260120.mbx

260120.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 20, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 14 Headlines 700CREDIT LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cousar Alleges 8926 SAZON: Faces Guachiac Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ALN MEDICAL: $4MM Data Breach Claim Forms Submission Due April 3 ALTO PHARMACY: Filing for Class Cert. in Muhammad Suit Due May 1 AMPRO INDUSTRIES: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ARROW INTERNATIONAL: Recalls IAB Cather Kits Over Safety Risks ATKINSON CONSULTING: December 2026 Trial Date Set in "Herzog" AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Inadequate Data Security Practices B. BRAUN: Court Denies Class Certification in Ethylene Oxide Claims BAKER UNIVERSITY: Dietz Files Suit in D. Kansas BALANCE OF NATURE: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $9.95-Mil. BANK OF AMERICA: Castellon Sues Over Financial Records Disclosure BAR SOL LLC: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BATH & BODY: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements BENEFIT PROFILES: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Martin BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Must File Class Cert Response by Feb. 19 BODY FIRM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Discounts CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Fisk Gets Initial Nod CANADIAN INVESTMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Protect Info CARPENTERS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON: Johnson Seeks Class Status CART.COM HOLDINGS: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CATWIG LLC: Egbert Files Suit Over Data Breach CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Faces Briand ADA Suit in C.D. Calif. CELEBRITY CRUISES: Perry Suit Over False E-mails Goes to W.D. Wash. CENTRAL HEALTH: Fitch Sues or Breach of Fiduciary Duty CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Hits With Class Action Over Employee Data Breach CIGNA GROUP: Butler Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI CITIBANK NA: Class Cert Hearing in Letidas Suit Due Feb. 19 CONNECT HOLDING: Fails to Secure Private Information, Polner Says CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $2.2MM COREWEAVE INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit CUSIP GLOBAL: DFG Allowed to Certain Documents DEAN & HOYLE BRANDS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DESIGNS FOR HEALTH: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DILLARD'S INC: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DISCOVERY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DSMB PARTNERS: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DUFRESNE SPENCER: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit DZONE MANAGEMENT: Cordero Suit Removed to N.D. California ELECOM USA: Settlement in Douglass Gets Prelim OK ELLAFI FEDERAL: Fails to Protect Private Information, Fraulino Says EQT CORPORATION: Ross Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief EVERGY METRO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bauer Due Dec. 30 EXACT CARE: Faces Weingrad Suit Over Telemarketing Calls EXACT CARE: Filing for Class Certification in Everett Due Feb. 6 EXACT CARE: Weingrad Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid FABLETICS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Emails in Calif. FANATICS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over 24-Hour Waiting Period FERMI INC: Faces Lupia Suit Over Drop in Share Price FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Luro Files Suit in M.D. Florida G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in Hurd Gets Initial OK GARUDA LABS: Koester Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA GLAMNETIC LLC: Stevens-Hills Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HAPPY HOUR: Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Experts Due Sept. 30 HEALTH GORILLA: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Information, Suit Says HEARD DESIGN: Youngren Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HOLISTIC VET: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Figueroa Says INN BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Alleges KALSHI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Sports Gambling KEURIG K-CUP: Court Approves $1.85MM Class Settlement in Canada KMF IP: Murphy Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LIVE NATION: Court Approves "Donley" Class Action Distribution Plan MARQUARDT OUTDOORS: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Faces Krall Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info MCKESSON CORP: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Kramer Says MICROF LLC: Failed to Safeguard Private Information, Nix Says MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: $1.88MM Settlement Claim Forms Due March 2 MONRO INC: Speranza Sues to Recover Store Managers' Unpaid OT Wages MONSANTO COMPANY: Fowler Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyder Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Soderquist Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Stevens Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Thompson Sues Over Wrongful Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Tinkler Sues Over Negligent Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Wagner Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MYSTIC VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $520,000 NANO NUCLEAR: Faces Valuation Risk After Class Suit Dismissal NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Ventullo Suit Over Defective Slow Cookers NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY: Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 19 NOVOLEX HOLDINGS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California NUMOTION DATA: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $4MM NZXT INC: Minor Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages OAKYWOOD LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ORLANDO HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN: Bernard Suit Removed to D. New Jersey PERFORMANCE FOOD: Green Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PHILIP MORRIS: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline in Friedman PHILIP MORRIS: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline in Kelly PORTLAND PET: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RAMSEY SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $1.09-Mil. RAW ESSENTIALS: Murphy Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RESIDENT VERIFY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 7 RP RESTAURANT: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RUMPKE CONSOLIDATED: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $750,000 SCOTT SEMPLE: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SEQUOIA BENEFITS: $8.7M Breach Suit Deadline for Exclusion on Feb 9 SHARK TANK: Roush Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM LLC: Bid for Protective Order Granted SQUEEZED LLC: Brown FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Mass. STAKE CENTER: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid STARFISH TRANSPORTATION: Calderon Seeks to Recover Proper Wages STRYX CARE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Figueroa Says SUN COUNTRY: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Allegiant Travel SURVIVAL GEAR: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TAKEYA USA: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TEAMS COMPANIES: Esplana Sues Over Failure to Secure Information THRIVE HEALTH: Avots-Smith Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy TRAEGER PELLET: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Benson Alleges TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Corbray Sues Over Failure to Protect Data TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Whiteside Says TRUE PET FOOD: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TT OF OCALA LLC: Rowsey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Mollins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. UEI FRESNO/IEC: Faces Gomez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Faces Class Action Over Pay Disparity VARONIS SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 9 VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court Certifies "Ford" Classes VISA INC: Bourne Suit Removed to C.D. California WESTERN TOWING OF PHOENIX: Andrews Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages WISCONSIN: Class Action Status on Late Counsel Appointments Denied ********* 700CREDIT LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cousar Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ RONELL COUSAR, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 700CREDIT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-10058-JJCG-EAS (E.D. Mich., January 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to safeguard and secure the personally identifiable information ("PII") of approximately 5.8 million individuals, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the information affected was provided by 700Credit's customer organizations and 700Credit has maintained it in its possession for the purpose of providing vehicle financing services. The Defendant breached its duty by failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Class Members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. On December 22, 2025, Mr. Cousar received a notice letter from 700Credit notifying him that his PII, including his name, social security number, date of birth, and address was among the information accessed by cybercriminals in the Data Breach ("Notice Letter"). As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of financial fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security system, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class Members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Ronnell Cousar resides in Washington, DC. Defendant 700Credit, LLC is a nationwide credit services company. Defendant's services include: credit reports, soft pull credit data, identity verification, fraud detection and compliance solutions in Automotive, RV, Powersports and Marine dealerships across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com 8926 SAZON: Faces Guachiac Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GUACHIAC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 8926 SAZON INC. (D/B/A SAZON COLOMBIA), JOHN CASTRO, TERESA CASTRO, and FERNANDOHERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00026 (E.D.N.Y., January 2, 2026) is an action for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unlawful tip-credit deductions, statutory damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants maintained a uniform policy and practice of paying tipped employees below the lawful minimum wage, failing to pay overtime premiums, unlawfully taking a tip credit without providing required notice, requiring tipped employees to perform substantial non-tipped work, and failing to maintain accurate payroll and time records, the complaint alleges. Plaintiff Guachiac was employed by the Defendants as a waitress from approximately June 2021 through January 9, 2025. 8926 Sazon Inc., d/b/a Sazon Colombia, operates a Colombian restaurant and bakery known as "Sazon Colombia" located in Jackson Heights, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott William Clark, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 679-9660 E-mail: sclark@saccofillas.com ALN MEDICAL: $4MM Data Breach Claim Forms Submission Due April 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $4 million class action settlement will resolve litigation against ALN Medical Management, a healthcare advisory firm working with nationwide care providers, over a March 2024 data breach that may have exposed patients’ sensitive personal and medical information. The ALN Medical Management settlement received preliminary court approval on December 5, 2025 and covers all living United States residents who were notified by ALN that their private information may have been impacted in the data breach. The court-approved website for the ALN Medical Management class action settlement can be found at ALNSettlement.com. Per the settlement website, ALN settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive medical data monitoring, as well as either up to $5,000 in compensation for documented, data breach-related losses or a flat cash payment, which the website estimates will be around $50. Reimbursement for documented losses is available for any as-of-yet-unreimbursed losses related to fraud or identity theft that were, more likely than not, caused by the ALN data breach and were incurred after the dates of the incident (March 18 to 24, 2024). Class members must submit reasonable documentation for each loss they seek to claim in order to receive reimbursement, the settlement website states. Alternatively, class members may elect to receive the cash payment of approximately $50, for which no proof is required to submit a claim form. Per settlement documents, the amount of the cash payout may be subject to increase or decrease on a pro rata, or equal share, basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed, and the payment cannot be claimed alongside the loss reimbursement option. The medical data monitoring benefit can be claimed alongside either the loss- reimbursement or the $50 cash payment option, and includes one free year of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, the settlement website says. The Medical Shield service includes medical identity monitoring, real-time alerts, one-bureau credit monitoring, up to $1,000,000 in insurance coverage for medical identity theft, and additional monitoring of: -- Medical records; -- Health savings accounts; -- High-risk transactions; -- Dark web activity; -- Healthcare insurance plan IDs; -- National provider identifiers; -- Healthcare beneficiary identifier IDs; and -- International classification of disease. To submit an ALN Medical Management settlement claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique class member ID provided in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the ALN settlement claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the document. All ALN Medical Management data breach claim forms must be submitted by April 3, 2026. A hearing is scheduled for May 15, 2026 to determine whether the ALN Medical Management data breach settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The ALN Medical Management class action lawsuit claimed the company both failed to protect patients’ data from a cyberattack between March 18 and 24, 2024, which gave an unauthorized third party access to highly sensitive personal and medical data. The suit claimed the company failed to provide timely notice of the breach to affected patients, as it waited until March 2025 to publicize the incident. [GN] ALTO PHARMACY: Filing for Class Cert. in Muhammad Suit Due May 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, et al., v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Parker entered a post-conference order. Both class and individual discovery is extended by 6 months. Accordingly, fact discovery for the class and individuals are due by Oct. 30, 2026. The Rule 23 briefing schedule is also extended by 90 days. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is now due by May 1, 2026, the Defendants' opposition will be due by May 29, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, will be due by June 12, 2026. The Plaintiffs are directed to provide written responses and/or objections to Defendants’ document requests on or before Jan. 30, 2026, and commence a rolling production of requested documents on or before that date. The parties are directed to file a letter by Jan. 20, 2026 informing the Court as to whether the parties seek a referral to a separate Magistrate Judge regarding a settlement conference. Finally, a Case Management Conference is scheduled for Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. and will be held in Courtroom 17-D, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Alto operates as a pharmacy company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vovccg at no extra charge.[CC] AMPRO INDUSTRIES: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. AMPRO INDUSTRIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-086 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.amprogel.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase all products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's haircare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CARLTON KNOWLES is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant AMPRO INDUSTRIES INC. operates the Ampro Gel online retail store, as well as the Ampro Gel interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States. Its interactive Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's haircare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ARROW INTERNATIONAL: Recalls IAB Cather Kits Over Safety Risks -------------------------------------------------------------- Anapol Weiss, writing for Anapol Weiss, reports that intra-aortic balloon (IABs) catheters are life-sustaining medical devices used with balloon pumps in some of the most critical hospital settings. When these devices fail, the consequences can be devastating. Recently, the FDA issued a Class I recall, its most serious designation, for certain Teleflex/Arrow International IAB catheter kits after discovering a manufacturing defect that may put patients at risk of serious injury or death. Patients who received circulatory support using one of the recalled catheter kits should speak with their healthcare providers about possible complications and whether additional monitoring or follow-up care is appropriate. Arrow IAB Catheters Recalled Over Serious Safety Risks The FDA Class I recall applies to the Arrow FiberOptix Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter Kit and Arrow UltraFlex Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter Kit, with nearly 17,000 devices distributed in the United States between May 2022 and April 2024. These devices are commonly used in patients undergoing cardiac or non-cardiac surgery and in adults experiencing acute coronary syndrome or complications of heart failure. The recall was issued after Teleflex and its subsidiary, Arrow International, found a manufacturing error that may cause the catheter’s balloon to become over-twisted, which can interfere with proper function. This defect may prevent the balloon from fully inflating, cause blood to back up into the tubing, allow helium to leak, or result in catheter damage or insertion difficulties. In some cases, the problem may not be visible before use, meaning a device can malfunction even after standard inspection. The risks associated with these failures are severe and include blood loss, arterial perforation, unstable blood pressure, reduced blood flow to the heart, and death. So far, Teleflex and Arrow International have reported 322 complaints, including 31 injuries and 3 deaths, potentially linked to this issue. Why This Recall Matters for Patients and Families In critical care settings, there is often little margin for error. A malfunctioning intra-aortic balloon catheter can worsen an already life-threatening situation, leaving patients and families to deal with unexpected injuries, extended hospitalizations, or worse. Even when complications are survived, the physical, emotional, and financial toll can be overwhelming. If you or someone you love were harmed after treatment involving a recalled intra-aortic balloon catheter, you do not have to face the aftermath alone. Our law firm is currently investigating potential Teleflex Arrow IAB Catheter lawsuits. Call Anapol Weiss at 215-735-1130 or fill out our online contact form to schedule a free consultation with one of our product liability lawyers. [GN] ATKINSON CONSULTING: December 2026 Trial Date Set in "Herzog" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Herzog, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Atkinson Consulting, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-62006-CIV-DAMIAN/Valle, Judge Melissa Damian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a scheduling order setting the case for jury trial and establishing pretrial deadlines. The Court set the matter for jury trial during the two-week trial calendar beginning on December 14, 2026. Counsel for all parties shall appear at a calendar call at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 2026. Unless instructed otherwise by subsequent order, the trial and all other proceedings in this case shall be conducted in Courtroom 205C at the U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse, 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. The Court established key deadlines including January 9, 2026 for motions to amend pleadings or join parties, and January 23, 2026 for the parties to select a mediator and file a proposed order scheduling mediation. The parties must complete mediation and file a mediation report by August 7, 2026. For class certification matters, the parties shall exchange expert witness summaries or reports on issues of class certification by March 27, 2026, with rebuttal reports due April 10, 2026. The deadline for completing class certification discovery is April 21, 2026. The plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by May 5, 2026, with the defendant's opposition due June 2, 2026, and the plaintiff's reply due June 12, 2026. The parties shall exchange merits expert witness summaries or reports by June 30, 2026, and merits rebuttal expert witness summaries or reports by July 17, 2026. All discovery, including expert discovery, shall be completed by July 31, 2026. The parties shall file all pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions for a bench trial by August 14, 2026. Each party is limited to filing one Daubert motion. Motions in limine shall be filed by November 6, 2026, with each party limited to filing one motion in limine. The parties shall submit a joint pretrial stipulation, exhibit lists, witness lists, deposition designations, and proposed jury instructions and verdict form by November 13, 2026. The Court referred all pretrial non-dispositive matters to United States Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle pursuant to 28 United States Code Section 636 and the District's Magistrate Judge Rules. The parties may consent to trial and final disposition by Judge Valle in accordance with 28 United States Code Section 636(c)(1). A copy of the Court's decision dated 29th December 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uroMXe from PacerMonitor.com AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Inadequate Data Security Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AYLO HOLDINGS USA CORP., AYLO USA, INC., and AYLO BILLING LIMITED, collectively, d/b/a Pornhub, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00002 (W.D. Tex., January 2, 2026) seeks to remedy the harms on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and compromised during a data breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members used Defendants' website to privately view pornographic media from the privacy of their homes. Given how confidential such usage is, and the sensitivity attached to such usage, they assumed that Defendants would do their utmost to keep that information private. However, on December 16, 2025, cybercriminal group, ShinyHunters, announced the compromise of an Aylo database that contained 94GB of data tied to more than 200 million records belonging to Aylo; this data included, without limitation, email addresses, historical search, watch, and download activity for the platform's premium members, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. Aylo USA Incorporated, doing business under the name Pornhub, is a Delaware corporation conducting business throughout the United States that maintains its principal place of business in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com B. BRAUN: Court Denies Class Certification in Ethylene Oxide Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Braun US Device Manufacturing LLC shares that the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County ruled against certification of a class action in a recent lawsuit concerning the company's use of ethylene oxide (EtO) to sterilize medical devices at its Allentown, PA, facility. The case, Mourad Abdelaziz v. B. Braun US Device Manufacturing LLC, was brought by a local resident who claimed B. Braun’s use of EtO increased his potential health risks and sought a class action for medical monitoring of the surrounding community. B. Braun opposed these claims. After reviewing extensive testimony and evidence, the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County denied the plaintiff’s request for a class action. In its detailed 49-page decision, the Court held that the claims did not satisfy nearly all of the requirements of a class action. Among other reasons, the Court found several of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses to be unreliable. This decision follows a Philadelphia jury finding B. Braun not negligent and not liable on all counts in another EtO case in December 2024. B. Braun subsequently resolved the majority of cases against it. B. Braun welcomes the Lehigh County court decision and the defense verdict and will continue to defend against any of these cases. About B. Braun B. Braun US Device Manufacturing LLC is part of the B. Braun Group of Companies in the U.S. B. Braun is a leading medical technology company. With more than 64,000 employees globally, the family-owned Group of Companies is a true partner, developing integrated solutions and setting standards to drive advancements in health care. For more information, visit www.bbraunusa.com. [GN] BAKER UNIVERSITY: Dietz Files Suit in D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baker University. The case is styled as Timothy Dietz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Baker University, Case No. 2:26-cv-02001-TC-BGS (D. Kan., Jan. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Baker University -- https://www.bakeru.edu/ -- is a private university in Baldwin City, Kansas, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman Eli Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP - KC 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com BALANCE OF NATURE: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $9.95-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Balance of Nature has agreed to a $9.95 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it falsely advertised the health benefits of its dietary supplements. The Balance of Nature settlement benefits consumers who purchased Balance of Nature dietary supplements between March 28, 2019, and Oct. 27, 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, Balance of Nature misrepresents the health benefits of its products. Plaintiffs in the case say that the company's claims about the Balance of Nature Fruits capsules' ability to replace fruits and vegetables in a diet are false and misleading. Balance of Nature is a supplement company that sells fruit and vegetable capsules, fiber and spice powders and other products. Balance of Nature has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $9.95 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Balance of Nature settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of units they purchased and whether they have proof of purchase. With proof of purchase, class members can receive $6 per unit for up to five units, for a maximum payment of $30 per household. Without proof of purchase, class members can receive $4 per unit for up to two units, for a maximum payment of $8 per household. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 9, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Balance of Nature settlement is scheduled for March 6, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 11, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased one or more Balance of Nature products in the United States between March 28, 2019, and Oct. 27, 2025. Potential Award Up to $30 with proof of purchase or $8 without proof of purchase. Proof of Purchase Tier 1 claims (those with proof of purchase) must include a receipt, order confirmation, account order history or other documentation from Balance of Nature, Amazon or Walmart that establishes the fact and approximate date of purchase of the product during the class period in the United States. Tier 2 claims (those without proof of purchase) must include the name of the store where the product was purchased, the date of purchase and the product purchased. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/11/2026 Case Name Morris v. Evig LLC d/b/a Balance of Nature, Case No. 25PH-CV-01551, in the Circuit Court of Phelps County, Missouri Final Hearing 03/06/2026 Settlement Website Supplements-Settlement.com Claims Administrator Balance of Nature Settlement Administrator PO Box 231 Valparaiso, IN 46384 info@supplements-settlement.com (888) 577-2636 Class Counsel David L. Steelman STEELMAN & GAUNT Stuart L. Cochran CONDON TOBIN SLADEK THORNTON NERENBERG PLLC Britton D. Monts THE MONTS FIRM Mathew H. Armstrong ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC Defense Counsel Daniel J. Hay SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Castellon Sues Over Financial Records Disclosure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Castellon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 6:26-cv-00021 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its stunning and willful violations of Plaintiff's and Class members' rights under the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 ("RFPA"), the United States Constitution, and related claims arising from Defendant's unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class members' confidential financial records and personal information. This action challenges an unprecedented warrantless surveillance program in which Bank of America abandoned its role as a neutral custodian of customer funds and instead became a sophisticated aggregator of personal and financial customer data that it used to conduct suspicion-less searches of customers, targeting them for their location, purchases, political beliefs and associations, the results of which were then shared with an estimated 472 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. With animus and reckless disregard of its customers' rights, BoA conducted searches of Plaintiff's and Class members' financial transaction records based on where Americas were located at the time of a transaction, used merchant codes of lawful purchases to determine what consumers were purchasing, including religious texts, and used search terms or transactions that might suggest association with a political party. In a stunning violation of the RFPA and the most basic of rights afforded to Plaintiff and Class members by the U.S. Constitution, BoA then provided the results of these searches and customer financial records to law enforcement authorities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff maintained an individual consumer bank account in his own name at Bank of America. Bank of America is a federally chartered national bank regulated by the Office of Comptroller of Currency with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Levin, Esq. Kelly Needleman Brennan, Esq. Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2 Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 402-9050 Facsimile: (305) 676-4443 Email: brian@levinlawpa.com kelly@levinlawpa.com brandon@levinlawpa.com BAR SOL LLC: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Geovanni Bahena Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BAR SOL, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00049 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.barsolnavypier.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant's Website, and its goods and services offered thereupon, is a public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BATH & BODY: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath & Body Works, Inc. ("Bath & Body Works" or the "Company") (NYSE: BBWI). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bath & Body Works's strategy was not growing the customer base and/or delivering the level of growth in net sales touted; (2) as the strategy faltered, the Company relied on brand collaborations to obfuscate otherwise weak underlying financial results; and (3) as a result, the Company was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance. If you purchased Bath & Body Works shares between June 4, 2024 and November 19, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/bath-body-works/ for more information. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] BENEFIT PROFILES: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Benefit Profiles, Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over an April 2024 data breach that allegedly exposed consumers' personal information, including names and Social Security numbers, to an unauthorized third party. The Benefit Profiles class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 3, 2025 and covers anyone in the United States whose personal information was potentially compromised in the April 2024 Benefit Profiles data breach, including all individuals who received notice about the incident. Per the settlement agreement, there are approximately 20,530 settlement class members. The court-authorized website for the Benefit Profiles class action settlement can be found at BenefitProfilesDataSettlement.com. Settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have a few options for reimbursement for data-breach related losses that occurred between April 3, 2024 and January 20, 2026. Consumers seeking reimbursement for documented ordinary expenses incurred due to the data breach can receive a cash payment of up to $500, the settlement website says. Reimbursable ordinary expenses include costs resulting from fraud or identity theft, such as accountants' fees, and expenses associated with freezing or unfreezing credit and credit monitoring. Claim forms for documented ordinary expenses must be accompanied by documentation showing proof of the expenses, such as receipts for services prepared by a third party, the settlement site says. Class members who submit a claim form for documented extraordinary expenses arising from the data breach can receive a cash payment of up to $2,500. Settlement class members seeking reimbursement for extraordinary losses must submit documentation proving that the loss is an actual monetary loss, was more likely than not caused by the data breach, was incurred after the data breach, and that the settlement class member already made reasonable efforts to either avoid the loss or seek reimbursement for it, the website shares. Per the class action settlement website, an alternative cash payout of $50 is available for class members who do not submit a claim for reimbursement of ordinary or extraordinary losses stemming from the Benefit Profiles data breach. Lastly, the class action settlement affords all class members the opportunity to enroll in two years of three-bureau credit monitoring services, which include $1 million in identity theft protection insurance, the settlement site shares. To submit a claim form online, settlement class members can visit this page of the settlement website and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and mail back to the settlement administrator listed on the website. Benefit Profiles settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 20, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the Benefit Profiles settlement at a hearing on January 16, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Benefit Profiles class action lawsuit alleged that an unauthorized third party accessed an employee's email account between April 3, 2024 and April 11, 2024. The lawsuit claimed that, because of the data breach, cybercriminals were able to access private information about Benefits Profiles' clients and employees, including their names and Social Security numbers. [GN] BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Martin --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn., Filed July 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order granting Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. The parties may submit expert report(s) relating to class certification issues with their respective briefs. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. BioXcel is a biopharmaceutical company utilizing artificial intelligence to develop transformative medicines in neuroscience.[CC] BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Must File Class Cert Response by Feb. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dixon, et al., v. Blibaum and Associates, P.A., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00029 (D. Md., Filed Jan. 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin entered an order granting the Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond. The Defendants shall file respond to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class on or before Feb. 19, 2026, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). Blibaum is a law firm. [CC] BODY FIRM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Discounts ---------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that The Body Firm has run a widespread, deceptive pricing scheme whereby the cosmetics retailer has falsely advertised "extraordinary," limited-time discounts, even though the products were never sold for more than the advertised discount rate. According to the 24-page Body Firm class action lawsuit, the defendant prominently advertises on its website and in promotional materials 25-percent-off discounts using strike-through price comparisons alongside a product's purported original price. The filing says that this false advertising has led reasonable consumers to believe that the strike-through price was an item's supposed original price and that they were receiving a special discount. "A representation of '25% off' discount plainly conveys that the consumers are getting a tremendous deal compared to what the product or service normally costs," the lawsuit asserts. Per the suit, the original price shown by The Body Firm is, in fact, "a fiction" intended to make consumers feel as though they are getting a bargain. The filing claims that The Body Firm also adds a countdown timer to these illegitimate discounts to create a false sense of urgency and push consumers to make a purchase. "To verify the [The Body Firm] always offers the purported 25% off limited discount, Plaintiff's counsel performed an investigation of [The Body Firm]'s advertising practices using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine," the class action lawsuit explains. The Wayback Machine is a tool used to determine a website's appearance and content at a particular point in time. According to the class action lawsuit, "that investigation confirms [The Body Firm]'s perpetual sales" on its website. The case charges that pricing schemes like this violate California's False Advertising Law and the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines. Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that "reasonable consumers do not realize the fake nature of the sale…because the sale appears to be bona fide." The plaintiff in the case purchased a skin care product from The Body Firm during an advertised "end of summer sale" that allegedly gave consumers 25 percent off all online purchases. The original price of the product was listed as $79.95, and the plaintiff reasonably relied on The Body Firm's assertions that the 25-percent off sale was a temporary and exceptional sale. Had she known the sale was part of an ongoing deception, she would not have purchased the product then or at all, the filing alleges. The Body Firm class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased The Body Firm's products at a purported discount. [GN] CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Fisk Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL CASTRO, GRETA VISS, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robinson entered an order: (1) granting the joint motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and conditional class certification, (2) approving of class notice, and (3) scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of settlement 1. The requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) are satisfied and thus the Court preliminarily and conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following settlement classes: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2): Class 1: "All female students who participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics through the termination of the Settlement Agreement or, since Feb. 7, 2022, participated in intercollegiate varsity athletics at San Diego State University." Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): Class 2: "All female students who participated in intercollegiate varsity athletics at San Diego State University from the 2018–2019 academic year through the 2024–2025 academic year and did not receive all of the athletic financial aid they could have received." 2. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Madison Fisk, Carina Clark, Natalie Figueroa, Olivia Petrine, Kamryn Whitworth, and Kaitlin Heri as Class Representatives, finding that they will fairly, adequately, and vigorously represent the interests of the classes. 3. The Court appoints Casey Gerry Blatt LLP, Bullock Law PLLC, Arthur Bryant Law, P.C., and Haeggquist & Eck, LLP as Class Counsel, finding that they will fairly, adequately, and vigorously represent the classes. Although the Court harbors reservations regarding the size of the Class Counsel Fees Award relative to the monetary damages secured for the Class Members, the Court preliminarily approves a Class Counsel Fees Award not to exceed $1,300,000. 4. The Court finds the proposed Plan of Allocation for Class 2 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and appoints CPT Group to serve as the Disbursement Administrator. The Court also preliminarily approves CPT Group's fees, estimated to be $9,750, to be paid by Class Counsel. 5. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) on April 16, 2026, at 1:30 PM, 6. The Parties shall file all papers in support of final approval of the Settlement by March 19, 2026. The Plaintiffs, "past and current female varsity student-athletes at SDSU," initiated this lawsuit against Defendants on February 7, 2022, alleging SDSU -- a recipient of federal funding—has engaged in intentional discrimination based on sex in its athletic programs in violation of Title IX. The Plaintiffs specifically claim SDSU has violated, and is violating, Title IX and its guiding regulations by (1) "depriving its female varsity student-athletes of equal financial aid"; (2) "denying them equal athletic benefits and treatment"; and (3) "retaliating against them because some of them sued SDSU for violating Title IX." Under the Settlement Agreement, SDSU agrees to pay a total, gross amount of $300,000 to members of Class 2. "SDSU agrees to pay a sum of $1,300,000 as a negotiated sum for the reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses Plaintiffs incurred pursuing this litigation." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0tJPk0 at no extra charge.[CC] CANADIAN INVESTMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Protect Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michelle Schriver of Investment Executive reports that a former dealing representative has asked the Superior Court of Quebec to authorize a class action against the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO), alleging the regulator failed to protect private information, and seeking damages. The application pertains to the regulator's cybersecurity breach last summer that exposed the personal data of registrants past and present. The plaintiff (whom we've agreed not to name) was a rep with DWM Securities Inc. in Lachine, Que. He hasn't been registered since 2013, according to the Canadian Securities Administrators' (CSA) national registration search. The class action application states that the plaintiff wishes to institute a class action on behalf of "all persons in Canada whose personal or financial information was held" by CIRO "and was compromised in the data breach . . . or who received an email or letter from [CIRO] informing them of such data breach." In an emailed statement, CIRO said, "The allegations in the proposed class action, which seeks to include all Canadians receiving notification that their personal information was affected, are not proven." Further, "CIRO is confident in its position that the organization responded in a timely and appropriate manner," the statement said. "CIRO collects personal information in the normal course of carrying out its mandate and conducting its registration, investigation, compliance assessment and market regulation work." Our attempts to contact the plaintiff were unsuccessful. The application was filed on Oct. 6 with the Superior Court of Quebec in Montreal by counsel David Assor of Lex Group Inc. in Westmount, Que. The class action is "not authorized yet," Assor said in an interview, and as such, there hasn't been a formal notification to potential class members. However, "we feel strongly that [the application] will be authorized," he said. CIRO registration data -- including registrants' personal information such as addresses, phone numbers, and eye and hair colour -- was breached on Aug. 11. All mutual fund and investment dealers and individuals were affected, including Quebec-only mutual fund dealers and individuals, the regulator said. Member firms were notified of the breach on Aug. 18, CIRO said, and it began sending letters to registrants on Sept. 9 to inform them that their data were affected. Bank account numbers, if included as part of financial solvency disclosure, were among the breached data, as were investment and beneficiary information, if included as part of the ownership in securities and derivatives disclosure. The class action application alleges CIRO was negligent on several counts, including failing to: implement an effective "data security industry standard" to protect the personal and financial information; post fraud alerts on class members' credit files immediately after the data breach; encrypt and protect the personal and financial data; and promptly notify the plaintiff and class members of the breach. The plaintiff received notice about 42 days after the breach, during the week of Sept. 22, according to the application. The application also alleges that CIRO "committed a fault by retaining the very private, personal and financial information" of the plaintiff and class members for several years more than required -- well over a decade in the plaintiff's case. Like the plaintiff, "some people may no longer be practising -- or moved on to different careers -- and are still affected" by the breach, Assor said. CIRO says on its website that the collection of registrants' data is mandated by the CSA under Form 33-109F4. The regulator also says it will "conduct a renewed review of its data retention policies." Citing Quebec legislation, the class action application alleges that CIRO is liable to pay at least $1,000 in punitive damages to each class member for the loss of data, as well as potential compensatory damages (e.g., out-of-pocket expenses for identity-theft protection, such as insurance) and moral damages (e.g., stress). The application asks for a national class action to be granted, before the Superior Court in Montreal. If the class action is authorized, no action on the part of the determined class members will be required, Assor said. "Notices will go out and then [class members] will be given an opportunity to opt out," he said. As things stand, registrants can sign up for notices about the class action application on the Lex Group website. As previously reported by this publication, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) said it contacted the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) for more information about the CIRO cybersecurity breach after it occurred. Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) aren't required to report data breaches to the IPC, but provincial institutions, including Crown agencies such as the OSC, are required to report breaches that pose a risk of "significant harm." In this case, the compromised data was collected under powers delegated to the SRO by the OSC. The IPC has since told this publication -- in an emailed statement in November -- that it contacted the OSC on Sept. 18. "We were advised that no records in the custody and control of the OSC were impacted by the breach," the statement said. The data breach occurred about four months after most of the provincial securities regulators delegated broader authority for registration to CIRO, and a few weeks after the Autorite des marches financiers did so. In an email, Debra Chan, senior public affairs specialist with the OSC, said, "[W]e do not wish to comment on any discussions with the IPC." Chan referred to the CSA's response to this publication in September that the National Registration Database wasn't affected by the breach. Previous IIROC-related class action attempt CIRO predecessor the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada had a security breach in 2013 after an employee lost a laptop containing investors' personal information. That case can't be directly compared to the current case. Still, in the laptop case, the Superior Court of Quebec dismissed a proposed class action on behalf of affected investors, finding that there was no evidence that the compromised information was misused, and that the regulator "reacted diligently" and shouldn't face punitive damages. The court ruled that the harm inflicted on investors didn't justify compensation, and that it represented normal inconveniences "that any person living in society encounters and should be required to accept." [GN] CARPENTERS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON: Johnson Seeks Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terrance Johnson, Bret Yahraus, and Jacy Purkiss, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Carpenters of Western Washington Individual Account Pension Plan and the Carpenters Retirement Plan of Western Washington, v. Carpenters of Western Washington Board of Trustees, Callan LLC, Gerald Auvil, Noe Castillo, Ken Ervin, Jeff Foushee, Kurt Hildebrand, Steve Hoffmann, Martin Holberg, Dan Hutchins, Ryan Hyke, Andrew Ledbetter, Ron Montoya, Jim Osborne, Tim O’Neill, Doug Peterson, Rick Poitras, Danny Robins, Evelyn Shapiro, Bob Susee, Jeff Thorson, Doug Tweedy, and Wilf Wainhouse, Case No. 2:22-cv-01079-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. The following Classes shall be certified to pursue the claims set forth in the Complaint: Carpenters Individual Account Pension Plan of Western Washington Class (the "IAP Class") "All participants and beneficiaries of the Carpenters Individual Account Pension Plan of Western Washington at any time from Aug. 2, 2016 to May 7, 2020, excluding the Defendants." Carpenters Retirement Plan of Western Washington Class (the "Retirement Plan Class") "All participants and beneficiaries of the Carpenters Retirement Plan of Western Washington at any time from Aug. 2, 2016 to May 7, 2020, excluding the Defendants." Certification of the Classes is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) because prosecuting separate actions against Defendants would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. To the extent that the Court certifies the Classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and/or 23(b)(1)(B) (both of which are non-opt out classes), the Parties agree that notice to the Classes is unnecessary and request that the Court exercise its discretion not to order notice. The Plaintiffs may be appointed as representatives of the Classes. Engstrom Lee LLC and Skiermont Derby LLP may be appointed as counsel for the Classes. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MPCylm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612)305-8349 E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - Paul B. Derby, Esq. Hajir Ardebili, Esq. John J. O'Kane IV, Esq. SKIERMONT DERBY LLP 633 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 5800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 788-4500 E-mail: pderby@skiermontderby.com hardebili@skiermontderby.com jokane@skiermontderby.com - and - Marie E. Casciari, Esq. DEBOFSKY LAW, LTD. 3101 Western Ave., Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 333-2696 E-mail: mcasciari@debofsky.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. Amanda L. Morgan, Esq. Brian Benjet, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Telephone: (206) 839-4800 E-mail: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com amanda.morgan@dlapiper.com brian.benjet@dlapiper.com - and - Sarah N. Turner, Esq. Michael C. Tracy, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 695-5115 E-mail: sturner@grsm.com mtracy@grsm.com - and - William J. Delany, Esq. David N. Levine, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: wdelany@groom.com dlevine@groom.com sgates@groom.com CART.COM HOLDINGS: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Dante Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CART.COM HOLDINGS 2, LLC, d/b/a SHOP HOUZZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-00030 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to www.shophouzz.com, and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby--including those essential to Plaintiff's active condominium renovation project--constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant violates the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content while using the computer. Cart.com Holdings 2, LLC d/b/a Shop Houzz ("Defendant"), is the current operator of the consumer-facing retail platform located at www.shophouzz.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 CATWIG LLC: Egbert Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- JAMES EGBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATWIG LLC d/b/a VICTORY DISABILITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00114 (E.D. Pa., January 8, 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 in order to provide services to its clients, the Defendant is entrusted with client's PII and PHI. In turn, Defendant has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the PII and PHI with which it has been entrusted against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard PII and PHI, Plaintiff's 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 Defendant 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 Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and the Class brings 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 JAMES EGBERT is a citizen of the State of Colorado. Defendant CATWIG LLC is a law firm specializing in assisting U.S. veterans with Social Security and disability claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Faces Briand ADA Suit in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BRIAND, individually, on behalf of himself, the general public and on behalf of all other persons and or class similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, a California Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00076-SB-PD (C.D. Cal., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants brought under the Constitution of the United States, the Federal Civil Rights Act, and the American with Disability Act. The Plaintiff is a United States citizen with a mobility and vision impairment issues that falls under the American with Disabilities Act. He has a head injury that occured in the middle of August 2021, ended-up in the emergency room on or about September 8 to 9, and therefore has had since August a difficult time in trying to function and take care of himself properly and accordingly since the concussion. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has since been denied any further medical treatment by the Defendants without any reason whatsoever and has been was very mistreated and not helped Plaintiff. The Defendants conspired to defraud Plaintiff whom the State of California Doctors for the State Compensation Board have classified as having a disability up under the ADA since his on the-job injury 10 years ago. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is a non-profit, tertiary, 915-bed teaching hospital.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CELEBRITY CRUISES: Perry Suit Over False E-mails Goes to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LORI ANN PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC., a Liberian corporation, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-35101-7 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on January 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00005 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this case to protect Washington residents from Defendant's false and misleading emails about its purported discounts. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. markets and sells cruises, vacation packages, getaways, excursions, and other services online through the website www.celebritycruises.com. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Bryan Taylor, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com bryantaylor@dwt.com CENTRAL HEALTH: Fitch Sues or Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY FITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRA HEALTH, INC., CENTRA HEALTH, INC. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANNING COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00001-NKM (W.D. Va., January 2, 2026) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Centra Health Matching Tax Deferred Savings Plan's fiduciaries, Centra Health, Inc., and the Centra Health, Inc. Retirement Savings Planning Committee during the Class Period, for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff alleges that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. The complaint asserts that the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the law. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count II), and violation of ERISA's prohibited transactions (Count III). Centra Health Inc. is a regional nonprofit healthcare system based in Lynchburg, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Cook, Esq. COOK LEGAL SOLUTIONS 3975 University Drive, Suite 360 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 537-0023 E-mail: jcook@cooklegalsolutions.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Hits With Class Action Over Employee Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ POst & Schell PC reports that Earlier this month, Chipotle Mexican Grill was sued in a putative class action, which claimed that a late-2025 breach of sensitive employee data was a result of the restaurant chain's "wrongful, reckless, and grossly negligent" failure to employ adequate data security. Chipotle had disclosed its discovery of "signs of unauthorized logins" in an unspecified number of employees' Workday accounts. According to the disclosure, the bad actors evidently attempted to tamper with workers' Workday profiles, including trying to change deposit account information -- presumably to divert direct deposit funds into their own pockets. Other pages of the breached Workday profiles reportedly can contain sensitive personal information, including social security numbers, dates of birth, and account and routing numbers. The lawsuit, in which plaintiff Christian Jasso seeks to represent a class of "thousands" of similarly situated employees, alleges that Chipotle is at fault for the breach, to the tune of over five million dollars. A Stark Reminder for the Hospitality Industry The Chipotle case is the latest in a long string of data security class actions arising in the hospitality space, which highlight the industry's special concerns around cybersecurity. By its nature, the hospitality industry -- a hustle-and-bustle business that does not lend itself to orderly data practices -- is uniquely vulnerable. The business model often necessitates holding personal data of a large variety of individuals who reside all over the country, or even all over the world, raising the challenge of how to comply with the patchwork of often-inconsistent data privacy and security laws of many jurisdictions. Hospitality companies frequently offer guests free Wi-Fi, potentially opening an attack vector popular with cybercriminals. And a workforce frequently characterized by high turnover and seasonal hiring makes effective data hygiene and training a special challenge. Risks Associated with Employee Data Employee data, like that at issue in the Chipotle case, is an area of particular risk for hospitality companies. A restaurant or hotel may hold a huge amount of data about its guests, but its employees' data is often far more sensitive in nature. Where guest data may be limited to identifiable information and credit card numbers, employee data often includes social security numbers, dates of birth, demographic information, information about next of kin, insurance information, employment history, and bank account information, among other things. Special care is required with such sensitive data and proactive employee training on potential cyberattacks is essential, as illustrated by the Chipotle case, in which the cyberattackers evidently tried to steal employees' paychecks via direct deposit manipulation. We're Here to Help Post & Schell's Hospitality and Retail Practice Group works hand in hand with the Employment and Labor Practice Group and the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group to help companies proactively avoid and defend claims like those raised by the Chipotle case. Whether you are working to prospectively mitigate risk, your business has been the victim of a breach, or you have been sued over an alleged breach of privacy or security, we can help. For questions, please contact Abraham J. Rein, Chair, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity and Chair, White Collar Defense and Investigations at 215-587-1057 or arein@postschell.com, Charles W. Spitz, Principal, Casualty Litigation Department and Co-Chair, Hospitality and Retail at 215-587-6629 or cspitz@postschell.com, Theresa A. Mongiovi, Chair, Employment and Labor at (717) 391-4410 or tmongiovi@postschell.com, or the Post & Schell attorney with whom you normally consult. [GN] CIGNA GROUP: Butler Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI ----------------------------------------------------------- Annette Butler, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE CIGNA GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00009 (D. Conn., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"). The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their Private Information in connection with the services Defendant provides. On November 20, 2025, Defendant became aware of a cyber security incident occurring between October 21, 2024 and January 13, 2025 where an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's vendor's network and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information ("Data Breach"). The Defendant knowingly obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive Private Information and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their Private Information to Defendant if they had known that Defendant would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was exposed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Defendant's data security policies and practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to the Defendant. The Defendant is a global health service company dedicated to helping people improve their health, wellbeing and peace of mind.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com CITIBANK NA: Class Cert Hearing in Letidas Suit Due Feb. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETIDAS LOGISTICS, LLC, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 0:24-cv-61469-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an order that a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will take place on Thursday, Feb. 19, 2026. The parties must provide the Court with a list of electronic devices along with names of persons to be authorized to bring them into the courthouse no later than noon on Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026. Citibank is a financial services multinational corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hUfsWt at no extra charge.[CC] CONNECT HOLDING: Fails to Secure Private Information, Polner Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Polner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Connect Holding LLC d/b/a Brightspeed, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00014 (W.D.N.C., January 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, the "Private Information") from hackers ("The Data Breach"). The complaint states that Defendant's Brightspeed provides high speed internet service to areas previously served by CenturyLink. As a condition of receiving services, Defendant requires that its customers entrust it with highly sensitive personal information. In its privacy policy, Defendant promises its customers that it has implemented adequate data security. According to the complaint, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its computer systems on January 5, 2026. Unfortunately, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was stolen in the Data Breach by the hacking group, Crimson Collective. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, and the loss of the benefit of their bargain out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the ongoing effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Scott Polner is a citizen of North Carolina. Defendant Connect Holding LLC, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is an internet provider for rural and suburban communities across 20 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 525 North Tyron Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 533-4616 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bea, Esq. Tanner R. Hilto, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 767-3600 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com CONSULTING RADIOLOGISTS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $2.2MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that a settlement has been approved to resolve class action data breach litigation against Consulting Radiologists Ltd., a physician-owned radiology practice that provides medical imaging services at more than 100 healthcare facilities in Minnesota and the surrounding areas. The Consulting Radiologists data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights on June 14, 2024, as involving the protected health information of up to 583,824 individuals. A network intrusion was identified on February 12, 2024, and the investigation confirmed that the network was accessed by an unauthorized third party who may have obtained patient data such as names, addresses, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance information, along with the Social Security numbers of 19,346 individuals. The data breach was announced in April 2024, and notification letters were sent to the affected individuals. Shortly thereafter, a class action lawsuit was filed in response to the data breach, followed by a further 18 complaints. In August 2024, District Court Judge Thomas Conley issued an order to consolidate all complaints against Consulting Radiologists. The consolidated lawsuit -- In re Consulting Radiologists Data Incident Litigation -- was filed in the District Court of the 4th Judicial District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, on November 1, 2024. The lawsuit claimed the data breach was the result of negligence and could have been prevented had reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures been implemented and maintained. The lawsuit alleged that Consulting Radiologists had violated the HIPAA Rules, including the HIPAA Security Rule, by failing to properly secure patient data and the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule due to the delay in issuing notifications to the affected individuals. The lawsuit asserted claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and Minnesota Health Records Act. Consulting Radiologists sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, and that attempt was partially successful; however, the court failed to dismiss the claims of negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, injunctive/declaratory relief, and violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and Minnesota Health Records Act. Following mediation and ongoing negotiations, a settlement was agreed to bring the litigation to an end, with no admission of liability or wrongdoing. Consulting Radiologists has agreed to pay $2,200,000 in aggregate to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration and notification costs, service awards for the 19 class representatives, and benefits to the class members. Class members may claim up to three benefits under the settlement: A claim may be submitted for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. Two years of single-bureau credit monitoring services may be claimed, and class members may also claim a cash payment. The cash payments depend on the types of data compromised in the incident, and are expected to be $125 for individuals whose Social Security numbers were involved, and $50 for all other class members. The cash payments are subject to a pro rata reduction to remain under the cap of $2,200,000. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is January 30, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is March 2, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for February 25, 2026. Further information can be found on the settlement website: https://www.crdatasettlement.com/ COREWEAVE INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against CoreWeave, Inc. ("CoreWeave" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRWV). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants had overstated CoreWeave's ability to meet customer demand for its service; (ii) Defendants materially understated the scope and severity of the risk that CoreWeave's reliance on a single third-party data center supplier presented for CoreWeave's ability to meet customer demand for its services; and (iii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenue. If you purchased CoreWeave shares between March 28, 2025 and December 15, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/coreweave/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is March 13, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] CUSIP GLOBAL: DFG Allowed to Certain Documents ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dinosaur Financial Group LLC et al., v. CUSIP Global Services et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' request to seal certain documents relating to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file expert reply reports, as well as the Defendants' request to seal certain documents relating to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 252 and 262. Further, the Clerk of Court is directed to maintain docket entries 254, 255, 265, and 266 under seal, viewable to the Court and the parties only On Dec. 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a redacted version of their memorandum of law in support of their Motion for Leave, and accompanying sealed exhibits. Because the parties have not yet agreed on the appropriate redactions for Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave. The Defendants have provisionally applied redactions to mirror the redactions Plaintiffs applied to their Motion for Leave papers, covering the same content for which Plaintiffs request confidential treatment. Accordingly, the Defendants request that access to the sealed documents should be limited to the Court and counsel of record. CUSIP provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qw9lNQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com DEAN & HOYLE BRANDS: Walsh Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlin Walsh, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. DEAN & HOYLE BRANDS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-50006 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. s The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.gratsi.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com DESIGNS FOR HEALTH: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Geovanni Bahena Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. DESIGNS FOR HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00062 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.designsforhealth.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates its Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com DILLARD'S INC: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Dillard's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00095 (D. Minn., January 8, 2026) arose because Defendant's Website, www.dillards.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures, the details of which are more fully described below, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the future. Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Dillard's, Inc. owns, operates, and/or controls its Website that offers clothing, home goods, and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, jackets, activewear, suits, dresses, handbags, belts, jewelry, housewares, beauty supplies, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DISCOVERY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Discovery, Inc. d/b/a HGTV, Case No. 0:26-cv-00029 (D. Minn., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.deltafaucet.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of the Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access the Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that the Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers kitchen and bathroom faucets and supplies for sale including, but not limited to, faucets, shower components, water filtration supplies, sinks, parts, services, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DSMB PARTNERS: Pittman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dsmb Partners, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00016 (N.D. Ill., January 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://activatedyou.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Pittman and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Pittman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Dsmb Partners, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of dietary supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Telephone: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law DUFRESNE SPENCER: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Dufresne Spencer Group has agreed to a settle a class action lawsuit alleging that the group, which operates several Ashley HomeStore locations nationwide, failed to protect consumers' personal information from a mid-2023 data breach. The Dufresne Spencer class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 10, 2025, and covers all United States residents to whom Dufresne Spencer Group sent written notification that their personal information was potentially compromised because of the Ashley HomeStore data breach that occurred between approximately May 15, 2023 and June 5, 2023. The court-approved website for the Dufresne Spender data breach settlement can be found at DSGSettlement.com. Per the settlement website, Dufresne Spencer settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit their claim form with documented proof of out-of-pocket losses are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $500, the site relays. The settlement agreement explains that covered losses must have been incurred because of the 2023 data breach, and that reimbursable expenses include costs for credit monitoring, bank fees, and identity theft protection. The settlement website states that class members may also elect to receive compensation for up to 4 hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach at a rate of $20 per hour, subject to the $500 cap outlined in the documented-loss reimbursement option. Further, class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of extraordinary out-of-pocket losses related to the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $2,500. Per the settlement site, extraordinary losses must be actual, documented losses likely related to the data breach and not reimbursable by any of the other benefit categories. In lieu of a documented loss reimbursement, class members can instead file a claim to receive an alternative one-time cash payment of $45. The alternative payment is mutually exclusive to the other cash benefits and can only be combined with a request for credit monitoring, the agreement reports. In addition to any cash payout option, all Dufresne Spencer settlement class members msy file a claim to enroll in two free years of CyEx Financial Shield Total, which includes services such as three-bureau credit monitoring, financial account monitoring, dark web monitoring, and identity theft insurance. Finally, as part of the settlement, Dufresne Spencer has agreed to implement enhanced cybersecurity policies to mitigate the likelihood of any future data breaches. To submit a Dufresne Spencer claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement site to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Dufresne Spencer settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 19, 2026. A hearing to determine whether the court will grant final approval to the Dufresne Spencer settlement is scheduled for March 4, 2026. Compensation will be distributed to class members only after final approval is given and any appeals are resolved. The Dufresne Spencer class action lawsuit claimed that the group, which operates multiple Ashley HomeStore locations, failed to implement adequate security measures to protect from a data breach occurring between May 2023 and June 2023 that allegedly exposed consumers' personal information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, bank account and routing numbers, medical diagnoses and treatments, and health insurance information. [GN] DZONE MANAGEMENT: Cordero Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Evelyn Griselda Siquej Cordero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dzone Management, LLC, a California limited liability company, Moji Foods, Inc., a Deleware Corporation, and DOES 2 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV124005 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00061. The Plaintiff contends that she and others similarly situated to her worked beyond their scheduled work periods without pay, and were denied meal and rest breaks and not paid premiums for this. Relying on these allegations, she brought 7 causes of action against Defendants for unpaid wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, PAGA violations, and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard Liu, Esq. Edward Wells, Esq. Jared Xu, Esq. Tianhou Huang, Esq. Siyun Yang, Esq. INNOVATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, P.C. 355 S. Grand Ave., Ste 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (626) 344-8949 Email: richard.liu@consultils.com ted.wells@consultils.com jared.xu@consultils.com harry.huang@consultils.com siyun.yang@consultils.com ELECOM USA: Settlement in Douglass Gets Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ELECOM USA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01788-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Horan entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class for settlement purposes and for preliminary approval of class action settlement. It appears to this Court on a preliminary basis that the Agreement satisfies the elements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The proposed Settlement Class is preliminarily certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as: "A national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, [https://elecomusa.com/ and https://nestout.com] from the United States." The Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as representative of the Settlement Class. The Court appoints and designates attorneys Tucker, Abramowicz, Steiger, Moore, Conahan, and Liu as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. A final approval hearing shall be held before this Court on May 13, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. ET. Elecom is a Japanese electronics company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b4Qhxp at no extra charge.[CC] ELLAFI FEDERAL: Fails to Protect Private Information, Fraulino Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH FRAULINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELLAFI FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00030 (D. Conn., January 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, Social Security numbers, and credit and/or debit card numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that as a condition of obtaining Defendant's services, Plaintiff and Class Members directly or indirectly entrusted Ellafi with their sensitive Private Information. By obtaining, collecting, and storing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Ellafi assumed equitable and legal duties to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive information, to only use this information for business purposes, and to only make authorized disclosures. Despite these duties, Ellafi failed to implement reasonable data security measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and ultimately allowed threat actors to breach its computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information stored therein. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Joseph Fraulino was a resident and citizen of the State of Connecticut and a customer of Defendant. Defendant Ellafi Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered, member-owned financial cooperative that provides banking and credit services to its members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Murray, Esq. BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main Street Suite 620 Stamford CT 06902 Telephone: 203-246-2368 E-mail: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com EQT CORPORATION: Ross Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION; EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY; RICE DRILLING B, LLC; VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC; and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for leave to increase page limit of reply brief in support of amended motion for class certification. On Nov. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to Increase Page Limit for their Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended Motion for Class Certification, which this Court granted the following day. On Dec. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a reciprocal request to increase the page limit of its brief in opposition to 30 pages, which the Court granted the same day. The Defendants do not oppose this request. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court grant this motion and increase the page limit governing the Plaintiffs' class certification reply brief to 20 pages. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9RSHB1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Pietragallo, II, Esq. P. Brennan Hart, Esq. Matthew R. Barnes, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP One Oxford Centre, Floor 38 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-263-1818 E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com pbh@pietragallo.com mrb@pietragallo.com - and - Scott M. Hare, Esq. Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq. RAINES FELDMAN LITTRELL LLP 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 E-mail: share@raineslaw.com agestrich@raineslaw.com - and - Matthew T. Logue, Esq. QUINN LOGUE LLC 200 First Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-765-3800 E-mail: matt@mattlogue.com - and - Alex J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4470 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: ajd@kellerpostman.com EVERGY METRO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bauer Due Dec. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN BAUER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EVERGY METRO, INC., f/k/a KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 4:25-cv-00157-FJG (W.D. Mo.,), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered a second amended scheduling order. If the Court certifies a class, then Phase Two of discovery would focus on issues relating to the class, such as the merit of Plaintiff's claims, the Defendants' affirmative defenses and damages. The Court adopts the following discovery schedule: Close of Discovery: Nov. 20, 2026 Motion to join additional parties: Feb. 16, 2026 Motion to amend pleadings: Feb. 16, 2026 Joint Status Report to the Court: Oct. 30, 2026 Plaintiff's Expert report(s): June 15, 2026 Defendants' Expert report(s): Aug. 14, 2026 Rebuttal report(s): Sept. 15, 2026 Challenges/Daubert motions: Oct. 15, 2026 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: Dec. 30, 2026 Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Class Certification: Jan. 29, 2027 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 15, 2027 Evergy operates as an electricity utility company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qn8k8T at no extra charge.[CC] EXACT CARE: Faces Weingrad Suit Over Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------- JD Supra reports that The Wolf is always stalking just outside the door for lead generators. Anthony Paronich has made a (very lucrative) career out of suing lead buyers in TCPA class actions. And occasionally, he will sue the lead generator directly -- and even personally. While he never sues any of my clients personally, he has explained in podcast interviews with me that he will do it when he thinks it will drive a superior outcome for his client. Take the case of Weingrad v. Exact Care Pharmacy, 2025 WL 3563173 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2025). There the Wolf amended the complaint after some initial discovery to add Conversion Finder and a guy named Jordan Soblick personally. Again-- they weren’t originally sued. He actually took the time to add them! Per the complaint: "Exact Care hired Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick 'to orchestrate an en masse telemarketing campaign that incentivized them to work up interested customer prescription deals that met Exact Care’s criteria . . . .' Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to this contractual agreement, Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick placed telemarketing calls using the alias "Healthcare Benefits" on behalf of Exact Care to generate leads that were then transferred to Exact Care. . . . . Plaintiff further argued that Conversion Finder is a fictitious name used by Jordan Soblick to conduct illegal telemarketing. Pretty straightforward allegations here. But Jordan moved to dismiss arguing the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to connect him to the calls. Umm . . . yeah, that’s not going to fly. The complaint literally alleged he made the calls! As the court put it: Plaintiff alleges that Exact Care hired Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick to perform telemarketing services on its behalf. The nature of the alleged contractual relationship between Exact Care, Conversion Finder, and Jordan Soblick gives rise to a plausible inference that Conversion Finder and Jordan Soblick may be connected to the allegedly illegal calls. Thus, Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied. While the motion was a bit of a waste of time -- it was never going to win -- I don’t fault Defendants for trying. You have to some roadblocks up against the Wolf or he will tear you down fast. As it is, however, Soblick looks to be in a world of hurt-- but that’s how it is when you’re involved in lead generation. Hopefully he can prove consent and get out of this thing. But the Wolf is going to get his pound of flesh either way. Chat soon! [GN] EXACT CARE: Filing for Class Certification in Everett Due Feb. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA EVERETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-KMN (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Keli Neary entered an order granting the Plaintiff's third unopposed motion to modify case management order. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on or before Feb. 6, 2026. All other deadlines set by the court's prior order shall be unchanged. ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy care provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=niWuCo at no extra charge.[CC] EXACT CARE: Weingrad Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC, CONVERSION FINDER, AND JORDAN SOBLICK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01843-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of time to file the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the deadline for filing the motion for class certification be extended from Jan. 19, 2026, to Feb. 18, 2026, with the Defendants' response due March 12, 2026, and the Plaintiff's reply due March 19, 2026. The Plaintiff submits that this requested extension is limited, proportionate, and sought solely to ensure that the Plaintiff's class certification motion is supported by a complete and meaningful record rather than being filed prematurely while the Defendants' discovery production is only beginning and without any stated completion date. On Nov. 4, 2025, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's prior unopposed motion for extension of time to file a motion for class certification. ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZfjEAf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com FABLETICS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Emails in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Karl Mundt filed a class action lawsuit against Fabletics Inc. Why: Mundt claims Fabletics sent unsolicited emails containing false or misleading subject lines. Where: The Fabletics class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Fabletics of sending unsolicited emails containing false or misleading subject lines. Plaintiff Karl Mundt claims Fabletics sent emails that either misrepresented the length of time a sale would last or mischaracterized the nature of the email or disguised its true commercial purpose. Mundt argues Fabletics' emails are in violation of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), which he claims prohibits the sending of commercial emails that contain false or misleading information in subject lines. The plaintiff brings the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other persons residing in Washington who received Fabletics's false and misleading emails. Mundt wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who received an email from Fabletics that contained a subject line that either states or implies that a particular promotion will be available for a specified period of time when the actual period for the sale is longer, mischaracterizes the nature of the email or disguises its true commercial purpose, or states without qualification that a particular promotion is available for products "sitewide" when that is not the case. Class action: Fabletics emails contain false or misleading subject lines Mundt argues Fabletics sent emails to Washington residents that contained subject lines that misrepresented the length of time a sale would last and that the company sent multiple promotional emails advertising "limited-time" offers. The plaintiff also claims Fabletics sent emails with subject lines that misled consumers into thinking a sale or discount applied "sitewide" when it actually did not. Fabletics is accused of violating Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Washington's Consumer Protection Act. Mundt demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages for himself and all class members. Meanwhile, activewear brand HeyShape also faced a class action lawsuit alleging it fabricated discount sales to mislead consumers into believing they were receiving a bargain on its shapewear products. The plaintiff is represented by Kevin J. Cole and W. Blair Castle of KJC Law Group APC. The Fabletics unsolicited emails class action lawsuit is Mundt v. Fabletics Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-11572, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] FANATICS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over 24-Hour Waiting Period ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Fanatics Sportbook, an online sports betting and gambling platform, unlawfully allows consumers to increase their deposit and/or gambling limits without the requisite 24-hour waiting period mandated by law in several states. The 25-page class action lawsuit claims that Fanatics demonstrates a "systemic failure" to follow gaming protection procedures implemented by laws in Michigan, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana and New York by "deliberately" failing to implement the requisite 24-hour waiting period before a player's self-imposed deposit or spending increases can take effect. The lawsuit explains that the 24-hour notice law was designed to "provide a safety net to gamblers and provide that all-important delay" in betting, a crucial tool in the fight against compulsive gambling. Without the 24-hour delay, gamblers might lose more than they can afford to lose, the suit stresses. According to the case, Michigan's Lawful Internet Gaming Act, and substantially identical laws in other states, outlines that, "[o]nce established by an authorized participant and implemented by the internet gaming platform, it must only be possible to reduce the severity of self-imposed limitations upon 24 hours' notice." "This is a straightforward case about Defendant violating state laws (and subsequent federal law) by accepting deposits and allowing wagers on its platform when the law very clearly prohibits such activity," the complaint summarizes. The filing notes that Fanatic's primary competitors, i.e., FanDuel, BetMGM, and tribal casinos, all follow the "plain language" of the online gaming statute and do not allow same-day increases on deposit and spending limits. The suit further conveys that the statute was codified because legislators were aware that online gambling posed "significant risk" to consumers and wanted to create "robust" protections that would allow bettors to make proactive decisions about their gambling. "Financial losses due to gambling can lead to stress, anxiety, health disorders, family conflict, and even so far as the loss of a job or home," the lawsuit posits. By refusing to comply with state law, the case argues, Fanatics has rendered the gambling-protection statute "functionally meaningless." The plaintiff joined Fanatics Sportsbook in 2021 and established deposit limits immediately, the filing says. However, the plaintiff says he was able to continually increase his deposit limits between January 2022 and January 2023, and ultimately spent over $25,000, the complaint relays. Subsequently, the plaintiff "[fell] into a destructive gambling spiral which caused him significant harm," the lawsuit states. The Fanatics SportsBook class action lawsuit seeks to cover anyone who created an account with PointsBet (now Fanatics Sportsbook), whether via its website, mobile app, or third-party platform, who signed up for PointsBet (now Fanatics Sportsbook) accounts and were able to increase their self-imposed deposit and gambling limits without the required 24-hour waiting period before the limit increase took effect. [GN] FERMI INC: Faces Lupia Suit Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------- SALVATORE LUPIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERMI INC.; TOBY NEUGEBAUER; MILES EVERSON; GRIFFIN PERRY; JACOBO ORTIZ; MARIUS HAAS; RICK PERRY; CORDEL ROBBIN-COKER; LEE MCINTIRE; UBS SECURITIES LLC; EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.; CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO.; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC; MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.; ROTHSCHILD & CO US INC.; STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; TRUIST SECURITIES, INC.; BERENBERG CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; and PANMURE LIBERUM LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00050 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated its tenant demand for its Project Matador campus; (2) the extent to which Project Matador would rely on a single tenant's funding commitment to finance the construction of Project Matador; (3) there was a significant risk that that tenant would terminate its funding commitment; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The Defendants' stock price fell $5.16 per share, or 33.8%, to close at $10.09 on December 12, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Fermi LLC operates as an energy development company. The Company focuses on building electric grids that deliver redundant power at gigawatt scale to create next-generation artificial intelligence. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Luro Files Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fyzical Acquisition Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Kathy Luro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fyzical Acquisition Holdings, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00018 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. FYZICAL is a leading franchisor and operator of physical rehabilitation centers specializing in balance therapy and wellness programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in Hurd Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISTAN HURD and KEN DIMICCO, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD., G.SKILL USA, INC., NEUTECK, INC., and RACERSPEED, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class, as defined in section 1.30 of the agreement, for the purposes of settlement only. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Tristan Hurd and Ken Dimicco as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Dovel & Luner, LLP and Kneupper Covey, PC as Class Counsel. 4. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing on June 5, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. G.Skill is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pFJ5nI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com grace@dovel.com - and - Kevin Kneupper, Esq. A. Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998 Telephone: (512) 420-8407 E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com GARUDA LABS: Koester Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA --------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KOESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARUDA LABS, INC. d/b/a INSTAWORK, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00048-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Anthony J Battaglia, and referred to Steve B Chu. Garuda Labs, Inc., doing business as Instaworks, operates as a consultancy agency for companies. The Company provides a platform that makes it easy to find the permanent and temporary workers. Instaworks serves food and beverage, events, warehousing, cleaning, retail, and other sectors in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Ybarra, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S Flower St, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com GLAMNETIC LLC: Stevens-Hills Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Mikaela Marie Stevens-Hills and Stephine Stewart, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GLAMNETIC, LLC, Case No. 25-2-05773-34 was removed from the Superior Court for Thurston County, Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05003. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert a claim against Glamnetic under Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190.020, and Washington's Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com - and - Philip N. Yannella, Esq. Thomas P. Cialino, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-569-5500 Email: philip.yannella@blankrome.com thomas.cialino@blankrome.com HAPPY HOUR: Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Experts Due Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 Parties ask the Court to enter the following case deadlines: -- 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 Parties' motion dated Jan. 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SXbtad 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 HEALTH GORILLA: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Information, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Epic and a group of healthcare providers are taking legal action to defend patient privacy and protect sensitive medical information. The lawsuit states that Health Gorilla, a health information network, enabled Mammoth, RavillaMed, and other companies to improperly access and monetize nearly 300,000 patient medical records from members of the Epic community. This is in addition to an unknown number of records taken from organizations nationwide, including from the VA and providers using other EHRs. OCHIN, Reid Health, Trinity Health, UMass Memorial Health, and Epic have filed suit to stop conduct that threatens patient privacy and the integrity of care. The filing cites misconduct including that the defendants: -- "Operate as organized syndicates to monetize patient records without patients' knowledge or consent." -- "Request patient records for the purpose of treating patients but take patient records for other purposes including to market them to lawyers looking for potential claimants . . . to join mass tort or class action lawsuits." -- "Obscure their true purpose through fictitious websites, shell entities, and sham National Provider Identification (NPI) numbers . . . to create an illusion of legitimate patient treatment activity." -- Cover their tracks by inserting junk data into patient medical records "to give the false impression that they are treating patients, which risks patient safety and wastes valuable clinician time." The lawsuit continues, "when caught, rather than stopping their activity, the bad entity owners, operators and those in their inner circles simply create new companies. The scheme thus operates like a Hydra: when one fraudulent entity is exposed, the bad actors birth a new one" and "if not stopped, they will continue to inappropriately market the patient data they have already taken and will take more." "At stake are both the protection of medical records that contain some of a person's most sensitive data, such as genetic, mental wellbeing, and reproductive information, and the ability of physicians to keep their promises to patients that their information will be kept private." "These actors are putting the enormous positive patient outcomes achieved through interoperability at imminent risk," the legal filing explains. "When used appropriately, interoperability ensures that medical care is informed by a patient's medical history, allowing healthcare providers to improve patient outcomes." [GN] HEARD DESIGN: Youngren Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Heard Design, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00029 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://howlerbros.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 30, 2025, the Plaintiff searched online for a snapshirt and discovered Howlerbros.com. When attempting to navigate the website and complete the purchase, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with the process. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Youngren and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Heard Design, LLC operates the website that offers Western style and outdoor culture-inspired clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law HOLISTIC VET: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Figueroa Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLISTIC VET BLEND, LLC, Defendant, Case: 1:26-cv-00057 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.holisticvetblend.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Holistic Vet Blend, LLC sells human grade pet food for both dogs and cats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com INN BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Inn Beauty Lab Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00027 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://innbeautyproject.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Walker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Walker and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Walker seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Inn Beauty Lab Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of beauty and skincare products, including moisturizers, eye creams, serums, cleansers, and refills.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law KALSHI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Sports Gambling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Kalshi operates an unlicensed online sports betting platform, including in states where sports gambling is illegal. The 42-page lawsuit alleges that Kalshi's platform invites players to engage in what the company calls a "prediction market," where participants buy and sell "event contracts." The suit argues that Kalshi's event contracts are essentially bets, as they involve the exchange of items of value based upon an outcome over which the betting parties have no control. Per the complaint, Kalshi incorporated sports "contracts" into its platform in January 2025, and by September of that year, not only had it expanded its contracts to mirror more traditional sports betting styles, but 90 percent of the company's total volume was from sports betting. The filing alleges that Kalshi's sports categories are functionally indistinguishable from traditional sports betting, which is illegal in several of the states in which the company operates. Despite this, the suit says, Kalshi advertises that its services are completely legal in all 50 U.S. states, and runs ads specifically promoting its platform as a legal form of sports betting. Examples in the complaint include one ad that announces, ". . . [Y]ou can legally bet on NFL in all 50 states using Kalshi," and another ad, formatted to look like a news article, claiming, "Breaking news: Sports betting in California is now legal[.] New York-headquartered prediction market Kalshi has legalized sports betting in all 50 states." Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Kalshi participates in the betting itself via subsidiaries Kalshi Trading and KalshiEX, or through partnered hedge funds such as Susquehanna International Group. These subsidiaries and hedge funds, per the suit, "bet against consumers when their bets stray from Kalshi's internal projected odds," effectively forcing players to bet against the house, which the lawsuit claims has control of the betting market, insider knowledge and superior research and predictive technologies. The complaint argues that this allows Kalshi, like any other traditional sportsbook with house betting, to tip the odds consistently in its favor, reducing its own financial risk and draining even more money from consumers, who believe that they are fairly betting against other consumers. The filing alleges that Kalshi only ever advertises itself as a "peer-to-peer market," and thus distinct from a sportsbook, with its co-founder claiming that "Kalshi doesn't win when our customers lose, which creates a fair, transparent environment for people to trade." Per the lawsuit, Kalshi's official Reddit account also stated, "[W]e're a free market, not a book. We don't set the odds, we open a market and let people trade on it, and where the market settles is what the odds are. This is important because it means we're not profiting off of people from vig [fees charged on accepted wagers]. . . Sportsbooks are a business, but we're a business and a public good." However, the suit argues that Kalshi's entire business model is predicated on "win[ning] when its customers lose," and that it is actively lying to consumers about the nature of its "market" and the fairness of any bets, in addition to its alleged illegality in certain states. The alleged illegality also means, per the complaint, that Kalshi's platform is entirely unregulated. The lawsuit alleges that, due to the apparent lack of guiding regulations, Kalshi has been able to intentionally engage in predatory advertising techniques, campaigns and partnerships, including failing to disclose during signup that the platform involves gambling or that users will be betting against the house, partner programs with college clubs, and sponsoring a 15-year-old gaming influencer. The suit argues that Kalshi's intense focus on marketing to a young demographic, especially given that it allegedly lacks any real regulation or safeguards, is particularly concerning given the addictive potential of gambling and the often destructive effects of gambling addiction. The Kalshi class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who spent money by wagering on Kalshi's mobile or web platforms. [GN] KEURIG K-CUP: Court Approves $1.85MM Class Settlement in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Belmonte, writing for Narcity, reports that a $1.85 million settlement for the Keurig K-Cup class action lawsuit in Canada has been approved. You can submit a claim to get money, so here's what you need to know. It was announced on January 12, 2026, that the class action settlement has been approved and the claims process is now open. The lawsuit alleged Keurig sold K-Cup pods and brewers in Canada with misleading representations about the recyclability and/or disposability of the pods. All persons in Canada who purchased Keurig K-Cup single-serve coffee pods and/or Keurig coffee machines or brewing systems from June 8, 2016, to December 8, 2025, in packaging containing any representation of recyclability and/or disposability are class members. With this settlement agreement, Keurig will make a $1.85 million payment that will be used to pay compensation for approved claims, court-approved legal fees and other expenses. You have to submit a claim by no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on July 8, 2026. If you don't have proof of purchase for a pod or proof of purchase for more than 14 pods, you could be eligible for up to $7 per household or business. If you have proof of purchase for more than 14 pods, you could be eligible for up to $0.05 per pod, up to a maximum of $50 per household. If you have proof of purchase for Keurig brewers, you could be eligible to get up to $25. Proof of purchase includes receipts, email order confirmations, and shipping confirmations. With this claim form, you have to enter personal information, including your name, address, email, and phone number. Then, you have to select if you have proof of purchase or don't have proof of purchase for K-Cup pods and/or Keurig brewing machines. You also have to enter the product names, the number of pods and/or brewers you bought, and the purchase dates. The claim form has a list of eligible brewing machines and a non-exhaustive list of eligible K-Cup pods, so you can find out if your machine or pods are part of the class action. Approved payments will be made by e-transfer to the email provided in the claim form. If you requested a cheque instead of an e-transfer during the claims process, there will be a deduction of $3.75 per cheque. The payments from this Keurig class action lawsuit settlement will only be made after the deadline to submit a claim. [GN] KMF IP: Murphy Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. KMF IP HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00096 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://kissmyface.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on November 24, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Bar Soap from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff JAMES MURPHY is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant, KMF IP HOLDINGS LLC, operates the Kiss My Face online retail store, as well as the Kiss My Face interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LIVE NATION: Court Approves "Donley" Class Action Distribution Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brian Donley, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Michael Rapino, and Joe Berchtold, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06343-KK-AS (C.D. Cal.), Judge Kenly Kiya Kato of the United States District Court for the Central District of California approved the distribution plan for the settlement fund in this securities class action. The Court incorporated by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 21, 2025. The Court found it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all Parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members. The administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator in accepting and rejecting Claims were approved. The Court specified that no new Claims or responses to deficiency and rejection letters received after December 15, 2025, may be included in the distribution, except as provided in the order. According to the Settlement, payment to the Claims Administrator from the Settlement Fund of $270,343.63 has been authorized been made, consisting of $243,783.63 for fees and expenses already accrued, and $26,560 in anticipation of the work to be performed during the Initial Distribution. The Distribution Plan for the Net Settlement Fund was approved, and the balance of the Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed to Authorized Claimants. To encourage Authorized Claimants to promptly deposit their payments, all distribution checks will bear a notation: DEPOSIT PROMPTLY; VOID AND SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 120 DAYS OF DISTRIBUTION. Authorized Claimants who fail to negotiate a distribution check within the time allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement. After the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, the Claims Administrator shall make reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants cash their distribution checks. To the extent any monies remain in the fund nine months after the Initial Distribution, if Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determines that it is cost-effective to do so, the Claims Administrator shall conduct a redistribution of the funds remaining to Authorized Claimants who have cashed their Initial Distributions and who would receive at least $10.00 from such redistribution. Lead Counsel may approve further distributions, provided each Authorized Claimant has cashed their earlier check and would receive at least $10.00, if another round of payments remains cost-effective. Thereafter, if sufficient funds remain to warrant the processing of Claims received after December 15, 2025, those claims will be processed and will be paid in accordance with the Walter Declaration. At such time as Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, determine that no additional distributions are cost-effective, then the funds will be donated to the Public Justice Foundation, a non-sectarian, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to, among other things, investor education and advocacy. All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the claims submitted, or otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, are released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such involvement. All Settlement Class Members and other Claimants, whether or not they are to receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund, are barred from making any further claim against the Net Settlement Fund or any other person released under the Settlement beyond the amounts allocated to them pursuant to the terms of this Class Distribution Order. The Claims Administrator is authorized to destroy paper or hard copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year after the Second Distribution, if that occurs, or, if there is no Second Distribution, two years after the Initial Distribution, and electronic copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year after all funds have been distributed. A copy of the Settlement Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JvjAVI from PacerMonitor.com MARQUARDT OUTDOORS: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUARDT OUTDOORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00036 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.davistent.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Marquardt Outdoors LLC is a Denver-based company specializing in outdoor recreational activities and equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Faces Krall Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE KRALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00001 (E.D. Tex., January 2, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm due to Defendants' failure to protect their Private Information. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their Private Information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a customer of First National who entrusted her private information with the Defendants. She brings this action against Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a marketing and compliance software and services provider that specializes in providing services to banks and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: 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 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com MCKESSON CORP: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Kramer Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BETH KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00040 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.mckesson.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. McKesson Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals, medical-surgical supplies, and health and beauty care products throughout North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com MICROF LLC: Failed to Safeguard Private Information, Nix Says ------------------------------------------------------------- GYPSY NIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROF, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00105-MHC (N.D. Ga., January 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, Social Security numbers and financial information such as account numbers and credit or debit card numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are and/or were customers of Defendant. As a condition of obtaining Defendant's services, Plaintiff and Class Members directly or indirectly entrusted Microf with their sensitive Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, and Microf has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Microf's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's computer network and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on June 19, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until December 23, 2025. Indeed, Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach for months until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Gypsy Nix was a resident and citizen of the State of Tennessee who received a data breach notice informing her that her Private Information indirectly and/or directly provided to Microf was compromised during the Data Breach. Defendant Microf, LLC is a company that provides lease-to-own and rent-to-own financing and payment solutions for residential HVAC, plumbing, and related home systems through contractors and direct customer agreements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: $1.88MM Settlement Claim Forms Due March 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Midwest Physician Administrative Services, which does business as Duly Health and Care, has inked a $1.88 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the company installed a Meta tracking pixel on its website without users' knowledge or consent. The Duly Health and Care class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 17, 2025 and covers approximately 272,373 people who logged into the authenticated portion of DulyHealthandCare.com between July 24, 2020 and April 10, 2023. The court-approved website for the Duly Health and Care settlement can be found at DulyDataSettlement.com. Duly settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata, or equal share, portion of the $1.88 million settlement fund after the payment of lead plaintiff awards, legal fees and administrative costs, the website shares. To submit a Duly Health and Care claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique class member ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed at the bottom of the settlement website's home page. All class action settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 2, 2026. A hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2026 to determine whether the Duly Health and Care class action settlement will receive final court approval. Settlement payments will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Duly Health and Care class action lawsuit claimed that the healthcare provider installed a digital tracking tool operated by Meta (formerly Facebook) on its website that transmitted patients' confidential personal and medical information to the tech giant. [GN] MONRO INC: Speranza Sues to Recover Store Managers' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY DALEY SPERANZA and RAYMOND THOMAS HENRY JR, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONRO, INC. D/B/A TIRE CHOICE AUTO SERVICE CENTERS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00014 (W.D.N.Y., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. In fact, the Defendant's policy requires them to work a minimum of 52 hours per week but the Defendant did not pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and the Class members. The Plaintiffs and the other putative Class members were paid under the same compensation structure giving rise to the overtime violations, says the suit. Plaintiff Speranza was employed as a store manager in Defendant's Estero, Florida store location from August 2023 until November 2024. Monro, Inc. is one of the U.S. largest auto service companies. It owns and operates more than 1,200 stores in 32 states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Alba, Esq. ALBA LAW, PLLC, 2655 Millersport Highway P.O. Box 533 Getzville, NY 14068 Telephone: (716) 800-5840 E-mail: albalawpllc@gmail.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., #104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 E-mail: jason@gunterfirm.com conor@gunterfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Fowler Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- J RICHARD FOWLER, on behalf of the estate of HOLLY HASSETT, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-01-011 MON (Del. Super., January 3, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff Fowler is the Representative of Holly Hassett, deceased. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Holly Hassett developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyder Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Snyder, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-529 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: Soderquist Sues Over Negligent Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------ Walter Soderquist, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-496 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: Stevens Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Stevens, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-508 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: Thomas Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Thomas, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-481 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: Thompson Sues Over Wrongful Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Thompson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-479 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: Tinkler Sues Over Negligent Distribution ---------------------------------------------------------- John Tinkler, Jr., and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-527 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: Wagner Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- James Wagner, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-511 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 MYSTIC VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $520,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that The Malden, Massachusetts-based Mystic Valley Elder Services has agreed to pay $520,000 to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit stemming from an April 5, 2024, data breach. Unauthorized individuals gained access to the network of Mystic Valley Elder Services and potentially obtained the names, dates of birth, passport numbers, financial account numbers, payment card numbers, online credentials, taxpayer identification numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, health insurance information, and medical information of more than 89,600 individuals. Five class action complaints were filed in response to the data breach, which were consolidated in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts. The consolidated class action lawsuit -- In re Mystic Valley Elder Services Inc. -- alleged that the data breach occurred as a result of cybersecurity failures, Mystic Valley Elder Services failed to detect the unauthorized activity in a timely manner, and did not send timely notifications to the affected individuals, who did not learn about the data breach until 6 months later. The lawsuit asserted claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit sought injunctive relief, including an order from the court prohibiting the transmission of sensitive data via unencrypted email, storing protected health information in email accounts, and requiring a host of security measures to be implemented to ensure the privacy and security of patient data. Mystic Valley Elder Services denies all liability and wrongdoing. While the lawsuit sought a jury trial; however, following mediation, all parties agreed to a settlement to avoid the cost, time, and uncertainty of a trial and related appeals. The settlement fund will be used to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration and notice costs, and service awards for the class representatives. The remainder of the settlement will be used to pay benefits to the class members. Class members may claim a pro rata cash payment, estimated to be approximately $75 per class member. A claim may also be submitted for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach, up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. The settlement also includes two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. The final fairness hearing has been scheduled for February 17, 2026. Claims must be submitted by February 9, 2026. [GN] NANO NUCLEAR: Faces Valuation Risk After Class Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Simply Wall St reports that the recent dismissal of all claims in a federal securities class action against NANO Nuclear Energy (NNE) has put the company's legal risk in sharper focus for investors tracking the nuclear microreactor space. At a share price of $32.01, NANO Nuclear Energy's 1 day share price return of 3.15% decline and 90 day share price return of 41.14% decline sit alongside a 1 year total shareholder return of 56.99%. This suggests near term momentum has cooled while longer term interest remains strong, helped by the lawsuit dismissal, AI data center interest in nuclear power and recent conference visibility. If this legal reset and sector interest has you looking beyond a single name, it could be a useful time to scan other nuclear related and defense exposed names through aerospace and defense stocks. With the lawsuit overhang cleared, a 41.14% 90 day share price decline, and a price target of US$46.67 versus a US$32.01 share price, is NANO Nuclear undervalued at this level, or is the market already pricing in years of future growth? Price-to-Book of 7.3x: Is it justified? NANO Nuclear Energy is trading on a P/B of 7.3x, and at a last close of US$32.01 that puts it in a very different bracket to much of the US Electrical industry. P/B compares a company's market value to its book value, so at 7.3x you are paying a sizeable premium over the net assets on its balance sheet. For a pre revenue, loss making business like NNE, that usually reflects what the market thinks about future projects rather than current earnings power. Compared with direct peers, NNE's 7.3x P/B is in line with the peer average P/B of 7.3x, which suggests investors are valuing its equity similarly to close comparables. In contrast, the broader US Electrical industry has an average P/B of 2.6x, so the premium is strong and indicates the market may be assigning a materially higher valuation to NNE's equity than to the sector overall. Result: Price-to-book of 7.3x (ABOUT RIGHT) However, this story still carries real execution risk, including NNE's pre revenue status, ongoing losses of US$40.07m, and uncertainty around commercializing multiple microreactor designs. Build Your Own NANO Nuclear Energy Narrative If you see the numbers differently or would rather work from your own research, you can pull the data together and build a custom thesis in just a few minutes. All you need to do is Do it your way. A great starting point for your NANO Nuclear Energy research is our analysis highlighting 1 key reward and 5 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision. Looking for more investment ideas? If you are serious about building a stronger portfolio, do not stop at a single stock. Cast the net wider now or you risk missing compelling setups. Spot early stage opportunities with potential by scanning these 3530 penny stocks with strong financials that already show stronger financial footing than many expect from low priced names. Target growth at the intersection of technology and automation by focusing on these 28 AI penny stocks that are tied directly to real world AI applications. Hunt for mispriced cash flow stories using these 882 undervalued stocks based on cash flows that aim to surface companies trading below what their fundamentals might justify. [GN] NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Ventullo Suit Over Defective Slow Cookers -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT VENTULLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS, INC. and SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., collectively d/b/a Crock Pot, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10027 (D. Mass., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, and state consumer protection statutes. This action concerns Crock-Pot(R)'s "Easy-to-Clean" line of slow cookers designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by Crock-Pot and its retailers to consumers, including Plaintiff, across the United States. The Slow Cookers contain identical or substantially similar designs, manufacturing, and coating that underlie this action. According to the complaint, the Slow Cookers contain a uniform defect that causes the nonstick coating to detach, bubble, flake, chip, and peel off, ultimately resulting in premature failure, migration of nonstick coating into food being cooked, an inability to clean the Class Products, or cook effectively, any one of which renders the slow cookers unfit for use for the expected service life of the slow cookers. Despite Crock-Pot's representations, the Slow Cookers suffer from the uniform Defect which renders them contrary to Crock-Pot's representations and unsuitable for their intended use. At no time did Crock-Pot disclose the Defect to Plaintiff or putative Class Members. Crock-Pot's conduct with respect to the Slow Cookers is false, misleading, contrary to reasonable consumer expectations, and as a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered economic damages at the point of purchase, alleges the suit. Newell Brands, Inc. retails consumer products. The Company offers housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware, and hair accessories. Newell Brands markets its products worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLP 80280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (914) 471-1894 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: hsegui@leesegui.com - and - Erin Ruben, Esq. Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 E-mail: eruben@leesegui.com tpacheco@leesegui.com NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY: Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barry Blisten, individually and as representative of the Class, v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Case No. 5:23-cv-04123-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. North American offers life insurance, and annuities. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BU6yMW 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 NOVOLEX HOLDINGS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zacarias Alejandre Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NOVOLEX HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV35480 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00068. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action on a class basis for: failure to pay all minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to pay all sick time; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com NUMOTION DATA: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $4MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Numotion agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims surrounding two data breaches that occurred in March and September 2024. The Numotion settlement benefits individuals who received a notice regarding the data breaches that occurred in March and September 2024, with an additional subclass whose Social Security numbers may have been involved in the data breaches. In March and September 2024, Numotion allegedly experienced two data breaches that compromised sensitive consumer information. According to a class action lawsuit, the company failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the data breaches. Numotion, a medical equipment company focused on mobility solutions, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay up to $4 million to resolve the class action lawsuit claims. Under the terms of the Numotion settlement, class members can receive up to $15,000 for documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breaches. These payments may include costs associated with identity theft, fraud and other data breach-related damages. Class members can also receive a pro rata cash payment from the settlement depending on the number of claims filed. All class members are eligible for two years of free credit monitoring through CyEx Identity Defense Plus. Members of the Social Security subclass can receive an additional two years of free medical monitoring through CyEx Medical Shield Pro. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 3, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Numotion data breach settlement is scheduled for April 2, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 18, 2026. Who’s Eligible Individuals who received a notice regarding the Numotion data breaches that occurred in March and September 2024. Potential Award Up to $15,000 in documented losses or an alternative pro rata cash payment. Proof of Purchase Documentation, such as receipts, that shows the costs incurred. Self-prepared documents, such as handwritten receipts, are insufficient but may be considered to add clarity or support to other submitted documentation. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you’re unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator’s website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/18/2026 Case Name In re: Numotion Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00545, and Sylvester, et al. v. United Seating and Mobility LLC d/b/a Numotion, Case No. 3:25-cv-00469, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Final Hearing 04/02/2026 Settlement Website NumotionSettlement.com Claims Administrator Numotion Data Incidents Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 630-5361 Class Counsel J. Gerard Stranch IV STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Defense Counsel Casie D. Collignon Keeley O. Cronin BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] NZXT INC: Minor Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- DUSHAWN DANTE MINOR, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. NZXT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00131 (C.D. Cal., January 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placing unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and the putative class on their respective cellular phones which are registered with the National Do-Not Call Registry ("DNC"), all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and related regulations, including the Code of Federal Regulations. The complaint relates that the Defendant sent multiple unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff while Plaintiff's telephone number was registered with the DNC. The Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with his cellular telephone number at any point in time, nor did he give permission for Defendant to message his Cell Phone. The complaint alleges that receiving Defendant's unauthorized messages drained Plaintiff's phone battery and caused Plaintiff additional electricity expenses and wear and tear on his phone and battery. Defendant's telephonic communications forced Plaintiff to be deprived of the privacy and utility of his cellular phone by forcing Plaintiff to ignore or reject Defendant's disruptive messages, dismiss alerts, and/or silence his cellular phone as a result of Defendant's incessant telephone solicitations. Through this conduct, Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messages to numbers on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory damages and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations) for Plaintiff and members of the Class (defined below) per violation, together with court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Plaintiff DUSHAWN DANTE MINOR is a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Defendant NZXT INC. is a manufacturer and retailer of gaming PCs, PC components, and gaming gear sold online and through retail channels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com OAKYWOOD LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAKYWOOD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00038 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.oakywood.shop, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Oakywood, LLC creates handcrafted wooden desks and workspace accessories, combining design, natural materials, and craftsmanship. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ORLANDO HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W., v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting requests to leave to file a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Supporting Memorandum of Law up to 40 pages in length. On Oct. 1, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification. The motion is 25 pages in length, but a total of 597 pages with exhibits included. Orlando Health's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is due on Jan. 16, 2026. As Orlando Health prepares its Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification it, through its undersigned counsel, has determined that the additional pages sought herein are necessary. Orlando Health is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals based in Orlando, Florida. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nOXVMu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN: Bernard Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wayne Bernard and Joanne Holmes, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN AND CHRISTOPHER COFFIN, ESQ., Case No. CAM-L-3994-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00038. The Complaint contains three counts as follows: First Count (claim damages alleging breach of New Jersey Contingent Fee Agreements or alternatively breach of the Louisiana Fee Agreement); Second Count (Conversion seeking certification of the Class or Sub-Classes, compensatory and punitive damages which have caused this suit); Third Count (unjust enrichment).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John L. Slimm, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY, P.C. 15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 5429 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (856) 414-6000 Email: JLSlimm@mdwcg.com PERFORMANCE FOOD: Green Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Bennetta Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00035 (D. Colo., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively, the "FLSA") for Defendant's failure to pay all due and owing overtime wages to Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff did not have any of the job duties or responsibilities of an exempt employee, Defendant paid Plaintiff with a salary at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for Defendant. Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically encompassed approximately 60 hours of work for Defendant on average. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each workweek. When Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during a workweek, she did not receive all of the overtime premium pay to which she was entitled because Defendant misclassified her as an exempt employee., says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on August 11, 2025 until November 2025. The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, New York 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 Email: jiftapelli@fslawfirm.com aortiz@fslawfirm.com PHILIP MORRIS: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline in Friedman ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order granting in part motion to extend interim class certification and expert report deadlines. 1. "Lenindara v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv 61371"; 2. "Kelly v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60437"; 3. "Palmer v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60522"; 4. "Friedman v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-60640." The class certification and expert report deadlines in the above captioned cases are extended two months, until April 6, 2026. No further extensions of any deadlines in these cases should be expected. s Philip Morris is a tobacco company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zo552Z at no extra charge.[CC] PHILIP MORRIS: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline in Kelly --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY KELLY, 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 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order granting in part motion to extend interim class certification and expert report deadlines. 1. "Lenindara v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv 61371"; 2. "Kelly v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60437"; 3. "Palmer v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60522"; 4. "Friedman v. Swedish Match North America LLC, et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-60640." The class certification and expert report deadlines in the above captioned cases are extended two months, until April 6, 2026. No further extensions of any deadlines in these cases should be expected. s Philip Morris is a tobacco company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zo552Z at no extra charge.[CC] Philip Morris is a tobacco company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NHmAjf at no extra charge.[CC] PORTLAND PET: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTLAND PET FOOD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00064 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.portlandpetfoodcompany.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Portland Pet Food Company manufactures human-grade, shelf stable pet meals, and dog biscuits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RAMSEY SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $1.09-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that The Lampo Group, LLC, which does business as Ramsey Solutions, will pay $1,091,790 to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the financial guidance firm illegally sent marketing texts to consumers who requested not to be contacted by the company. The Ramsey Solutions class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 23, 2025 and covers anyone who, while in the United States, received at least one text message from Lampo about its products or its customers' products and services between November 22, 2020 and October 23, 2025. The court-approved website for the Ramsey Solutions settlement can be found at LampoTCPASettlement.com. Ramsey Solutions settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a one-time cash payment of up to $45. Per the settlement website, this payment may be subject to reduction on a pro rata, or equal share, basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. To submit a class action settlement claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique notice ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed near the top of the form. All Ramsey Solutions claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 19, 2026. A hearing is scheduled for February 4, 2026 to determine whether the Ramsey Solutions settlement will receive final court approval. Settlement payments will begin to be distributed only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Ramsey Solutions class action lawsuit claimed that the company sent marketing texts on behalf of itself and its clients to consumers who had already opted out of receiving such messages, violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] RAW ESSENTIALS: Murphy Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. RAW ESSENTIALS LIVING FOODS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-97 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://essentialoxygen.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on November 24, 2025, in an attempt to purchase The Pristine Protocol Peppermint from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has been discriminated against by Defendant's conduct and violations of the statues and regulations by being treated unequally from sighted persons due to Plaintiff's disability and Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendant's discriminatory practices. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff JAMES MURPHY is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant RAW ESSENTIALS LIVING FOODS LLC operates the Essential Oxygen online retail store, as well as the Essential Oxygen interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: oral care products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RESIDENT VERIFY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 7 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE MANASKIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RESIDENT VERIFY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00704-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification: a. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: May 7, 2026; b. The Defendant's opposition: June 8, 2026; and c. the Plaintiff's reply: June 29, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be filed Jan. 7, 2026, and fact discovery is scheduled to close on April 7, 2026. Resident provides AI-powered tenant screening services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OuXZbc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 6065 Roswell Road, Suite 700-121 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 254-0842 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@wsjustice.com aw@wsjustice.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 1600 Market Street Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Marlo Orlin Leach, Esq. Jonathan Louis Leach, Esq. LEACH & LEACH, LLC 750 Hammond Drive Building 19, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 587-3832 E-mail: mleach@lllawllc.com - and - Andrew C. Gresik, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 East Gilman Street, Suite 5000 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 258-4235 Facsimile: (608) 258-4258 E-mail: agresik@foley.com RP RESTAURANT: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Geovanni Bahena Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. RP RESTAURANT, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00048 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.gibsonsitalia.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates its Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RUMPKE CONSOLIDATED: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $750,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Rumpke Consolidated Companies has agreed to a $750,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a data breach discovered in October 2024 that allegedly compromised the personal information of current and former employees of the waste disposal company. The Rumpke data breach settlement received preliminary court approval on November 19, 2025, and covers approximately 16,946 United States residents whose private information may have been implicated in the data incident, including all those to whom Rumpke sent direct notice of the data breach. The court-approved website for the Rumpke data breach settlement can be found at RCCDataSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, Rumpke settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket expenses can receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000. The settlement site notes that all claims for reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs must be accompanied by sufficient documentation, and reimbursable expenses include those related to identity theft, fraud, or any other misuse of personal information. Additionally, all settlement class members are may also file a claim to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment estimated to be between$237.50 and $475. The settlement website reports that the total payout amount each class member may be eligible to receive may change depending on the total number of valid claims filed and how much remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration costs, lead plaintiff service awards, valid claims for out-of-pocket losses, and identity theft monitoring subscriptions. In addition to any monetary benefits, all settlement class members are eligible to enroll in one free year of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft services, the site relays. To submit a Rumpke claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form here to complete and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator. All Rumpke settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 19, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Rumpke has agreed to implement enhancements to its cybersecurity features and protocols to reduce the likelihood of future data breaches. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Rumpke settlement at a hearing on April 16, 2026. Compensation will only be distributed after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Rumpke Waste and Recycling class action lawsuit alleged the trash disposal and recycling company failed to implement and maintain effective cybersecurity measures, leading to a data breach discovered in October 2024. Per court documents, the information that may have been compromised in the data breach included names, dates of birth, addresses, contact information, Social Security numbers, health insurance plan enrollment and account information, medical diagnosis and treatment information, driver's license or state identification numbers, financial account information, and other sensitive data. [GN] SCOTT SEMPLE: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonsalves v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00806 (D. Conn., Filed May 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without prejudice Gonsalves' Motion to Appoint Counsel. The court is aware that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If a motion for class certification is not filed or denied, Gonsalves may file a second motion to appoint counsel at that time. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] SEQUOIA BENEFITS: $8.7M Breach Suit Deadline for Exclusion on Feb 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Sequoia Benefits and Insurance agreed to an $8.7 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2022 data breach that compromised sensitive employee data. The Sequoia Benefits and Insurance settlement benefits individuals whose personal information may have been accessed by an unauthorized third party between Sept. 22 and Oct. 6, 2022. Sequoia Benefits and Insurance is a human resources company that offers services, such as employee benefits, insurance, payroll and more. Sequoia's clients include more than 1,000 companies and over 100,000 employees. In December 2022, Sequoia announced that an unauthorized third party had accessed sensitive employee information between Sept. 22 and Oct. 6, 2022. The data breach compromised names, contact information, Social Security numbers, financial information and other sensitive data. Affected individuals quickly took legal action against Sequoia, arguing the company failed to protect their data through reasonable cybersecurity measures. The plaintiffs say that had Sequoia implemented better cybersecurity, the data breach could have been prevented. The Sequoia Benefits and Insurance data breach class action lawsuit settlement resolves the allegations. Under the terms of the Sequoia Benefits and Insurance settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they lost or spent as a result of the data breach. Class members who have receipts or other records of their losses can claim up to $7,500 for their losses. These payments will vary based on the number of claims filed with the settlement. Class members who do not have documentation of their losses can claim an estimated cash payment of $75. Class members who lived in California between Sept. 22 and Oct. 6, 2022, are eligible for an additional payment of $150 to reflect claims under California privacy laws. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 9, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Sequoia Benefits and Insurance data breach class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for April 7, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 11, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notification from Sequoia informing them their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach between Sept. 22 and Oct. 6, 2022, or individuals who believe they may have been affected by the data breach. Potential Award Up to $7,500 for documented losses or a $75 payout and an additional $150 for California residents. Proof of Purchase Documentation of expenses or time spent protecting their data, such as receipts, bank statements, credit card statements, bills, invoices, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/11/2026 Case Name In re: Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 22-cv-08217-RFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 04/07/2026 Settlement Website SequoiaDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Sequoia Data Breach Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 630-5405 Class Counsel David M. Berger GIBBS MURA LLP Rachele R. Byrd WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP M. Anderson Berry EMERY REDDY P.C. Kaleigh N. Boyd TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Defense Counsel N/A [GN] SHARK TANK: Roush Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------- Allen Roush, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHARK TANK GROUP LLC, Case No. 238772656 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To solicit consumers, Defendant engages in mass text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's text messages. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of hundreds of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person. The Defendant is a California limited liability company. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 101 NE 3rf Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.732.2792 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com - and - Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave Ste 1950 Miami, FL 33131-3298 Phone: 786.496.4469 Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM LLC: Bid for Protective Order Granted -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE V. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, L.L.C., Case No. 3:25-cv-00152-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Richard Bourgeois, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for protective order. Discovery regarding the proposed class or class certification in this case, such as that in Interrogatory Nos. 9-12 and Request for Production Nos. 8-14, 20-24, and 28, is stayed pending the resolution of the pending motion to dismiss. The Court finds the class discovery requests are broad and place an undue burden on Defendant. Many of the class discovery requests cover a five year time span, seek exhaustive document production regarding the identities of any potential class members, and seek evidence of the actions taken by both Defendant and these potential class members. A limited stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss would prevent such undue burden and expense. Such a stay would also minimally harm Plaintiff should the motion to dismiss be denied as the Class Discovery Requests could be addressed at that time and because Defendant is not requesting that discovery be stayed regarding Plaintiff’s individual claims. The fact that Plaintiff plans to bring a VTPPA claim does not convince this Court that a stay would be unreasonable at this time. Plaintiff has yet to file a request for leave to amend, and even Plaintiff states he will not seek to add this claim unless the motion to dismiss is granted. It is not apparent delaying discovery, therefore, will disadvantage Plaintiff in any way. Even had Plaintiff brought a VTPPA claim from the start that, for the sake of argument, would remain should the TCPA claim be dismissed, a stay would still be reasonable. The current drafts of the Class Discovery Requests pertain to potential class members across the United States, not just in Virginia. On Oct. 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending text messages to Plaintiff’s cell phone despite him being on a do not call list. Shopperschoice.Com retails household cooking appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KwYvo0 at no extra charge.[CC] SQUEEZED LLC: Brown FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRIANNA BROWN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SQUEEZED, LLC D/B/A SQUEEZED AND DAVID OJOBARO, Defendants, Case No. 2584-CV-02197, was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-10004 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, stemming from the Plaintiff's independent contractor relationship with the Defendants, and compensation by Defendants. Squeezed, LLC d/b/a Squeezed is a privately-held company that operates in the food & beverage retail industry.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen T. Melnick, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: smelnick@littler.com STAKE CENTER: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HOLTSCLAW, individually and for others similarly situated, v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Susan Prose entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file for class certification. The court finds that the first, third, fourth, and fifth Lehman Bros. factors favor Plaintiff and that each factor, both individually and collectively, outweighs the second factor (which favors Defendant) here, while the sixth Lehman Bros. factor is neutral. The court notes that trial is not imminent, finds no prejudice to Defendant, and concludes that the Plaintiff has acted with sufficient diligence and within the guidelines established by the court. Stake specializes in providing underground utility locating services for various industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QakUju at no extra charge.[CC] STARFISH TRANSPORTATION: Calderon Seeks to Recover Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Calderon, Victor Velazquez, Francisco Javier Virrey Barrazas, Miguel Jaimes and Juana Martinez, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly-situated-situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. Starfish Transportation, Inc. and Steven Cordell, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00024 (N.D. Ill., January 4, 2026) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendants' failure to pay at least the minimum wage for all hours worked by Plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by refusing to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage for all time worked in individual work weeks. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover unpaid wages for up to three years prior to the filing of this suit because Defendants' willful failure to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 hours per week was a willful violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as school bus and charter drivers for different periods of time between 2019 and June 2024. Starfish Transportation, Inc. provides bus rental in Chicago and surrounding areas in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alonzo Rivas, Esq. Baldemar Lopez, Esq. Jorge Sanchez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 420-6784 E-mail: arivas@lopezsanchezlaw.com blopez@lopezsanchezlaw.com jsanchez@lopezsanchezalaw.com STRYX CARE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Figueroa Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYX CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00053 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.stryx.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on September 26, 2025, to access the website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's STRYX Daily  Moisturizer  SPF30 but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Stryx Care, LLC operates the website that offers skincare and cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SUN COUNTRY: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Allegiant Travel --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sun Country Airlines Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNCY) related to its sale to Allegiant Travel Company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sun Country shareholders are expected to receive 0.1557 shares of Allegiant common stock and $4.10 in cash for each Sun Country share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sun-country-airlines-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SURVIVAL GEAR: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURVIVAL GEAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00034 (S.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.survialgear.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on June 13, 2025, to access the website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's First Aid Kit, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Survival Gear, Inc. operates the website that offers survival tools, safety kits, and outdoor preparedness equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TAKEYA USA: Faces Wilson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAKEYA USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00040 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.takeyausa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on June 30, 2025, to access the website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's 20oz Takeya Sport Water Bottle with Spout Lid, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Takeya USA Corporation operates the website that offers hydration products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TEAMS COMPANIES: Esplana Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maurien Esplana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TEAMS COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00032 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") or Protected Health Information ("PHI", collectively with PII or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on July 21, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On July 21, 2025, Defendant became aware of a security incident on its IT Network. Upon detection, Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. On November 21, 2025, Defendant issued a public disclosure to the office of the California Attorney General and began sending out notice letters to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a payroll and technology provider serving advertising and entertainment industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com THRIVE HEALTH: Avots-Smith Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN AVOTS-SMITH, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. THRIVE HEALTH GROUP, INC., d/b/a FRIDAYS, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00041 (C.D. Cal., January 7, 2026) is a class action lawsuit that addresses Defendant's improper, unauthorized, and illegal disclosure of users' personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "PII and PHI") to third-party advertising platforms and data analytics companies without those users' knowledge or consent. The complaint relates that the Defendant is a participant in the drug market, serving as an online platform for GLP-1 prescription services to patients across the United States. Through its Website, users solicit telehealth services and health products, especially prescriptions of GLP-1 medications. Whereas the Website purports to be no more than a healthcare platform, it is in reality Defendant's conduit to capture and transmit the PII and PHI of Website visitors and customers to third-party marketers. Through trackers embedded on the Website, and especially in the intake quiz section where users enter their sensitive health information including weight statistics and health conditions, third-party marketing companies collect user data including PII and PHI, the complaint asserts. The complaint further alleges that as a healthcare provider handling sensitive medical information, Defendant has an obligation not to disclose this data without the consent of those who provided it, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of PII and PHI in its possession, custody or control. Despite these obligations, Defendant has systematically violated its users' privacy rights by using tracking technologies in its Website that capture and transmit PII and PHI to third parties for marketing and analytics purposes including, but not limited to, selling PII and PHI to advertisers, profiling users without their knowledge, targeting users with advertisements based on their medical conditions, and other improper uses of PII and PHI. The unauthorized disclosure of medical information is a fundamental breach of trust in any relationship between one party seeking care and another purporting to offer it. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the putative Classes to secure redress for violations of: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the California Invasion of Privacy Act; the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; the California Consumer Privacy Act; and Unjust Enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including Court-ordered implementation of industry-standard data-privacy controls, regular compliance audits of data-sharing practices, and comprehensive monitoring services to prevent future unauthorized data transmission to third parties. Plaintiff John Avots-Smith is a resident of Oakland, California who used the Website in 2024. Defendant Thrive Heath Group, Inc. owns, maintains, and controls the web domains www.joinfridays.com, www.fridaysfitness.com, and app.joinfridays.com, along with related properties and subdomains (collectively the "Website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: 773-554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com TRAEGER PELLET: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Benson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BENSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS LLC AND TRAEGER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00090 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.traeger.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On multiple dates in July and August 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access www.traeger.com to research the Traeger Pro 34, compare pellet types, review warranty terms, and determine whether the grill could be safely operated with adaptive techniques recommended by Lighthouse Guild mobility trainers. He also attempted to locate nearby authorized retailers and determine whether assembly assistance was available. Each attempt was task-specific and necessary for Plaintiff to make an informed purchasing decision. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff encountered widespread accessibility barriers that rendered the site unusable with his assistive technology, NVDA. He was denied full and equal access due to persistent accessibility barriers, including but not limited to: Missing alternative text on product images and promotional banners; Linked images with no accessible labels; Empty headings and broken skip links; Missing form labels on search and account-related fields; Broken ARIA references preventing screen reader interpretation; Redundant links causing navigation loops; Improper heading hierarchy interfering with logical page structure; Inaccessible modal dialogs and mouse-dependent controls; and Keyboard traps preventing navigation through menus and product pages. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to modify its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Plaintiff Anthony Benson, a resident of New York, New York, functions with total blindness and requires screen-reading software such as NVDA to access digital content. Defendant Traeger Pellet Grills LLC is a Delaware-organized consumer goods company specializing in the manufacture and nationwide sale of wood-pellet grills, smokers, accessories, and related outdoor cooking products. Traeger markets itself as a premium brand with a large national retail footprint and a robust direct-to-consumer e-commerce platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Corbray Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Corbray and Stephanie Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC and ONE COMMUNITY HEALTH, Case No. 2:26-at-00022 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought arising from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, TriZetto stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former employees and/or consumers of Defendant One Community Health. But such PII/PHI was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of their systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to their consumers' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims. TriZetto is a provider of revenue management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems, based in Earth City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@strausborrelli.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Whiteside Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LANIA WHITESIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC; COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; and LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH AUTHORITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY, dba L.A. CARE HEALTH PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00006 (E.D. Mo., January 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of certain customers and individuals, including Plaintiff's. On October 2, 2025, Defendant TriZetto discovered that an unauthorized party gained access to its web portal and historical eligibility transaction reports that contained private information. The unauthorized access to Defendant TriZetto's system began in November 2024 and continued almost a year before the unauthorized access was detected. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendants implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, they could have prevented the data breach. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, to address Defendants' inadequate data protection practices and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the data breach. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC is a healthcare technology firm that provides care management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com TRUE PET FOOD: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE PET FOOD PROJECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00055 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.smalls.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on September 26, 2025, to access the website from his home in an effort to shop for cat food, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. True Pet Food Project, Inc. operates the website that serves as a subscription-based pet food platform focused on meals for cats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TT OF OCALA LLC: Rowsey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TT OF OCALA, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Rowsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TT OF OCALA, LLC, Case No. 2026-CA-000014 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Marion Cty., Jan. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Civil - Business Transactions."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Daniel Mason, Esq. ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A. 4610 Central Ave. Suite B Saint Petersburg, FL 33711 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Mollins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth M. Mollins, and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber Eats, Case No. 600199/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Jan. 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Contract. Uber Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.uber.com/ -- is an American multinational transportation company that provides ride-hailing services, courier services, food delivery, and freight transport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Marc Mollins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS, P.C. 1393 Veterans Memorial Highway #101s Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: 1-631-983-6068 UEI FRESNO/IEC: Faces Gomez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- TINA GOMEZ, on behalf of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UEI FRESNO/IEC HOLDINGS, INC., INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CORPORATION, KRISTINE GROSSMAN, DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV00261 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 5, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of Plaintiff, as well as members of the general public similarly situated pursuant to the private Attorney General Act for willful misclassification, minimum wage violations, wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, retaliation, and unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices. The Plaintiff's position from about March 1, 2024 was Associate Director of Admissions. UEI/IEC is a private, for profit vocational college offering certifications and diplomas for students training to work in various areas from medical to the automotive industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sohaila Sagheb, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SOHAILA SAGHEB 5000 N. Parkway Calabasas, Suite 108 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 346-3724 Facsimile: (818) 702-9916 E-mail: sslawoffice@sbcglobal.net UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Faces Class Action Over Pay Disparity ------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Brundin of CPR News reports that more than 20 female faculty members at the University of Colorado Denver filed a class action lawsuit in Denver district court Friday, January 9, alleging systemic wage discrimination based on gender. The lawsuit asserts that the university has consistently paid female professors less than their male counterparts for performing substantially similar work despite an internal analysis that revealed pay disparities. The suit alleges this violates Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act. The plaintiffs include high-ranking and long-tenured academics from various departments who say that the university pays female faculty less than male colleagues who hold lower ranks, have less experience, or work fewer hours. "It is our hope that all institutions of higher education in Colorado will regularly conduct proper pay equity reviews, correct pay disparities, including paying back pay . . . as well as instituting wage transparency," said Madeline Collison, the plaintiffs' attorney. The University of Colorado Board of Regents is named as the defendant. Representatives for the board could not immediately be reached for comment. A CU Denver spokesperson said the university cannot comment because it does not comment on pending litigation. Colorado's equal pay law The intention behind Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, which went into effect in 2021, was to close the gender pay gap by making sure employees with similar job duties are paid the same regardless of sex. The law also requires wage transparency. After the law took effect, each of the University of Colorado's four campuses conducted pay equity analyses to come into compliance. CU Boulder, which made its analysis public, found that 387 female faculty members were underpaid and increased their salaries to match their male counterparts. In 2024, after the threat of a class action lawsuit, the university agreed to pay hundreds of female faculty members back pay in a $4.5 million settlement. The new lawsuit against CU Denver alleges that the university conducted a pay analysis in 2022 but refused to share the results with faculty, citing "privilege." The complaint asserts that the analysis reflected "widespread pay inequities" that the university chose not to correct. Associate professor Sasha Breger Bush said women faculty have not received pay adjustments as a result of the review, "at least not on any systematic or transparent basis that we're aware of." "Rotten and demoralizing" Throughout her decade-long career at CU Denver, Breger Bush maintained excellent performance reviews. She served as chair of the university's faculty governing body from 2023 to 2025. Still, she has been paid less than other associate professors who performed "substantially similar work." Currently in the School of Public Affairs she is paid "significantly less" than two males with the same rank and job expectations, according to the lawsuit. "It feels rotten and demoralizing," she said. "All of the faculty at CU Denver work very, very hard, and it would be wonderful if we were paid fairly. I don't think that's too much to ask." The suit also alleges the analysis didn't include non-tenure track faculty, which constitute the majority of the faculty. It estimates between 250 and 275 female non-tenure track faculty who have or currently are being paid less than a male counterpart. The lawsuit alleges that the Provost's office discovered that nearly 100 out of 131 female tenure-track faculty were similarly underpaid because of their gender. Allegations of systemic inequity The 21-page complaint details specific instances of pay disparity across multiple academic ranks, from tenured full professors to non-tenure track instructors. The allegations include a tenured full professor who is allegedly paid as much as $20,000 less than recently hired male instructors with lower ranks and shorter tenures. One plaintiff, Jennifer Reich, a tenured full professor in the sociology department with expertise in vaccines, holds the university's highest possible performance ratings and more prestigious national credentials than male colleagues earning more than her, according to the suit. The complaint said she earns "substantially less" than nearly all male full professors in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Despite being promoted to full professor in 2017, she is paid less than a male colleague who received that promotion in 2023. Reich initially believed the pay disparities were an administrative oversight. After attempting to resolve the issue through official channels, she found the university's responses to be inconsistent and opaque. Reich said what troubled her most was the lack of transparency. "At times we were all denied, but all at times for exactly contradictory reasons," she said. "There hasn't been a lot of transparency. There hasn't been a lot of clarity." In her case, she was told a male colleague got a retention raise because he received an offer for another position. Reich, who has six more years' experience than the colleague, said that process disproportionately penalizes women, who may be less inclined to engage in that practice. She said the university's rationale also ignores the fact that it has the option to bring employees doing the same work up to the same level. "I value my colleagues, and I want them to be paid what they're worth," she said. "But that doesn't mean that other people are also not valuable and shouldn't be paid what they're worth. I think there's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what the law requires." The suit said many of the rationales given to women faculty are not permitted by state law, such as the market rate at the time of hiring. What the plaintiffs want The plaintiffs have requested a trial by jury. They are seeking an end to discriminatory practices, payment of lost wages and back pay, and permanent salary increases to match male counterparts. For Reich, the lawsuit is about more than individual pay. She would like the university to look at its compliance with the laws on salary transparency so when inequalities occur, "they can be addressed directly rather than buried and rationalized." Breger Bush said she loves teaching her students and conducting research. "But it's not OK for employers to treat their employees in this way -- and the law prohibits it." [GN] VARONIS SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reflector reports that Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Varonis Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNS) securities between February 5, 2025 and October 28, 2025. Varonis is a global security company that provides software products and services to discovery and classify critical data, remediate exposures, and detect advanced threats with the help of AI-powered technologies. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Varonis Systems, Inc. (VRNS) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations. In truth, Varonis' optimistic reports of growth, cost cutting measures, and overall effectiveness of its sales team to continue to convince existing clientele to convert to the SaaS offering fell short of reality. In fact, Varonis was ill-equipped to continue its annual recurring revenue growth trajectory without maintaining a significantly high rate of quarterly conversion. Plaintiff alleges that on October 28, 2025, defendants released third quarter results below prior projections and lowered their full-year guidance. On this news, the price of Varonis' common stock declined from $63.00 per share on October 28, 2025, to $32.34 per share on October 29, 2025, a decline of about 48.67% in the span of just a single day. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Varonis Systems, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by March 9, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/varonis-systems-inc/. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Varonis Systems, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court Certifies "Ford" Classes ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard, and Brian Otters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-756 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the motion for certification of three classes. The Plaintiffs are disabled military veterans who retained the Defendant to assist them in obtaining or increasing their disability compensation. Federal law restricts those who may assist veterans in preparing, presenting, and prosecuting claims for benefits before the Veterans Administration to persons or entities meeting specific qualifications and accreditation requirements. The Plaintiffs contend that Guardian violates federal law by offering these services without accreditation and that it charges illegal fees in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act. Federal regulations provide that no individual may assist claimants in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits as an agent or attorney unless he or she has first been accredited by VA for such purpose. Guardian is not an accredited agent of the VA. It assists veterans in applying for disability compensation and for increases in compensation, and it charges five times the monthly compensation increase that its clients receive as a fee for its services. This is substantially higher than fees an accredited agent can charge. Ms. Ford received a 60 percent VA disability impairment rating before contacting Guardian. In 2022, she contacted Guardian about filing a claim for additional benefits. Guardian accessed her medical and military records, coordinated a private medical exam, and drafted and prepared her VA disability compensation claim with attachments. She received a VA disability compensation increase of $360 per month, and pursuant to her contract with Guardian, it billed her $1,880. She paid Guardian $1,880 over multiple monthly payments. She later worked with Guardian to file a second claim and received a monthly VA disability compensation increase of $300 a month. Guardian billed her $1,690, and she paid $1,521 in one lump sum. Mr. Beard had never filed a VA benefits claim before contacting Guardian around August 2022. Guardian accessed his medical and military records, coordinated a private medical exam, and drafted and prepared his VA disability compensation claim with attachments. He received VA disability compensation of $4,278.80 per month, and pursuant to his contract with Guardian, it billed him $21,360. He has paid Guardian over $19,000 in monthly installments, and Guardian contends he still owes it money on the contract. Mr. Otters contacted Guardian in 2023 about filing a non-initial claim for additional benefits. Guardian accessed his medical records and military records, coordinated a private medical exam, and drafted and prepared his VA disability compensation claim with attachments. He received a 90 percent disability rating and VA disability compensation of $599.33 per month. Pursuant to his contract with Guardian, it billed him $2,990, which he paid over multiple monthly payments. The Plaintiffs assert that Guardian's actions of charging fees and preparing claim packets without being accredited constitute per se unfair trade practices prohibited by the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. They contend that even if the actions are not per se unfair trade practices, its actions still constitute unfair trade practices. The Plaintiffs assert that Guardian violated the North Carolina Debt Collection Act by sending invoices to collect its unlawful fees. The Court found that the Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement, as there are thousands of members in each putative class. The Court found that the Plaintiffs satisfied the commonality requirement. The key initial question for all three requested classes requires statutory interpretation to determine whether Guardian acts as an agent for the veterans who retain their services. Among other key questions common to both UDTPA classes are: (a) whether Guardian is acting in violation of the accreditation statute when it prepares and presents claim packets to the VA in exchange for compensation as an unaccredited company; and (b) whether a violation of the accreditation statute constitutes a per se violation of the UDTPA. The Court found that the Plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement. All the class members allege the same injury: imposition of illegal fees by an unaccredited agent. The named Plaintiffs each base their claims on violations of the UDTPA through violation of the federal accreditation statute. Guardian followed consistent procedures with each of its clients in contracting with them and filing claims. The Court found that the Plaintiffs satisfied the adequacy requirement. Ms. Ford, Mr. Beard, and Mr. Otters have been active participants in this litigation. Each has assisted counsel in the litigation, provided declarations, and participated in depositions. They are motivated to pursue the case because each is directly affected by the alleged illegal fees they paid Guardian. Interim lead class counsel has adequately represented the class to date, complying with court-imposed deadlines and filing appropriate motions. The Court found that common questions of law and fact predominate. There is one overarching common question of fact and law: whether Guardian acts as an agent. There are two more overarching common questions of law: (a) whether Guardian is acting in violation of the accreditation statute when it prepares and presents claim packets to the VA in exchange for compensation as an unaccredited company; and (b) whether a violation of the accreditation statute constitutes a per se violation of the UDTPA. These questions can be answered with common evidence of Guardian's processes for filing clients' claims, working with clients, and billing clients. The evidence tends to show that Guardian follows uniform procedures and uses similar contracts with all its clients such that answers to these questions will be applicable to all putative class members. The Court found that a class action is the superior method to resolve the Plaintiffs' UDTPA claims. Given the large number of class members, class-wide adjudication will be more efficient. Adjudicating these claims in one forum will provide flexibility, control, and consistency that would not exist with individual litigation. Absent a class action, each veteran who paid Guardian and wanted to challenge its fees must bring an individual case or be joined in this action. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. The following classes are certified: (a) UDTPA Initial Claim Class: All veterans who made their first payment to Veterans Guardian in connection with an initial claim for VA Disability Compensation under a consulting contract substantially similar to Exhibit A to the Consolidated Complaint between August 23, 2019, and the date of this Court's order approving class notice; (b) UDTPA Non-Initial Claim Class: All veterans who made their first payment to Veterans Guardian in connection with a non-initial claim for VA Disability Compensation under a consulting contract substantially similar to Exhibit A to the Consolidated Complaint between August 23, 2019, and the date of this Court's order approving class notice; (c) NCDCA Class: All veterans who, between August 23, 2019, and the date of this Court's order approving class notice, were sent an invoice by Veterans Guardian in connection with a claim for VA Disability Compensation in substantially the same form as Exhibit B to the Consolidated Complaint and who made a payment to Veterans Guardian. Eric Beard is appointed class representative of the initial UDTPA claim class. Jennifer Ford and Brian Otters are appointed class representatives of the non-initial UDTPA claim class. Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard, and Brian Otters are appointed class representatives of the NCDCA class. Plaintiffs' interim lead class counsel are appointed as class counsel for all three classes. A copy of the court's decision dated December 30, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eM3Oiy from PacerMonitor.com VISA INC: Bourne Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kyle Bourne, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. VISA INC., a Delaware corporation; and ATLANTICUS SERVICE CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation, Case No. 25STCV34815 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00049. The Complaint alleges one cause of action arising out of Plaintiff's receipt of an unsolicited commercial email advertisement and seeks class certification pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Damian M. Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (949) 800-8601 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com WESTERN TOWING OF PHOENIX: Andrews Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Andrews, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Western Towing of Phoenix, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Dale Wineteer and Jane Doe Wineteer, a married couple, Brad Ramsey and Jane Doe Ramsey, a married couple, Steve Bischop and Jane Doe Bischop, a married couple, Wesley Graff and Jane Doe Graff, a married couple, and David Pudgil and Jane Doe Pudgil, a married couple, Case No. 2:26-cv-00056-DMF (D. Ariz., Jan. 5, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Arizona Wage Statute, alleging that the Plaintiff are entitled to unpaid overtime for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours in a workweek, but Defendant did not pay Plaintiff all the overtime he was due including the proper overtime rate calculated based on his regular hourly rate. During a typical week, Plaintiff was scheduled to work Monday through Friday from 5 p.m. until 5 a.m. for sixty hours per week. In addition, he was routinely required to perform off the clock work in addition to his scheduled hours. The Defendant failed to correct Plaintiff's time records to ensure that he was paid for the actual amount of hours that he worked. As a result, Western Towing's payroll records are not accurate and do not reflect the time that Plaintiff should have been paid based on his actual hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Light Duty Tow Truck Driver from December 2023 through the present. Western Towing provides towing services in Arizona, specifically throughout Maricopa County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Phone: 602-598-4000 Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92123 Phone: 602-598-4000 Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com WISCONSIN: Class Action Status on Late Counsel Appointments Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Kerhin of FOX 11 News reports that a lawsuit brought by eight criminal defendants who want a court to order the state to appoint defense attorneys within two weeks of charges being filed will not be expanded into a class action lawsuit, a judge ruled. Eight inmates filed suit in Brown County in 2022, asking the judge to force the state to assign attorneys to indigent defendants within two weeks of their first court appearance, or have the charges dismissed. Since then, the case has been the subject of pre-trial motions and hearings. In September, 2023, the judge rejected the state's motion to dismiss the case. The defendants asked Brown County Judge Thomas Walsh to convert the case into a class action lawsuit, which would expand the list of plaintiffs to this group: "All individuals who, after January 1, 2019, have been charged by the State of Wisconsin with a crime that carries a potential term of imprisonment, appeared before a judge for an initial appearance, requested and were found eligible for public defense counsel, yet did not receive public defense counsel within 30 days after their initial appearances solely because the [State Public Defender] failed to appoint an attorney on their behalf." One of the requirements to allow class action status is to show 'commonality' among the prospective plaintiffs. It is this prong that fails, the judge ruled Tuesday, January 13. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***