND GEORGE NGUYEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02511 (E.D. Va., December 31, 2025) seeks damages, treble damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief deemed just and proper under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. This consumer class action seeks to stop Stake.us -- an illegal online gambling platform promoted by Drake, Ross and Nguyen, and used by them to obscure transmissions of money in furtherance of their ongoing music botting campaigns -- from continuing to prey upon consumers, and to impose civil penalties on all Defendants to deter future misconduct. The Plaintiffs and the Class are Stake.us users who have been misled by Stake.us' misrepresentations that it is a legal, harmless, and safe gaming site, when in fact it is not. Stake.us preys on consumers in Virginia and nationwide who are lured into real money gambling, exposing consumers to substantial risks of gambling addictions and jeopardizing their and their families' financial well-being, asserts the complaint. Each of the Plaintiffs was influenced to participate and to continue to participate after their initial participation on the Stake platform by the online promotional activities of Defendant Drake as viewed by each of the Plaintiffs, alleges the complaint. Sweepsteaks Ltd. doing business as Stake.us, is a U.S. storefront for Stake.com, a social casino.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George E. Kostel, Esq. Richard K. Kelsey, Esq. IMPRESA LEGAL GROUP 3101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 842-0660 Facsimile: (703) 243-8696 E-mail: georgekostel@impresalegal.com richkelsey@impresalegal.com - and - Kimberly D. Hinkle, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KIMBERLY HINKLE 13920 N Western Avenue Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 639-8150 E-mail: kim@khinklelaw.com TIPS EAST: Faces Turner Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAN TURNER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. TIPS EAST LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00058 (E.D.N.C., December 31, 2025) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act arising from the Defendants unlawful labor practices. The Defendant employs Plaintiff and other delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages - unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately January 2023 to March 2024 as a delivery driver at Defendant's Domino's store located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Tips East LLC operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob J. Modla, Esq. CROMER BABB AND PORTER, LLC 1418 Laurel Street, Suite A (29201) PO Box 11675 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 799-9530 E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com TOPPS COMPANY: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Lanzarin Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL LANZARIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00063 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for using Tracking Technologies to record and transmit sensitive and confidential online communications, thereby intentionally invading the Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy rights under the California Constitution. The complaint states that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally incorporated a host of tracking technology for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes on the Website without disclosure to its users, including tracking technologies provided by third parties--including Meta and Amplitude. Defendant configured the Tracking Technologies to disclose its customers' personally identifiable information ("PII") despite express promises to the contrary. According to the complaint, Plaintiff maintained an active account with Facebook. When creating his Facebook account, Plaintiff provided Facebook with his PII, including his full name, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Plaintiff used the same device to access the Website that he did to access his Facebook account. On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff accessed Defendant's Website--while in California--to purchase the 2025 Topps Now World Series Shohei Ohtani trading card. When checking out, Plaintiff provided Defendant with his first name, last name, email address, phone number, and delivery address. Despite Defendant's representations of confidentiality, Plaintiff's communications during this visit were intercepted and disclosed to unknown third parties--Meta and Amplitude--through the Tracking Technologies, including communications that contained Plaintiff's identity and information about his purchases. Neither Defendant nor the Third Parties procured Plaintiff's consent prior to these interceptions, nor was Plaintiff on notice of the fact that such interceptions were occurring, asserts the complaint. By failing to procure consent before disclosing these communications to Meta and Amplitude, Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access and Fraud Act, and the California Constitution, the complaint says. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions. Plaintiff Daniel Lanzarin is a resident and citizen of Belmont, California. Defendant The Topps Company, Inc. is a producer of “trading cards and collectibles, custom cards, memorabilia, sticker album collections and more related to iconic and pop culture brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com U.S MEAT PROCESSING: Underpays Meat Packagers, Rosales Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSA LEYVA ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S MEAT PROCESSING LLC, and QUEENS MEAT INC., and TAULANT BOZHIQI, ELENA BOZHIQI, GREGORY KALIKAS, and RENE ASTUDILLO VARGAS, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-07140 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2025) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours, failure to pay wages for hours worked, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements. As a result of the violations of federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a meat packager while performing related miscellaneous duties from June 2014 until May 2025. U.S Meat Processing LLC is a New York-based meat processing facility.[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 UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Allowed to File Second Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY BROWN, ET AL., v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00902-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint. The case will remain administratively closed pending the outcome of class certification in the related case, Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. United is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L4E0x2 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED NETWORK: Class Cert Hearing in Randall Continued to Feb. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Randall v. United Network for Organ Sharing, and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting the joint stipulation to continue hearing date on motion for class certification. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, continued by the Court to Jan. 15, 2026, is continued to Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026. United Network is a private, non-profit organization that manages the nation's organ transplant system. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HKVdZk at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Powers v. VA ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's grant of class certification in the lawsuits entitled JEFFREY POWERS; DEAVIN SESSOM; LAURIEANN WRIGHT; JOSEPH FIELDS; LAVON JOHNSON; JOSHUA ROBERT PETITT; NATIONAL VETERANS FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs - Appellees, BRIDGELAND RESOURCES, LLC, Intervenor-Plaintiff - Appellee v. DENIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH; STEVEN BRAVERMAN; KEITH HARRIS; MARCIA L. FUDGE; DOUGLAS GUTHRIE, Defendants - Appellees v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Not Party in Lower Court - Appellant, Case No. 24-6338 (9th Cir.), et al. The matters are appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (D.C. No. 2:22-cv-08357-DOC-KS, David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Consuelo M. Callahan, Roopali H. Desai, and Ana de Alba. Judge de Alba wrote the Opinion of the Court. The Panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the district court to enter judgment in a class action brought by unhoused veterans with severe disabilities and mental illnesses against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to return the West Los Angeles VA Grounds to its intended use of housing disabled veterans. After a four-week bench trial, the district court: -- found that the land-use leases the VA had with the Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles, Brentwood School, and Bridgeland Resources, LLC, were unlawful; -- voided these leases; and -- enjoined the VA from renegotiating them. The district court also ordered the VA to build supportive housing for veterans on the West Los Angeles VA Grounds. The Plaintiffs argued that the VA and HUD violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because (1) the VA's lack of supportive housing denies unhoused veterans with serious mental illness or traumatic brain injury meaningful access to the VA's healthcare services; (2) under Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the VA failed to provide class members their disability benefits "in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs," placing them at a "serious risk of institutionalization"; and (3) the VA's policy of contracting with housing developers, who impose Average Median Income (AMI) limitations is facially discriminatory because it discriminates based on disability by counting veterans' benefits as income. Next, the Plaintiffs claimed that the 1888 Deed that created the VA Grounds created a charitable trust and that the VA breached enforceable fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs. Last, the Plaintiffs claimed that certain land-use agreements violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The Panel held that the Veterans Judicial Review Act did not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims because the Plaintiffs are not collaterally attacking the VA's individual benefits determinations. Next, the Panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the Plaintiffs' class for the meaningful access and Olmstead claims, rejecting the VA's argument that the Plaintiffs did not meet the commonality element. On the merits, the Panel held that the district court did not err in finding that the VA denied the Plaintiffs "meaningful access" to their healthcare, in finding in the Plaintiffs' favor on their Olmstead claim, and finding that the VA's policy of contracting with third-party housing developers who impose income limitations and count veterans' disability benefits as income is facially discriminatory under the Rehabilitation Act. However, the district court erred in entering judgment against HUD on the Plaintiffs' meaningful access, Olmstead, and AMI claims. Addressing the charitable trust claim, the Panel held that the Plaintiffs had special interest standing to sue. On the merits, the Panel held that the district court erred in finding that the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 and its 2021 Amendment imposed judicially enforceable fiduciary duties on the VA, and therefore, reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on their charitable trust claim. Because judgment on the Plaintiffs' charitable trust claim was the only basis for which the district court invalidated a UCLA lease on the VA Grounds and enjoined UCLA, the Panel dismissed UCLA's consolidated appeals as moot, and vacated any injunctive relief with respect to UCLA's lease and services. To the extent that the district court voided Brentwood School leases and Bridgeland Resources, LLC's licenses on the VA Grounds and ordered injunctive relief based on the Plaintiffs' charitable trust claim, the Panel vacated that part of the district court's judgment as well. Next, the Panel held that Brentwood's lease violated the Leasing Act and the APA. Because the lease principally benefited Brentwood's students, not veterans, it violated the Leasing Act. Since Brentwood's lease was contrary to statutory authority, Judge de Alba points out that it was in violation of the APA. Similarly, Bridgeland's revocable license violated the Leasing Act and the APA. Addressing the propriety of the district court's permanent injunction with respect to the Rehabilitation Act claims, the Panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the VA to construct 1,800 permanent housing units and 750 temporary housing units to remedy its discrimination as relief for the meaningful access and Olmstead violations, and by ordering the VA to build housing itself if it could not find developers willing to refrain from discrimination as relief for the AMI claim. However, with respect to the APA claims, Judge de Alba opines that the district court abused its discretion in the scope of its injunction when the district court not only voided the unlawful leases with Brentwood and Bridgeland but also prohibited the VA from renegotiating them and, later, ordered the VA to enter into a settlement agreement with Brentwood. For the reasons explained in the Opinion, the Panel affirms in part, reverses in part, vacates in part, and remands to the district court to enter judgment in accordance with this Opinion. Thus, the Panel affirms the district court's grant of class certification; the APA judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor; and the judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor on their meaningful access, Olmstead, and AMI claims, and the equitable relief granted for these claims. The Panel reverses the district court's judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor on their charitable trust claim. The Panel dismisses UCLA's consolidated appeals as moot and vacates any injunctive relief with respect to UCLA's lease and services. The Panel vacates the judgment against HUD for the meaningful access, Olmstead, and AMI claims; and vacates the equitable relief granted for the APA claims. The parties will bear their own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/77kwzry7 from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mark D. Rosenbaum -- mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org -- Kathryn A. Eidmann -- keidmann@publiccounsel.org -- Amanda R. M. Savage -- asavage@publiccounsel.org -- Amanda K. Pertusati -- apertusati@publiccounsel.org -- Amelia Piazza apiazza@publiccounsel.org -- PUBLIC COUNSEL LAW CENTER, in Los Angeles, California; David Martinez -- dmartinez@robinskaplan.com -- Roman M. Silberfeld -- RSilberfeld@RobinsKaplan.com -- Tommy H. Du -- TDu@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Eve L. Hill -- EHill@browngold.com -- James Strawbridge -- JStrawbridge@browngold.com -- BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP, in Baltimore, Maryland; T. E. Glenn -- TGlenn@innercitylaw.org -- Amanda Powell -- APowell@innercitylaw.org -- Charles Kohorst -- CKohorst@innercitylaw.org -- INNER CITY LAW CENTER, in Los Angeles, California; Keith E. Smith -- kesmith@wshblaw.com -- WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP, in Riverside, California; Mark C. Priebe -- mpriebe@sidley.com -- Carter G. Phillips -- cphillips@sidley.com -- Tacy F. Flint -- tflint@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for the Plaintiffs-Appellees. Ernest J. Guadiana -- eguadiana@elkinskalt.com -- Sean A. McCormick -- smccormick@elkinskalt.com -- Julie Z. Kimball -- jkimball@elkinskalt.com -- Justin Trujillo -- jtrujillo@elkinskalt.com -- Angela M. Butcher -- abutcher@elkinskalt.com -- ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE LLP, in Los Angeles, California, for the Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. UNITED STATES: Denial of Class Certification in Ablan Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms the Liability Decision and the Class Certification Decision, and affirms in part and vacates in part the Damages Decision in the lawsuit styled EDGAR ABLAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, CHRISTINA BANKER, TODD BANKER, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 2023-1363, et al., Case Nos. 2023-1363, 2023-1365, 2023-1366, 2023-1412 (Fed. Cir.). The matters are appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Case Nos. 1:17-cv-01409-CFL, 1:17-cv-01789-CFL, 1:17-cv-01277-CFL, 1:17-cv-09001-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow, presiding. The Federal Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Jimmie V. Reyna, Richard G. Taranto, and Tiffany P. Cunningham. Judge Cunningham wrote the appellate court opinion. Appellees Christina Banker, Todd Banker, and Elizabeth Burnham, and Cross-Appellants Christina Micu, Scott Holland, Catherine Popovici and Kulwant Sidhu owned property interests upstream of the Addicks and Barker Dams in Houston, Texas. The Army Corps of Engineers designed and operated these dams with the goal of preventing flooding in downtown Houston during storms. The Plaintiffs allege that the protocol adopted by the Army Corps included using all available reservoir storage to protect downtown Houston, even at the cost of flooding private lands. When Hurricane Harvey struck in 2017, the Plaintiffs' properties flooded, and they subsequently sued the government in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims found the government liable for taking permanent natural-disaster flowage easements across the Plaintiffs' properties (In re Upstream Addicks & Barker (Tex.) Flood-Control Reservoirs, 146 Fed. Cl. 219, 264 (2019) ("Liability Decision")). After the liability trial, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class for liability purposes. The Court of Federal Claims denied class certification based on the untimeliness of the Plaintiffs' motion and the criteria for certification (In re Upstream Addicks & Barker (Tex.) Flood-Control Reservoirs, 157 Fed. Cl. 189, 193 (2021) ("Class Certification Decision")). The Court of Federal Claims then selected six bellwether properties for a damages trial, where it awarded a total of $454,535.03, plus interest from the date of taking (In re Upstream Addicks & Barker (Tex.) Flood-Control Reservoirs, 162 Fed. Cl. 495, 534 (2022) ("Damages Decision")). The government appeals the Liability Decision, arguing that its operation of the dams was not a taking. The Cross-Appellants appeal the Class Certification Decision, contending that their motion was timely. Both the government and the Cross-Appellants appeal the Damages Decision; the government contends that the Court of Federal Claims erroneously awarded "consequential damages" for leasehold advantage, lost rent, displacement, and damaged personal property. Meanwhile, the Cross-Appellants contend that the Court of Federal Claims erred by offsetting generally available Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") relief and by awarding Ms. Popovici $0 for a permanent flowage easement on her property. The Panel affirms the decisions of the Court of Federal Claims as to liability and class certification. With respect to damages, the Panel affirms the decision as to leasehold advantage, damaged personal property, and offsetting of FEMA relief, but vacates the decision as to lost rent, displacement, and the valuation of Ms. Popovici's easement. Judge Cunningham opines that the government effected a Fifth Amendment taking by permanently acquiring flowage easements over upstream private properties through the operation of the Addicks and Barker Dams during Hurricane Harvey. Judge Cunningham explains that the denial of class certification was proper, primarily because the motion was untimely and sought certification after a liability trial. Certain categories of damages were properly awarded, including compensation for permanent flowage easements (for most Plaintiffs), damaged personal property, and leasehold advantage, Judge Cunningham says. Judge Cunningham adds that other damages were improper and had to be vacated, including awards for lost rent, business-related income, displacement costs, and the $0 valuation of one plaintiff's flowage easement, and that offsets for FEMA emergency relief were appropriate to prevent double recovery. For these reasons, the Panel affirms the Liability Decision and the Class Certification Decision, and affirms in part and vacates in part the Damages Decision. The Panel remands to the Court of Federal Claims for reconsideration of the amount of compensation due to Ms. Popovici and re-evaluation of damages consistent with the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrcdu5mf from Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. ROGER J. MARZULLA -- roger@marzulla.com -- NANCIE GAIL MARZULLA -- nancie@marzulla.com -- Marzulla Law, LLC, in Washington, DC, for all Plaintiffs-Appellees. VUK VUJASINOVIC -- vuk@vbattorneys.com -- VB Attorneys, PLLC, in Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Christina Banker, Todd Banker. EDWIN ARMISTEAD EASTERBY, I -- armi@easterbylaw.com -- The Easterby Law Firm, P.C., in Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee Elizabeth Burnham. IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN -- igershengorn@jenner.com -- ELIZABETH B. DEUTSCH -- edeutsch@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, in Washington, DC; DANIEL H. CHAREST -- dcharest@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, in Dallas, TX; CHARLES IRVINE -- charles@irvineconner.com -- Irvine & Conner PLLC, in Houston, TX; EMERY LAWRENCE VINCENT -- larry@sorrelslaw.com -- Sorrels Law, in Dallas, TX, for the Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants. BRIAN C. TOTH -- brian.toth@usdoj.gov -- TODD KIM -- Todd.Kim@usdoj.gov -- Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, in Washington, DC, for the Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES: Nielsen Appeals Final Judgment Order to D.C. Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Afghan and Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Michael R. Pompeo, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-TSC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of themselves and a class of all people who have applied for an Afghan or Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) pursuant to the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (AAPA), or the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 (RCIA), by submitting an application for Chief of Mission (COM) approval, and whose applications have been awaiting government action for longer than 9 months. They claim that the Defendants have failed to process and adjudicate their SIV applications within a reasonable time. On Dec. 23, 2025, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan entered final judgment in this case. The Court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on Counts 1 and 2 and issued a Revised Adjudication Plan, Count 3 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Counts 4 and 5 were dismissed as moot. The Court therefore construes the Defendants' Motion to Stay the Revised Adjudication Plan as a request for relief from final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The appellate case is entitled Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Pompeo, et al., Case No. 25-3227, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on December 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents AFGHAN AND IRAQI ALLIES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Anika Havaldar, Esq. Justin C. Simeone, Esq. Carla Sung Ah Yoon, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 700 13th Street NW, Suite 10th Floor Washington DC, 20005 Telephone: (202) 777−4500 (212) 277−4057 Email: anika.havaldar@freshfields.com justin.simeone@freshfields.com carla.yoon@freshfields.com - and - David Yury Livshiz, Esq. Rebecca Curwin Kerr, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street, 51st Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 284−4979 (212) 277−4000 Email: david.livshiz@freshfields.com rebecca.kerr@freshfields.com - and - Geroline A. Castillo, Esq. Kimberly Robin Grano, Esq. Pedro Sepulveda, Jr., Esq. Ghita Schwarz, Esq. Guadalupe V. Aguirre, Esq. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT One Battery Park Plaza, 4th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (516) 824−4256 (646) 946−7453 (646) 819−3805 (646) 939−9169 (929) 246−0154 Email: gcastillo@refugeerights.org kgrano@refugeerights.org psepulveda@refugeerights.org gschwarz@refugeerights.org laguirre@refugeerights.org - and - Mia Tsui, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 618−9205 Email: mia.tsui@freshfields.com Defendants-Petitioners KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, et al. are represented by: Ruth Ann Mueller, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Immigration Litigation 450 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 598−2445 Email: ruth.a.mueller@usdoj.gov - and - Yamileth G. Davila, Esq. Jaime A. Scott, Esq. Richard Gordon Winstead Ingebretsen, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 305−0137 (202) 305−3620 (202) 616−4848 Email: yamileth.g.davila@usdoj.gov jaime.a.scott@usdoj.gov richard.ingebretsen@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Nonprofit Seeks to Halt Warrantless Arrests in Ore. ------------------------------------------------------------------ KGW8 reports that Innovation Law Lab attorneys have filed a motion asking that a federal court stop U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) from making arrests without warrants in Oregon. The motion, filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene on Friday, January 9, seeks "class-action status on all Oregonians arrested without a warrant and without the legally required assessment of flight risk." If the motion is granted, Oregon would join Washington, D.C. and Colorado in stopping warrantless arrests, the group said. A warrantless arrest is intended to be a rare occurrence, Innovation Law Lab argues, made -- if determined by probable cause -- that the person is a flight risk and is living unlawfully in the U.S. Both of these conditions must be met before the arrest. The plaintiffs named include Victor Cruz Gamez, a Hillsboro grandfather who was detained by ICE while driving home from work, and M-J-M-A-, a farmworker detained in a Woodburn sweep last October. Both arrests, the Innovation Law Lab, were made unlawfully. On Oct. 14, Cruz was pulled over by masked federal agents, in which he showed his work permit, which allows him to work legally in the U.S. Cruz and his family also said that the federal agents were looking for a different man with the same name but with a specific criminal background -- and even though those agents acknowledged there had been a mismatch, they detained Cruz anyway, without a warrant. ICE then held Cruz for three weeks at the Tacoma facility, pressuring him to self-deport, before he was eventually released after an order from a federal district court judge. The second plaintiff, M-J-M-A-, was one of 35 people detained during a sweep in Woodburn, referred as "Operation Black Rose" by the Department of Homeland Security. M-J-M-A- had been heading into work; like Cruz, she has no criminal or negative immigration record; no record of attempting to flee from law enforcement; and during the arrest, complied with the federal officers, who arrested her anyway, also without a warrant. M-J-M-A- was detained and held in a small cell, where if she needed water, had to drink from the sink, she said. She also thought that the ICE agents broke her arm while arresting her. The injunction names the defendants as ICE Seattle Field Office Director Laura Hermosillo; ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons; Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; and the department itself; and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. According to Innovation Law Lab, federal arrests have surged 1,400% over prior months and 7,900% over the prior year. "Their own agents admitted it: quotas, manufactured paperwork, entire neighborhoods targeted. This is by design," said Stephen Manning, executive director at Innovation Law Lab in a statement. "You can't just grab people and figure out the justification later. But that's exactly what ICE is doing." Innovation Law Lab, along with two other immigration advocacy groups, had filed a lawsuit last October, alleging detained residents are being denied meaningful access to legal counsel before being transferred out of state. [GN] VARONIS SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Varonis Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNS) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Varonis securities between February 4, 2025 and October 28, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/VRNS. Varonis Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Varonis' ability to convert its existing customer base; (2) notably, that it was not truly equipped to convince existing users of the benefits of converting to the SaaS offering or otherwise maintain those customers on its platform, resulting in significantly reduced ARR growth potential in the near-term; and (3) such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Varonis' securities at artificially inflated prices. What's Next for Varonis Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/VRNS. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Varonis you have until March 9, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Varonis Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Varonis Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] VERMONT BREAD: Sullivan Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA JOY SULLIVAN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vermont Bread Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-120, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for alleged violation of his rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988. On Dec. 20, 2023, Linda Joy Sullivan filed a memorandum in support for summary judgment entering partial final judgment against Defendants and Crossclaim-Defendants American Industrial Acquisition Corporation and KK Bakery Investment Company LLC. On May 17, 2024, Judge William K. Sessions III entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Sullivan's motion for partial summary judgment against Defendants and Crossclaim-Defendants American Industrial Acquisition Corporation and KK Bakery Investment Company LLC. The appellate case is entitled Chaney v. Vermont Bread Company, Case No. 25-3243, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MATTHEW CHANEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas P. Aicher, Esq. CLEARY SHAHI & AICHER, PC 110 Merchants Row P.O. Box 6740, Suite 3 Rutland, VT 05701 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. P.O. Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10007 Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant LINDA JOY SULLIVAN, in her capacity as the Dissolution Receiver for Koffee Kup Bakery, Inc., Vermont Bread Company, Inc. and Superior Bakery, Inc., are represented by: Ian P. Carleton, Esq. SHEEHEY FURLONG & BEHM PC 30 Main Street P.O. Box 66 Burlington, VT 05402 Defendants-Appellees KK BAKERY HOLDING ACQUISITION COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Jay M. Levin, Esq. FLASTER/GREENBERG PC 100 Front Street, Suite 100 Conshohocken, PA 19428 WM WHOLESALE: Hernandez Seeks Continuance of Default Judgment Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WM WHOLESALE, LLC, and AK FUTURES, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02228-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order continuing the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for default judgment, currently set for Feb. 8, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff needs additional time to secure evidence of damages and class member information from non-party Vando Holdings Corp. before moving for default judgment. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has also already secured the Court's leave to seek such discovery, served a subpoena on Vando, and moved the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to order Vando's compliance over its objections. Because a class must be certified and notice approved and disseminated to class members before a judgment may be entered, a continuance is necessary to ensure due process requirements are satisfied and class members receive the "best notice that is practicable under the circumstances." WM is a wholesaler of commercial hemp vaping products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MRCEd1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 612-9999 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***