260121.mbx

260121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 21, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 15 Headlines A PLUS TREE LLC: Tellez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks Modification of Class Cert. Order ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP: Wolf Sues Over Supracompetitive Prices AMAZON.COM INC: Ramos Suit Seeks Class Certification AMERICA PAC: Bid for Class Certification Due April 1 AMERICA'S GATEWAY: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ANGI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henderson Alleges APPLE COMMUTER: Class Cert Ruling Entered in Abuladze Suit APPLE INC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Supplemental OK'd APPLIED DIGITAL: Continues to Defend McConnell Class Suit ARDENT HEALTH: Postiwala Sues Over Drop in Share Price ARTEMIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Sisco Says ASHLYNN MARKETING: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification ASPIRUS INC: Parties Must File Another Status Report ATTALA STEEL: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Final Nod AU ENERGY LLC: Lynch Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California BAKE ME A WISH: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BARADA ASSOCIATES: Totton Files FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports BED BATH: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California BED BATH: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in New York BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 3 BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Phillips Due March 30 BUPA AGED CARE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit CANTATA HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Info, Dememt Says CARPENTERS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON: Classes Gets Certification CAVALRY SPV: Class Settlement Deal in Griffin Gets Initial Nod CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Carpenter Sues For Deceptive Product Labeling CENTERS LAB NJ: Snyder Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI CHARTER NEXT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Howell Alleges CHW GROUP: Faces Clewett Suit Over TCPA Breach CITIBANK NA: Letidas Seeks to Certify Rule 23 class CITIEA REALTY: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona CITIZENS AND NORTHERN BANK: "Goldosvky" Bid to Certify Junked COHEN FASHION: Court Consolidates Class Suits COLE WALKER: Order Setting Scheduling Conference Entered CONSERVICE LLC: Seeks to Strike Bid to Certify Class CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Continues to Defend Meza Class Suit in NY COOPER INTERCONNECT: Class Settlement in Ott Suit Gets Final Nod CORSAIR GAMING: Settlement in McKinney Gets Final OK COVENANT HEALTH: Wickett Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI CRYSTAL WINDOW: Faces Punarjit Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. CURRENEX INC: Seeks OK of Class Cert. Opposition Briefs DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class Action DECISION SCIENCE: Murry Sues Over Unlawfully Obtained Reports DEXCOM INC: Dickinson et al. Sue Over Glucose Monitors' False Ads DICK'S SPORTING: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hopkins's Amended Bid to Intervene OK'd DNC TRAVEL: Mendoza Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses DR. TUNG'S: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users DRILL CUTTINGS: Provence Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages EAST SIDE: Scheduling Order Remain in Effect in M.C. Suit ECKERD YOUTH: Collins Files Suit Over Data Breach ECONOMY PREFERRED: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 2, 2027 EMPIRE WEST: Misclassifies Property Managers, Zoltzman Says ENCORE BEACH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuentes Alleges ENERGY PLUS: Siguencia Labor Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. EPIC HOLIDAY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moya Due May 22 EWC & ASSOCIATES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Says EXTRACTION OIL: Underpays C&M on Gas and Oil Royalties, Suit Says FOUR POINTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mosby Due June 1 GAINESVILLE INC: Hinkle Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing GAINESVILLE INC: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought GEICO: Class Cert Discovery Closes March 9 GIOVANNI COSMETICS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GOOGLE LLC: Settles Children's Privacy Violation Suit for $8.25MM HERTZ CORPORATION: Seeks Status Conference Schedule in Retherford HOME DEPOT: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines in Sell Suit OK'd HOME DEPOT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Esgate Extended to Nov. 9 HOMELIGHT INC: Hopkins Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls HOMETOWN AMERICA: Court Certifies Classes in Bartok Suit HUB GROUP: Rodney Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. HYATT CORPORATION: Jean Suit Removed to C.D. California IMPACT REMODELING: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania IOWA HEALTH: Horras Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ISSAQUEENA PEDIATRIC: Butler Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ISSAQUEENA PEDIATRIC: Harrison Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ITS LOGISTICS: Class Settlement in Guthrie Suit Gets Final Nod JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 1, 2026 KALSHI INC: Josephson Sues Over Unlicensed Betting App KEYSTONE RV: Guisinger Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal KEYSTONE RV: Guisinger Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers KIEWIT OFFSHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Arriaga Says KLARITY KRATOM: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Hernandez Due July 27 KRADLE LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Subscription Renewal Plan KRISTI NOEM: Must Release Amrik from Custody KROGER CO: Court Considers Bid to Strike Class Allegations LAKESIDE TITLE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Buechler Says LANDS' END: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Meadows Due July 24 LASALLE MANAGEMENT: Adjournment of Class Cert Deadline Sought LAST BRAND: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LENS.COM INC: Class Cert Hearing in Martin Set for Feb. 3 LENS.COM INC: Martin Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing LITE STAR: Chea Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement LIVELY UP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says LOYA INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle Underinsurance Suit for $1.95MM LPQ USA LLC: Vazquez Suit Removed to C.D. California MAJORCA INVESTMENT: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says MARATHON PETROLEUM: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Texts MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Recommends Partial OK of Class Cert Bid MATTOS PROPERTY: Filho Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MDL 3126: Panel Denies Bid to Remand Wang Suit MERANI HOSPITALITY: Fabiano Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Court Rejects $875,000 Deal Over Misled Workers META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Filing Modified to Jan. 15, 2027 MEYER BURGER: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Deal MIAMI DADELAND HOTEL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property MIDLAND NATIONAL: Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 19 MIKE LEWIS: Godenes's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus OK'd MISSOURI: Gibbs et al. Sue Over Unlawful REPAYE Plan Implementation MONSANTO COMPANY: Walsh Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Warfel Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale MYPILLOW INC: Wood Sues Over False and Misleading Sales NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $303MM "Ray" Class Settlement Gets Court Nod NEOGEN CORP: Continues to Defend Operating Engineers Class Suit NEW YORK: Class Cert Bid in Bias-Based Profiling Suit Denied NEW YORK: Marcus Sues OCFS Over Unlawful Solitary Confinement NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Class Suit NU ERA BENEFITS AGENCY: Slaughter Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. O'C ON CALL: Wilson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages OP PHARMACY: Plaintiffs Must Supplement Class Cert with Briefing ORESTES CRUZ: Directed to Release Karanvir from Custody ORLANDO HEALTH: Allowed Leave to File Response OX APPSEC: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Koeller Suit PACIFICHEALTH: Kramer Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PARTICLE AESTHETIC: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PATRICIA HYDE: Moniz Must Release De Oliveira from Custody PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Graf et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches PLUSONE COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges POPEYES LOUISIANA: Mun Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance Practices PROVANTAGE CORPORATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moraga Alleges PRUDENTRX LLC: Gluesing Seeks to Overrule Dec. 29 Text Order PURPOSE RESIDENTIAL: Wade Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PYM PARTICLES: Yearwood Sues to Seek for Unpaid Wages QUEEN CITY: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Hicks Suit Seeks to Certify Class RAPID ACTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walker Alleges RECYCLINE INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RESIDENT VERIFY: Class Cert Bid in Manaskie Extended to May 7 ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Martinez Failure to Safeguard PHI and PII ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Vauvelle Files Suit in S.D. New York SALESFORCE INC: Milton Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Tracking SEALED AIR: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Clayton Dubilier SKI BARN: Cazares Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SLM CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 17 SMUCKER CO: $350K California Wage Class Settlement Has Final OK ST. JOHN'S RIVERSIDE: Ortiz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Toxic Coffee Ingredients STORR OFFICE: Class Settlement in Allen Suit Gets Initial Nod SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Suit Seeks to Seal Docs Under Seal SWAGELOK COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Patterson Suit TAQUERIA LOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Laboy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. TECHZOTIC LLC: Mendoza Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California TERRAN ORBITAL: Taylor Files Verification Under Delaware Law TICKETMASTER LLC: Scruggs Sues Over Data Privacy Violations TOPO ATHLETIC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says TRIZETTO PROVIDER: De la Pena Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit UNITED PARKS: Petrun Sues Over Deceptive Ticket Sales Scheme UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Patterson Suit VALLEY STRONG: Rizzoto Files Suit Over Data Breach VARONIS SYSTEMS: Molchanov Sues Over Drop in Share Price VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Zeiders Suit W.S. BADGER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Alleges WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Joint Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed WALGREEN CO: Class Action Settlement in Naro Suit Gets Final Nod WENDY'S PROPERTIES: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violation WESTGATE SQUARE: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation WORKDAY INC: Mobley Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline WORLD WRESTLING: Misleads Consumers, Diesa and Toback Suit Alleges XLEAR INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website YALE UNIVERSITY: Ahsan Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. ********* A PLUS TREE LLC: Tellez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Plus Tree, LLC. The case is styled as Brandon Tellez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. A Plus Tree, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Case No. CU26-00178 (Cal. Super. Ct., Westchester Cty., Jan. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." A Plus Tree -- https://aplustree.com/ -- is a progressive and forward-thinking tree care company with a ridiculous passion for trees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM A Law Corporation 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-293-5623 Email: nidah@olfla.com - and - Alex P Katofsky, Esq. ALEX P. KATOFSKY, APC 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-340-3600 - and - Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks Modification of Class Cert. Order ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc. (RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), to modify its order granting in part class certification to allow the certified subclasses to pursue damages for the cost of identity protection services for those class members whose Social Security numbers were exposed. The case arises from Accellion's negligence in failing to secure the Plaintiffs' and class members' private information, which was exposed during one of the largest data breaches of the past five years. The Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, allowing nominal damages, but declined to permit damages for the cost of credit and identity-theft monitoring. The reason was singular: the Court struck the Plaintiffs' expert, Daniel Korczyk, for want of sufficient qualifications in the credit and identity-theft monitoring field. Without Korczyk's report, Plaintiffs no longer had a model to establish classwide credit and identity-theft monitoring damages. The Plaintiffs have cured this deficiency by offering the report of Paige Hanson, who brings to bear significant relevant experience. Hanson is highly qualified in identity protection services, with over 15 years' experience in the field. Accellion is a cybersecurity company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E2BTVa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com - and - Krysta K. Pachman, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Kevin R. Downs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com kdowns@susmangodfrey.com ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP: Wolf Sues Over Supracompetitive Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Wolf, Valerie Dellorto, Melissa Arredondo, Jennifer Bellucci, on her own behalf and as parent and next friend to A.J.B., A.E.B, and A.O.B, minors, Robin Betz, Nathan Clymer, on his own behalf and as parent and next friend of P.C., a minor, Shay Jarm, Amy King, and Heather Lisser, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP, INC., EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC., and THE CIGNA GROUP, Case No. 1:26-cv-00098 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought to redress injuries caused by Defendants' negligence and exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct that has enabled Defendants to acquire, maintain, and exercise monopoly power in the relevant market and the Defendants' conduct has resulted in supracompetitive prices, reduced competition, and impaired access to medically necessary care, harming patients and other market participants. The Defendants designed and maintain these processes to increase friction and attrition, reducing the number and quantity of prescriptions ultimately dispensed through Accredo. In so doing, Defendants create "savings" that they pass back upstream to attract and retain the PBM business of health insurance plan clients—thereby manufacturing the appearance of efficiency by outsourcing the cost onto patients. Meanwhile, the roadblocks and delays—of days, weeks, and often months in the delivery of prescription medications harm patients and leave them in a constant state of stress and anxiety, worrying whether their next dose of medication will arrive on time or at all. Accredo's failure to provide pharmacy services consistent with industry standards and the applicable standard of care constitutes negligence and breaches its contractual and other obligations to patients. The resulting strain on public health infrastructure constitutes a public nuisance. And the anticompetitive conduct by Defendants that insulates Accredo from competition and locks patients into its abusive practices violates federal antitrust law and state consumer-protection statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs in this case all suffer from chronic health conditions--including painful inflammatory diseases, genetic disorders, and organ transplants. Accredo provides pharmacy services to patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Scott Rauscher, Esq. Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. Alexandra Wolfson, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen St. Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: (312) 243-5900 Fax: (312) 243-5902 Email: mike@loevy.com jon@loevy.com scott@loevy.com ross@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com wolfson@loevy.com - and - Isaac Green, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 2060 Broadway Street, Suite 280 Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: (720) 583-6514 Fax: (312) 243-5902 Email: green@loevy.com AMAZON.COM INC: Ramos Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcos Ramos et al., v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (RE: AMAZON CONSUMER SPEECH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00089-HDV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 2, 2026, will move before the Honorable Hernán D. Vera, for an Order certifying the following class: "From Nov. 23, 2022 to May 29, 2025 ("Class Period"), all persons residing in California who completed a sales transaction on the Amazon or Audible mobile applications; amazon.com; audible.com; music.amazon.com; or pay.amazon.com (the "Class")." Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eol5pc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-4521 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com - and - Thomas A. Leary, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS LEARY, APC 3023 First Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 291-1900 E-mail: tleary@learylaw.com AMERICA PAC: Bid for Class Certification Due April 1 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and BOBBI PISOR, v. AMERICA PAC, GROUP AMERICA, LLC, and ELON MUSK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01691-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order that any motions for class certification shall be filed and served on or before April 1, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p7Juun at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICA'S GATEWAY: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. AMERICA'S GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-20043-KMW (S.D. Fla., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial hotel property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial hotel property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial hotel property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial hotel property, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial hotel property, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial hotel property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. AMERICA'S GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the business therein, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com ANGI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henderson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ KALI HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGI INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00095-MHC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Henderson was employed by the Defendant as a sales representative. Angi Inc. operates an online portal for home improvement. The Company offers a digital platform that connects homeowners with service professionals for home services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Feldman, Esq. Feldman Legal Group 1201 Peachtree St NE Floor 3 Suite 364, Atlanta, GA 30361 12610 Race Track Road #225 Tampa, FL 33626 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 Email: mail@feldmanlegal.us mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com APPLE COMMUTER: Class Cert Ruling Entered in Abuladze Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., v. APPLE COMMUTER, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tarnofsky entered an order s follows: The Defendants shall, by Jan. 14, 2026, provide the Plaintiffs with a draft settlement agreement for review and comment. The Plaintiffs shall inform the Court by Jan. 21, 2026, whether his clients have accepted and signed off of the agreement. If the Plaintiffs have accepted and signed off of the agreement, the Plaintiffs shall, by Jan. 23, 2026 a) withdraw the pending motion for class certification and b) refile a class certification motion as to the Hotel Defendants that includes the finalized settlement agreement among Plaintiffs and the Hotel Defendants for Court review. Apple is a transportation service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zFMyH1 at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Supplemental OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hazlitt et al v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421 (S.D. Ill., Filed May 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge e Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability. Apple is an American multinational technology company.[CC] APPLIED DIGITAL: Continues to Defend McConnell Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Applied Digital Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending November 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the McConnell securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Company, Wes Cummins, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Rench, the Company's then Chief Financial Officer, have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit in the matter styled, McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-1805, filed in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Securities Lawsuit"). Specifically, the complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies, including claims that the Company overstated the profitability of its Data Center Hosting Business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the Company's board of directors was not "independent" within the meaning of Nasdaq listing rules. On May 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel, and on July 22, 2024, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserts the same claims based on similar allegations in the original complaint. On September 20, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 19, 2024, lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On January 3, 2025, the defendants filed their reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss. On September 8, 2025, the Court issued an order staying the Securities Lawsuit and administratively closing it pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in the Securities Lawsuit Applied Digital Corporation is a developer and operator of digital infrastructures based in Texas. ARDENT HEALTH: Postiwala Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ DHRUV POSTIWALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARDENT HEALTH, INC.; MARTIN J. BONICK; and ALFRED LUMSDAINE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00022 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, during the Class Period, the Defendants publicly reported the Company's accounts receivable on a quarterly basis. They further stated that Ardent Health employed an active monitoring process to determine the collectability of its accounts receivable, and that this process included "detailed reviews of historical collections" as a "primary source of information." Defendants represented that Ardent Health considered "trends in federal and state governmental healthcare coverage" and that its "management determines [when an] account is uncollectible, at which time the account is written off." The price of Ardent Health stock fell $4.75 per share, or nearly 34%, from $14.05 per share on November 12, 2025, to close at $9.30 per share on November 13, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit, says the suit. Ardent Health, Inc. provides healthcare services. The Hospital offers internal medicine, nursing, general surgery, cardiology, oncology, orthopedics, neurology, urology, emergency treatment, ambulatory care, and women's health services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wade B. Cowan, Esq. WADE B. COWAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 50617 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 390-6652 Email: wcowan@dhhrplc.com - and - Javier Bleichmar, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 Email: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com - and - Ross Shikowitz, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 75 Virginia Road White Plains, NY 10603 Telephone: (914) 265-2991 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 Email: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com - and - Adam C. McCall, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 Email: amccall@bfalaw.com ARTEMIS HEALTHCARE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Sisco Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TONYA SISCO and HANS ELLEFSON, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARTEMIS HEALTHCARE, INC., and ARIANA SCIENCES, LLC d/b/a EASTERN CAROLINA PATHOLOGY INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00026 (M.D. Tenn., January 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as part of their business practices and to provide services, Defendants collect, store, and maintain patients' PII and PHI, including Plaintiffs' and Class Members'. On December 23, 2025, Artemis reported to the Attorney General of Vermont that it had experienced a data breach in which sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information in its care may have been compromised. Through its investigation, Artemis confirmed that between May 5, 2025, and May 31, 2025, sensitive personal information in its systems was accessed by an unauthorized third party during the Breach. According to the complaint, Crypto24, a ransomware group, took responsibility for this Data Breach and posted the stolen information on the Dark Web. The type of information potentially exposed includes: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, medical information, and insurance information (collectively, "Private Information"). The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, diminution of the value of their Private Information, and loss of privacy. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiffs Tonya Sisco and Hans Ellefson are residents of Wilson, North Carolina who are victims of the Data Breach. Defendant Artemis Healthcare, Inc. is a benefits data company that collects a wide variety of information from its clients across the country, including healthcare providers and laboratory groups. Defendant Ariana Sciences, LLC is a laboratory group with offices located throughout Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jjh@federmanlaw.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appointing Lynch Carpenter, LLP and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs readily satisfy each requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Thousands of consumers in California, New York, and Illinois purchased Ashlynn's Krave kratom products under the same uniform labeling and omissions. The proposed class representatives experienced the same deception and harm as every class member, and their counsel are experienced, well-resourced, and conflict-free. Finally, under Rule 23(b)(3), these shared issues of deception, materiality, and uniform course of conduct overwhelmingly predominate, and class treatment is far superior to the inefficiency of thousands of individual lawsuits. This is a paradigmatic consumer-deception case involving uniform conduct, modest per-person damages, and no realistic alternative to classwide adjudication. Where "recovery on an individual basis would be dwarfed by the cost of litigating on an individual basis," superiority is satisfied. Ashlynn is a kratom manufacturer and distributor. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tuZp4c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER PC 475 14th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com ASPIRUS INC: Parties Must File Another Status Report ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Team Schierl Companies et al v. Aspirus, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00580 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order as follows: The court agrees that that is the most efficient way to proceed, so that motion is granted the case is stayed. The stay renders the current schedule untenable, so the trial date and all other deadlines are struck. The parties should file another status report within seven days of the Seventh Circuit's ruling on the petition for interlocutory appeal, at which point the court will decide how to proceed. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Aspirus is a non-profit, community-directed health system.[CC] ATTALA STEEL: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ATTALA STEEL INDUSTRIES, LLC, and MIDDLEGROUND MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No. 4:23-cv-00114-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge David A. Sanders entered an order granting final approval of settlement. 1. The Settlement Agreement is approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 2. The Court awards Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $158,333.33 and litigation costs of $11,984.17. 3. The Court approves the Service Award to Plaintiff, Betty Brown, in the amount of $5,000.00. 4. The Court approves ILYM Group's request for $4,939.00 for its work in administering the Settlement. 5. The Court finally certifies the Class for settlement purposes. The Court finds that, in light of the settlement reached by the parties, the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied in all respects, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. 6. The Court finally approves the designation of the Plaintiff Betty Brown as Class Representative and finally approves the appointment of Simpson, PLLC as Class Counsel. 7. All members of the Class who have not submitted a valid and timely Request for Exclusion as well as all Represented and Opt-In Individuals shall be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreements, the Final Judgment, and this Order. Attala is a manufacturer and distributor of specialty steel foundation components. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B17n9J at no extra charge.[CC] AU ENERGY LLC: Lynch Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AU Energy, LLC. The case is styled as Harrison Lynch, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AU Energy, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00065-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. AU Energy, LLC -- https://www.auenergy.net/ -- are a purveyor of clean stores and high quality fuels since 2010.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com BAKE ME A WISH: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAKE ME A WISH, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00063 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive e-commerce website, www.bakemeawish.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore to the essential products and services offered therein, constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite its national reach, sophisticated branding, and longstanding presence in the sports-nutrition market, Defendant has not implemented WCAG-compliant accessibility features across its website. Defendant's failure to adopt accessible design practices reflects a knowing disregard of established digital accessibility standards and denies blind and visually impaired consumers equal access to its goods and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its website becomes and remains fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Plaintiff is deeply invested in managing her nutritional and performance-recovery needs and relies on accessible product descriptions, ingredient lists, delivery information, and checkout functionality to complete purchases independently. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on www.bakemeawish.com, Plaintiff will continue to be unable to navigate, browse, and complete transactions on equal terms with sighted consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is permanently disabled due to Best Disease (Vitelliform Macular Dystrophy), a congenital and progressive retinal condition that causes severe central vision loss. The Defendant owns, operates, and controls the website www.bakemeawish.comf, which offers nationwide access to its nutritional products, including to residents of New York.[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 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com BARADA ASSOCIATES: Totton Files FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER TOTTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARADA ASSOCIATES INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00024-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 7, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia: (i) failing to contemporaneously notify Plaintiff and other consumers of Defendant's reporting of public record information to end users; and (ii) producing consumer reports regarding Plaintiff and other consumers that included adverse information prohibited by the federal law. The Plaintiff was the subject of a consumer report produced by Defendant for employment purposes. Barada Associates Inc., a consumer reporting agency, as defined by the FCRA, is engaged in the business of producing consumer reports for employment purposes and can be served through its registered agent, William C. Barada, in Rushville, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com BED BATH: Continues to Defend Miles Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8 2026, that The Brand House Collective, Inc., the Company it purchased, continues to defend itself from the Miles class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. TBHC was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The case was removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly of TBHC's employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. TBHC denies the material allegations in the complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with California law. On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff’s petition for permission to appeal. The appeal was argued before the Ninth Circuit on November 13, 2023, and on January 8, 2024, the Court issued its opinion affirming the District Court in part and reversing in part. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of certification as to the subclasses related to the security bag check and reversed as to the rest break claim. The Ninth Circuit did not find that there is liability nor that the rest break claim is certified. On February 28, 2025, the District Court dismissed this case in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 2, 2025, a complaint was refiled in this matter in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. TBHC filed its answer in June 2025, and continues to believe the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Bed Bath was an American big-box retail chain specializing in housewares, furniture, and specialty items. BED BATH: Continues to Defend Sicard Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8 2026, that The Brand House Collective, Inc., the Company it purchased, continues to defend itself from the Sicard class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. TBHC was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in August 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly store employees based in New York, that TBHC violated New York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages on a bi-weekly basis. Plaintiff claims the putative class is entitled to recover from TBHC the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. TBHC believes the case is without merit and is vigorously defending itself against the allegations. Bed Bath was an American big-box retail chain specializing in housewares, furniture, and specialty items. BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAASIL KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06271-RFL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting stipulation and setting the following case schedule through class certification: Case Event Deadline Close of Class Certification Discovery: March 20, 2026 Motion for Class Certification April 3, 2026 Plaintiff's Disclosure of Experts and Expert Reports: Class Certification Opposition, and May 15, 2026 Defendant's Disclosure of Experts and Expert Reports: Class Certification Reply and Plaintiff's June 12, 2026 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Class Certification Hearing: July 7, 2026 Brooklyn is an American made manufacturer of mattresses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hzIn2b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, 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: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Harrison Brown, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Victor Sandoval, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com harrison.brown@blankrome.com erica.graves@blankrome.com Victor.sandoval@blankrome.com BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Phillips Due March 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC and NIGHT US LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order setting the following case schedule through class certification: Case Event Deadline Fact Discovery Cutoff: March 13, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: March 30, 2026 Opposition(s) to Class Certification: May 25, 2026 Class Certification Reply: June 15, 2026 Class Certification Hearing: July 14, 2026 Brooklyn is an American made manufacturer of mattresses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZEXp5t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Harrison Brown, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Victor Sandoval, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com harrison.brown@blankrome.com erica.graves@blankrome.com Victor.sandoval@blankrome.com - and - Christine Reilly, Esq. Justin Jones Rodriguez, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 BUPA AGED CARE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Egan, writing for The Weekly Source, reports that a Federal Court Judge has dismissed Bupa Aged Care's application to have the class action against it struck out. In April 2025, Echo Law launched a class action in the Federal Court, alleging that between July 1, 2019 and September 25, 2025, Bupa Aged Care failed to provide staffing levels that would meet minimum acceptable standards in each of its aged care homes. It alleges Bupa Aged Care: -- breached its contractual obligations to residents; and -- breached consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), by failing to provide services that are fit for purpose and delivered with due care and skill. In June, Bupa sought to have the class action struck out, arguing the case was "incoherent". In December, Judge Catherine Button dismissed the aged care provider's case. Though acknowledging Echo Law's claim is "unusual", she said the case "ought to be determined at trial". "I am not satisfied that the Applicants' case is incoherent and fatally flawed as Bupa contended," she said. The matter will return to court on May 8, 2026. In a separate case, the Federal Court ordered Bupa Aged Care Australia to pay $6 million in penalties in May 2020 for making misleading representations and wrongly accepting payments for extra services not provided or only provided in part to residents at 20 aged care homes. The Court also ordered Bupa to compensate all affected residents within 12 months with payments totalling around $18.3 million. Bupa Aged Care owns and operates 57 residential aged care homes. [GN] CANTATA HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Info, Dememt Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN DEMEMT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANTATA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00044 (W.D. Tex., January 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint relates that CHS collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) CHS's patients and employees. The Plaintiffs and Class Members entrusted Defendant with their private and sensitive personal information based on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against unauthorized disclosure. According to Defendant, on August 21, 2025, it identified unusual activity in its system. A subsequent investigation confirmed that an unauthorized third party had gained access to Defendant's systems and extracted certain private and sensitive information of Defendant's current and former patients and employees (the "Data Breach"). The information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"), as well as health information associated with health information and/or insurance plan coverage ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information"). As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out-of-pocket costs, e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the suit. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach, and asserts that they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff Brian Dememt is a former patient of Samaritan Daytop Village, who used Defendant's services to operate its business. Defendant Cantata Health Solutions, LLC is a corporation that specializes in assisting behavioral health and human service providers with electronic health records technologies and other back end administrative technologies.[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 - Andrew Snyder, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: andrew@emeryreddy.com anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 North PCH Blvd., Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com CARPENTERS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON: Classes Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson et al., v. Carpenters of Western Washington Board of Trustees et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01079-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order granting the Parties' Stipulation Regarding Class Certification. 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 Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WT51Ox 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 CAVALRY SPV: Class Settlement Deal in Griffin Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS GRIFFIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, and APOTHAKER SCIAN P.C., JOHN DOES 1-25 and ABC CORP. 1-50, Case No. 2:23-cv-16755-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement: The motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement is granted, and the Parties are ordered to comply with the schedule as set forth in this Order and to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the following Settlement Class is certified: "All New Jersey residents to whom Apothaker Scian P.C., on behalf of Cavalry SPV I, LLC, at any time between Jan. 28, 2022 through Jan. 30, 2023, sent a letter in an attempt to collect a debt where the current creditor was Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and where said collection letter sought to collect "other Charges" which were in excess of the amount that Cavalry and Apothaker were entitled to collect." 3. The Court appoints Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. as Class Counsel. 4. A Fairness hearing shall be heard at 10:00 a.m. on May 28, 2026. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his putative class action suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County alleging that the Defendants committed violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendants subsequently removed the State Court Action to this Federal Court. Cavalry is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Y9Zjs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh , Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE C HERSH 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Carpenter Sues For Deceptive Product Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE CARPENTER, JAQUAY DAVIS, REBEKAH MYATT HAMMONDS, AMBER RUST, and NANCI SELK, Plaintiffs, v. CELESTIAL SEASONINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00086-KAS (D. Colo., January 8, 2026), arises from Defendant's misleading, and/or intentional misrepresentation of the nature of the ingredients in its herbal teas. On the front label of each of the teas, Defendant states that the tea is "Naturally Flavored with Other Natural Flavors." The packaging also states that Defendant blends its “teas from the finest ingredients, with no artificial flavors or colors." However, these representations are false because the teas contain citric acid, synthetically produced and not from natural sources, as a flavor. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and assert claims for violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act. Headquartered in Boulder, CO, Celestial Seasonings, Inc. manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells a number of drinking teas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. Andrew D. Yoder, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com kae@wbe-llp.com ay@wbe-llp.com - and - Mark R. Miller, Esq. Julia Ozello, Esq. Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 200 West Madison Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261 6193 Facsimile: (312) 275 8174 E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com jo@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com CENTERS LAB NJ: Snyder Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------ Theodore Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTERS LAB NJ LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00086 (D.N.J., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought arising from 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 on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On August 14, 2025, Defendant was the victim of a Data Breach The cybercriminal group "WorldLeaks" claimed responsibility for the Data Breach and on October 6, 2025, added a listing for Defendant to its leak site. The Private Information compromised included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical and health insurance information. To date, Defendant has yet to provide any notice to impacted patients about the Data Breach. 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. The Defendant failed to properly monitor and implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had Defendant properly monitored its IT Network, it would have discovered the Breach sooner, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information. The Defendant is a New Jersey-based diagnostic lab serving healthcare providers (nursing homes, physicians) with fast, integrated testing (microbiology, STAT, general) using advanced tech and mobile units, focusing on seamless EMR integration, 24/7 results, and dedicated support for improved patient care in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 CHARTER NEXT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Howell Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY HOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER NEXT GENERATION, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00215 (N.D. Ill., January 8, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's hourly employees earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. However, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Charter Next Generation, Inc. produces specialty films and sustainable material science solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com CHW GROUP: Faces Clewett Suit Over TCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------- CHERYLL CLEWETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHW GROUP, INC. d/b/a CHOICE HOME WARRANTY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00186 (D.N.J., January 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making unsolicited telemarketing calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint relates that Ms. Clewett is the sole and customary user of a cellular telephone number (XXX)-XXX-6727 which is used for residential purposes and is not associated with a business. She personally placed her cellular telephone number (XXX)-XXX-6727 on the National Do-Not-Call Registry because she did not want unsolicited telemarketing calls. According to the complaint, CHW used systems to make outbound telephonic sales calls to hundreds if not thousands of consumers across the U.S., including to consumers whose phone numbers are listed on the National Do-Not Call Registry. CHW made two or more telephone solicitations to Ms. Clewett, whose number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the telephone calls. The complaint alleges that Ms. Clewett and the classes were damaged by these violations. Their privacy was improperly invaded, the CHW's calls temporarily seized and trespassed upon the use of their phones, and/or they were forced to divert attention away from other activities to address the unwanted telephone calls. CHW's telephone calls were annoying and a nuisance, and wasted the time of Ms. Clewett and the class members. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable cost of prosecuting the action, including court costs and investigation costs, deposition expenses, witness fees, and attorney's fees, says the suit. Plaintiff Cheryll Clewett was a purchaser from Hockley, Texas. Defendant CHW Group, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, is a seller headquartered at 2147 NJ-27, 4th Floor, Edison, New Jersey 08817.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com CITIBANK NA: Letidas Seeks to Certify Rule 23 class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETIDAS LOGISTICS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITIBANK, N.A., and ROYAL BENGAL LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61469-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as follows: "All (i) persons or entities in the United States, including all States, territories, protectorates, and federal districts (ii) who entered into an agreement with RBL of the same form or substantially similar form as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the First Amended Class Action Complaint (iii) whose investment was deposited into the Citi Account (iv) during the Relevant Period." The "Relevant Period" is defined as Feb. 3, 2022, through June 27, 2022. The Plaintiff also moves to be appointed representative of the Class and for the appointment of Shaw Lewenz as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Class is ascertainable, as well as the satisfaction of the elements of Rule 23(a) and b(3). The class action mechanism is not only the best and most efficient way to adjudicate the Class Members' claims, but it is also the only viable method of doing so. The action arises out of a massive fraud scheme orchestrated by Nominal Defendant Royal Bengal Logistics, Inc. ("RBL") and aided and abetted by Defendant Citibank, N.A. Specifically, the operative Complaint alleges that RBL operated a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme and that Citi maintained the account that RBL used to facilitate the scheme. Citibank is the primary U.S. banking arm of Citigroup. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TArCRE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Zachary D. Ludens, Esq. Lauren N. Palen, Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 361-3633 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@shawlewenz.com zludens@shawlewenz.com lpalen@shawlewenz.com CITIEA REALTY: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citiea Realty Group LLC. The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citiea Realty Group LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00076-DJH (D. Ariz., Jan. 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CITIEA -- https://citiea.com/ -- is comprised of premier Scottsdale, Arizona real estate agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq. ILUMI LAW 3019 Duportail St., #322 Richland, WA 99352 Phone: (509) 780-6959 Email: nb@ilumilaw.com - and - Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CITIZENS AND NORTHERN BANK: "Goldosvky" Bid to Certify Junked ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ALEX GOLDOVSKY, GLYNN FRECHETTE, JOHN KRUPEY and KRISTIN SCHARF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Citizens & Northern Bank, Case no. 4:25-CV-00923 Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Pennsylvania Middle District Court granted the defendants' order to dismiss and also dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Citizens & Northern Bank with Prejudice. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class was also dismissed as moot. A copy of the Decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AnjpXo from PacerMonitor.com COHEN FASHION: Court Consolidates Class Suits --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDY SCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COHEN FASHION OPTICAL, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06071-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Wicks entered an order granting unopposed motion to Consolidate Cases and Appoint Interim Class Counsel. A class action has been brought seeking damages and injunctive relief for Defendant's alleged failure to safeguard personally identifiable information of its former and current customers stemming from a cyberattack. Because of this data breach, four other cases were commenced and for purposes of judicial economy, all five Plaintiffs and Defendant seek consolidation to deem the instant action as the lead case. In addition, an application to appoint interim class counsel is before the Court, which Defendant takes no position on. 1. The following cases are consolidated: A. Scher v. Cohen Fashion Optical, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06071-JMW (filed on October 30, 2025) B. Augenblick v. Cohen Fashion Optical, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06086-OEM-ARL (filed on October 30, 2025) C. Hall v. Cohen Fashion Optical, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06147-LGD (filed on November 4, 2025) D. Aiello v. Cohen Fashion Optical, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06209-SJB-SIL (filed on November 6, 2025) E. Sanchez v. Cohen Fashion Optical, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06261-SIL (filed on November 10, 2025) (collectively, the “Related Actions”) under the new title: "In Re: Cohen Fashion Optical Data Incident Litigation" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) (the "Consolidated Action"). 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close the Augenblick, Hall, Aiello, and Sanchez actions. The Clerk of Court is further directed to transfer all documents already docketed in the Related Actions into the Consolidated Action. 3. All papers filed in the Consolidated Action shall be filed under the lead case number 2:25-cv-06071-JMW. 4. The case file for the Consolidated Action will be maintained under Master File No. 2:25-cv-06071-JMW. 6. The Court appoints Gaiy Klinger of Milberg, PLLC and Adam M. HaITis of Israel David LLC as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members in the Consolidated Action. Both consolidation and appointment of interim counsel are appropriate in this case and the accompanying four actions. There are overlapping issues, which when consolidated will avoid different or inconsistent outcomes in what may be a long and complex data breach class action, as further discussed below. Moreover, since the applications made before the Court seek non-dispositive relief, the Court proceeds by Order rather than Report and Recommendation. Cohen is an optical retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b7HGfu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Harris, Esq. Mark A. Cianci, Esq. Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Courtney Maccarone, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 COLE WALKER: Order Setting Scheduling Conference Entered -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMELESS PRODUCTION FZ LLC , v. COLE WALKER, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07689-FLA-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Aenlle-Rocha entered an order setting scheduling conference. The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the Scheduling Conference. The court may vacate the Scheduling Conference and issue the Scheduling Order based solely on the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). If the court elects to conduct a scheduling conference, lead trial counsel must attend unless excused by the court for good cause before the conference Plaintiff's counsel or, if Plaintiff is appearing pro se, Defendant’s counsel, shall provide this Order to any parties who first appear after the date of this Order and to parties who are known to exist but have not yet entered appearances. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bPe4n2 at no extra charge.[CC] CONSERVICE LLC: Seeks to Strike Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA JOLICOEUR-LOUIS, an individual, and SOPHIE PHILIPS, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONSERVICE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03253-HDV-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Feb. 26, 2026, will move the Court for an order striking the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs motion to certify class is late and should be stricken. The Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Central District's Local Rules caused their first, defective Motion to Certify Class to be stricken by the Court. The Plaintiffs' second, late Motion to Certify Class was not filed until after their deadline on Dec. 24, 2025. The Plaintiffs did so without obtaining a stipulation from Defendant Conservice, LLC consenting to the filing of their untimely Motion to Certify Class or an order from the Court allowing the filing of their untimely Motion to Certify Class. Accordingly, the Court should grant this Motion and strike Plaintiff's second, late Motion to Certify Class on this basis alone. Conservice provides utility management and billing solutions to property owners and managers. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=po2rSu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey M. Singletary, Esq. Colin R. Higgins, Esq. Alexis N. Flores, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 Telephone: (714) 427-7000 Facsimile: (714) 427-7799 E-mail: jsingletary@swlaw.com chiggins@swlaw.com aflores@swlaw.com CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Continues to Defend Meza Class Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending November 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Meza class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. On February 18, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York captioned Meza v. Constellation Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-6107 (W.D.N.Y.). The complaint names as defendants the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from allegedly materially false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning, among other things, the Company's strategies intended to improve the performance of its wine and spirits business. On July 17, 2025, an amended complaint was filed in the Meza litigation. The amended complaint asserts the same causes of action against the same defendants, but alleges materially false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning, among other things, the prospects of its beer business. The amended complaint does not allege misstatements or omissions regarding its wine and spirits business. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, alleged damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and costs. On September 17, 2025, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of December 12, 2025 and remains pending. Constellation together with its subsidiaries, produces, imports, markets, and sells beer, wine, and spirits in the United States, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and Italy.[BN] COOPER INTERCONNECT: Class Settlement in Ott Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALETTE OTT and LOIRA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COOPER INTERCONNECT, INC., a corporation; EATON CORPORATION, a corporation; POWER DISTRIBUTION INC., a corporation; JOSLYN SUNBANK COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company; SURE POWER, INC., a corporation; EATON AEROSPACE LLC, a limited liability company; COOPER BUSSMAN, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04501-SPG-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. Specifically, the Court entered an order as follows: 1. Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and approves settlement of the action between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants; 2. Certifying the Settlement Class, as described in Section I.C.1, for settlement purposes only; 3. Appointing the Plaintiffs Ott and Sanchez as Class Representatives and grants a reduced class representative award of $5,000 to each of the Class Representatives; 4. Appointing Attorneys Tyler Woods and Alan Wilcox of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC as Class Counsel and GRANTS an award of $875,000 in attorney's fees and $39,256.46 in costs; and 5. Appointing CPT Group, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator and granting an award of $18,000.00 in settlement administration expenses. No later than fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this Order, the Plaintiffs' Counsel shall submit to the Court a proposed judgment consistent with this Order. All the criteria for class certification remain satisfied, notwithstanding this slight change. Therefore, the Court confirms its March 13 and June 23, 2025, orders certifying the Settlement Class. This is a putative wage-and-hour class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the course of their employment, the Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to provide required meal and rest periods, failed to timely pay all final wages upon termination, failed to furnish accurate wage statements, and failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for required expenses. Cooper is a manufacturer of connector and cable assembly products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uy616x at no extra charge.[CC] CORSAIR GAMING: Settlement in McKinney Gets Final OK ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, CLINT SUNDEEN, and JOSEPH ALCANTARA, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00312-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order granting final approval of the Settlement and granting Class Counsel's request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards. The Court orders and makes the following findings and determinations: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All individuals in the United States who purchased one or more Products from Jan. 14, 2018, to July 2, 2025." "Products" is defined as "any Corsair DDR-4 (non-SODIMM/laptop) memory product with a rated speed over 2133 megahertz (MHz) or any Corsair DDR-5 (non SODIMM/laptop) memory product with a rated speed over 4800 megahertz." 2. The Settlement requires that Corsair make certain changes to its representations related to product speed in its labeling and advertising, and it also creates a $5,500,000 non reversionary common fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court grants the requested award of $1,375,000 in fees and $285,703.02 in costs. The requested fee award is in line with the 25% benchmark for common fund cases in this Circuit. 4. The Court also grants the Class Representatives' request for $5,000 incentive awards each. Corsair is a developer and manufacturer of high-performance gear and technology for gamers, content creators, and PC enthusiasts. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B5INo6 at no extra charge.[CC] COVENANT HEALTH: Wickett Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wickett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COVENANT HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-10044 (D. Mass., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' highly confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. According to Covenant, on or around May 18, 2025, an unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's network and computer systems and obtained unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and PHI (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). On July 11 2025, Defendant sent notice of data breach letters ("Notice Letters") to a small subset of the Data Breach victims, notifying them that their 6 highly sensitive Private Information was subject to unauthorized access during the Breach. On December 31, 2025, Covenant sent an additional round of Notice Letters to victims of the Data Breach. The Defendant had and continues to have numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and the Class, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant, however, breached its numerous duties and obligations by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards; failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly train its employees on data security measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties accessing its system and that substantial amounts of data had been compromised; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons, whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and remains at risk due to inadequate data security practices employed by Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant. Covenant is a is a family of Catholic health care organizations based throughout New England and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612)-336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com CRYSTAL WINDOW: Faces Punarjit Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PUNARJIT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRYSTAL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00105 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy or practice of paying its window manufacturing teams a non-discretionary bonus based on specific, predefined criteria. However, the Defendant systematically failed to include said bonus when calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes for its window manufacturing teams. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with accurate wage statements with each payment of wages, says the suit. Headquartered in New York City, Crystal Window & Door Systems, Ltd. manufactures vinyl and aluminum windows for residential and commercial use. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. 220 9th Street, Suite 2049 Jersey City, NJ 07302 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com CURRENEX INC: Seeks OK of Class Cert. Opposition Briefs ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al., v. Currenex, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed request to file two class certification opposition briefs not to exceed 50 pages in the aggregate. Specifically, the Defendants request leave to file a consolidated brief in opposition to the motion for class certification, as well as a short supplemental brief on behalf of Defendant Goldman Sachs, with the two briefs not to exceed 50 pages in total. The Defendants believe that a consolidated brief and single supplement will allow for a more streamlined and efficient presentation of the arguments than each of the five defendants submitting separate briefs of up to 35 pages, as currently permitted by Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice. The Court previously permitted Plaintiffs to file a consolidated class certification opening brief of 40 pages. The parties have met and conferred, and Plaintiffs stated that they take no position on the request. We ask the Court to grant the requested page-limit expansion. Currenex provides an independent global currency exchange to institutional buyers and sellers around the world. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IJyhxb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregg L. Weiner, Esq. Alexander B. Simkin, Esq. Robert G. Jones, Esq. Samer Musallam, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 121 1 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (2 12) 596-5000 Facsimile: (212) 596-9090 E-mail: gregg.weiner@ropesgray.com alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com robert.jones@ropesgray.com samer.musallam@ropesgray.com - and - Peter G. Wilson, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 W Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5200 E-mail: peter.wilson@katten.com - and - Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Esq. Rishi N. Zutshi, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com rzutshi@cgsh.com DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcus F., Garrett M., a minor, by his next friend Jared Trujillo, Isaac R., a minor, by his next friend Ms. Y., and Christopher M., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated youth, v. DaMia Harris-Madden, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, and Norman Hall, in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner, Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth, Case No. 1:26-cv-00148-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class action on behalf of the following class and subclass: a. Class: "All youth who are or who will be held in New York State Office of Children and Family Services ("OCFS") secure placement facilities." b. Subclass: "All youth who are or who will be held in OCFS secure placement facilities with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")." 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs Marcus F., Garrett M., Isaac. R, and Christopher M. to serve as Class Representatives of the class and subclass; and 3. Appointing The Legal Aid Society and Jenner & Block LLP to serve as Joint Class Counsel for Plaintiffs. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TvtNZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Freeman, Esq. Kathryn Wood, Esq. Emma-Lee Clinger, Esq. Antony Gemmell, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 40 Worth Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 577-3300 E-mail: lafreeman@legal-aid.org kwood@legal-aid.org eclinger@legal-aid.org agemmell@legal-aid.org - and - Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq. Damian Williams, Esq. Jacob D. Alderdice, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 891-1600 E-mail: JCreelan@jenner.com DWilliams@jenner.com JAlderdice@jenner.com DECISION SCIENCE: Murry Sues Over Unlawfully Obtained Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- William Murry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DECISION SCIENCE LLC and LENDWYSE LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00023 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") for statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs as a result of the Defendants willful violation the FCRA by knowingly, or recklessly, requesting and obtaining Plaintiff's consumer report, and those of the Class, without a permissible purpose. The three national consumer reporting agencies – Equifax, Trans Union, and Experian ("CRAs") – all maintain credit files and issue consumer reports concerning Plaintiff. The information contained in Plaintiff's credit files and consumer reports is private. The Defendants, acting alone of in concert, requested and obtained Plaintiff's consumer report, and, upon information and belief, the consumer reports of other consumers similarly situated, from one or more of the CRAs, including Experian Information Solutions, Inc., without a permissible purpose under the FCRA (the "Impermissible Inquiry" or "Impermissible Inquiries"). The Defendants request and obtain such consumer reports for the purposes of identifying potential targets to market debt relief services directly or through their affiliated companies. As a result of Defendants' wrongful access to Plaintiff's consumer report, and those of the Class, as described herein, Plaintiff, and the Class, have suffered an invasion of privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "consumer." Decision Science, LLC was a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in South Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Miltenberger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel Blvd., Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 416-5060 Fax: (817) 416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 6501 Park of Commerce Blvd., Suite 253 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: 754-778-9660 Email: seth@lehrmanlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: 404.855.3600 Fax: 404.301.2300 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com DEXCOM INC: Dickinson et al. Sue Over Glucose Monitors' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Dickinson et al., Plaintiffs v. Dexcom, Inc. and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00102-LL-MMP (S.D. Cal., January 8, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' manufacture, marketing and sale of Dexcom G6 and G7 continuous glucose monitors. According to the complaint, the Defendants marketed and advertised to the public as being effective in monitoring consumers' blood glucose levels and warning consumers if their glucose levels were too low or too high. Defendants represented to consumers that the Products used scientifically proven Food and Drug Administration cleared technology to effectively and accurately measure these levels and provide continuous monitoring of their blood glucose levels. However, these representations were false, deceptive and inaccurate. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' actions violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, breached express warranties made by Defendant Dexcom, Inc., breached implied contractual warranties imposed by law, and Defendants further violated numerous state consumer protection statutes and common laws. Headquartered in San Diego, CA, Dexcom, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells glucose monitoring devices. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Behram V. Parekh, Esq. J. Conor Kennedy, Esq. WISNER BAUM LLP 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 E-mail: bparekh@wisnerbaum.com ckennedy@wisnerbaum.com DICK'S SPORTING: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as TONY RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Consolidated Case Nos. 25CV124393 and 25CV134073, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the United States Court for the Northern District of California on January 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00260-LJC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's putative class action arises from allegations that Defendant failed to comply with California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The class complaint defines the putative class as: "All current and former hourly-paid and/or nonexempt employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California at any period during the period from four years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint through final judgment." Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American chain of sporting goods stores.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Amanda E. Beckwith, Esq. Tatum Novitzky, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com tnovitzky@sheppardmullin.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hopkins's Amended Bid to Intervene OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an order granting Vincent Hopkins's Amended Motion to Intervene. The Court first analyzes whether Mr. Hopkins's amended motion to intervene satisfies Rule 24(b)(1) and (c)'s prerequisites, and then whether intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice the original parties. Mr. Hopkins's amended motion to intervene and proposed pleading meets the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction, timeliness, and a common question of law or fact. And allowing Mr. Hopkins to assert his individual claims for damages should not unduly delay proceedings in this case, especially where discovery is still ongoing. Accordingly, the Court grants Mr. Hopkins's motion to intervene to pursue individual damages. At this time, the period for fact discovery has not yet closed, and the Court sees no reason why discovery on one additional individual's damages would cause a meaningful further delay. If Mr. Hopkins were to seek discovery that may unreasonably delay proceedings, the Court could address the dispute at that time. The Plaintiffs, a certified class of current and former D.C. Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") officers, bring this action against Defendants, the District of Columbia and Jeffery W. Carroll, in his official capacity as the MPD Chief of Police. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504") by implementing a disability retirement policy without providing reasonable accommodations. District of Columbia is the federal district that serves as the capital of the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3vZnv at no extra charge.[CC] DNC TRAVEL: Mendoza Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYDEE MENDOZA and JAMAI SIMMONS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DNC TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SVCS, an entity of unknown form; DELAWARE NORTH, an entity of unknown form; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-11233-WLH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 6, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move the Court as follows: 1. granting certification of the following class and subclasses: The Class "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from Nov. 20, 2023, up to the deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later date, by which class members may opt-out after being provided notice of certification (the "Class Period") to whom the Defendant issued at least one wage statement that included compensation for non-work time in the same pay period as actual work time." Break Premium Wage Statement Subclass "All members of the Class who worked for the Defendant within the State of California on or after Nov. 20, 2023, who received a wage statement from the Defendant with the pay code "Break Premium." Guaranteed Hours Paid Wage Statement Subclass "All members of the Class who worked for the Defendant within the State of California on or after Nov. 20, 2023, who received a wage statement from Defendant with the pay code "Guaranteed Hours Paid."" 2. Appointing Plaintiff Jemai Simmons as the class representative; 3. Appointing Roman Shkodnik and Mason Doidge of D. Law Inc., as class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and 4. Requiring Delaware North Companies Travel Hospitality Services, Inc. to provide to the Plaintiff a list of all class members, including their names, social security numbers, last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last known addresses for class notice purposes, within 30 days following this Court's order ranting class certification. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requests that the Court exercise its broad discretion and certify narrower or broader classes that the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff Jemai Simmons was employed by the Defendant from Nov. 6, 2023, to July 19, 2024, as an hourly-paid cocktail server at Los Angeles International Airport. DNC is a hospitality services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iabq9G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Mason Doidge, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: r.shkodnik@d.law m.doidge@d.law DR. TUNG'S: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DR. TUNG'S PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00093 (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://drtungs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on November 24, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Smart Floss(R) from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. 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. Dr. Tung's Products, Incorporated operates the website that offers oral care products.[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: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal DRILL CUTTINGS: Provence Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PROVENCE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DRILL CUTTINGS DISPOSAL COMPANY, LLC, and THE REDDOCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00078 (W.D. La., January 9, 2026) seeks unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Defendants did not and do not pay Plaintiff and other day rate employees overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, including hours spent attending pre-shift safety meetings and traveling away from their home communities during normal working hours to remote jobsites in which an overnight stay was required. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to perform manual, non-exempt tasks associated with their business. Drill Cuttings Disposal Company, LLC is a drill cutting disposal company servicing the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 - and - Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town & Country Blvd., Suite 500 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 E-mail: trang@tranlf.com EAST SIDE: Scheduling Order Remain in Effect in M.C. Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.C. v. East Side Health District et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01336 (S.D. Ill., Filed May 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order regarding case deadlines. As a putative class action, the case is reassigned to Track D. The Court will set the presumptive trial month and final pretrial conference once the issue of class certification has been decided. All deadlines in the Order adopting the parties' joint report and proposed scheduling order remain in effect. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. East Side provides a variety of health services.[CC] ECKERD YOUTH: Collins Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECKERD YOUTH ALTERNATIVES INC. d/b/a ECKERD CONNECTS, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00064 (M.D. Fla., January 9, 2026) arises 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. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI", or collectively with PII "Private Information") that were impacted in a data breach experienced by the Defendant between November 3, 2024, and November 11, 2024. The following types of sensitive personal and protected health information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: first and last names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or other state identification numbers, tax identification numbers, and medical information. On December 17, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of Data Breach with the Attorney General of Maine and began sending individualized notice letters to impacted individuals. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Christina Collins is a citizen of Port Richey, Florida. Defendant Eckerd Youth Alternatives Inc is a nonprofit organization that provides youth and family services, including behavioural health, foster care, workforce development, and other social support services across multiple states. Defendant is headquartered in Clearwater, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ECONOMY PREFERRED: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 2, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY MILLER, v. ECONOMY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05518-GJL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Grady Leupold entered an order scheduling discovery and briefing dates regarding class certification motion. Deadline for the Plaintiff to serve expert Sept. 18, 2026 reports on class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to serve expert Dec. 15, 2026 reports on class certification: Completion date for class-related expert Feb. 26, 2027 discovery, including depositions: The Plaintiff's class certification motion Apr. 2, 2027 and all Daubert motions due: The Defendants' response to class certification May 14, 2027 motion and responses to Daubert motions: The Plaintiff's Reply on class certification June 11, 2027 motion and replies to Daubert motions: The Defendant is an active property & casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qEqxNn at no extra charge.[CC] EMPIRE WEST: Misclassifies Property Managers, Zoltzman Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ERICK ZOLTZMAN, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE WEST GROUP, LLC and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV00492 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 7, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages when employment ends; failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; retaliation; wrongful termination; and engagement in unfair business practices. The Plaintiff started working for Empire West approximately around September 2024. He was misclassified as a salaried, exempt employee and worked as a Property Manager. The Plaintiff's employment ended on May 8, 2025. Empire West Group, LLC is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 101 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1450 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com ENCORE BEACH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuentes Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NICOLAS FUENTES, on behalf of himself and all Other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE BEACH RSN INC. and RICHARD GERTZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00101 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from in or about June 2017, until November 2025. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked six days per week and more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours that he worked after of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, the Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff an additional hour's pay for each day that Plaintiff's spread-of-hours exceeded 10 hours, says the suit. Encore Beach RSN Inc. operates a restaurant located in Suffolk County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 ENERGY PLUS: Siguencia Labor Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled LUIS SIGUENCIA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY PLUS NY INC. d/b/a ENERGY PLUS NY, and ENERGY PLUS USA LLC d/b/a ENERGY PLUS NY, and MOSHE LEFKOWITZ, individually, and HERSHE LEFKOWITZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 545186/2025, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00108 to the proceeding. The case arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Energy Plus NY Inc. operates as an insulation contractor in New York. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam I. Kleinberg, Esq. GUERCIO & GUERCIO LLP 77 Conklin Street Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (516) 694-3000 E-mail: akleinberg@guerciolaw.com EPIC HOLIDAY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moya Due May 22 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR MOYA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. EPIC HOLIDAY, LLC; MARK MCKEE, Case No. 4:25-cv-00872-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Ketchmark entered a scheduling and trial order: Pursuant to Rules 16(b) and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and upon consideration of the parties' views in the matter, the following schedule is established: Joinder of Parties : May 22, 2026 Amendment of Pleadings: May 22, 2026 Discovery Dispute Motions: April 3, 2026 Completion of Class Discovery: April 17, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: May 22, 2026 Completion of Fact Discovery: April 19, 2026 Epic is a company known for organizing holiday-themed events. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9x19S4 at no extra charge.[CC] EWC & ASSOCIATES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. EWC & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv- 141 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website https://drgingers.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 Coconut Oil Toothpaste 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. 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 EWC & ASSOCIATES, LLC operates the Dr. Ginger's online retail store, as well as the Dr. Ginger's interactive Website that 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 EXTRACTION OIL: Underpays C&M on Gas and Oil Royalties, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- C&M RESOURCES, LLC, WINTER OIL, LLC, on behalf of themselves, and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. EXTRACTION OIL AND GAS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00108-PAB (D. Colo., January 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendant has underpaid royalties to Plaintiffs, and to all other similarly situated members of the Class and Sub Classes, on oil and natural gas, including natural gas liquids, produced and sold by Extraction from wells located in the State of Colorado. According to the complaint, Extraction has underpaid Plaintiffs and Class members on oil royalties since December 1, 2013, by making improper deductions for fees, costs, and/or penalties that are not authorized by the operative Royalty Agreements and/or paying on oil prices that are not authorized by the operative Royalty Agreements or Colorado law. Defendant Extraction has not reported its improper oil Royalty deductions and/or pricing scheme to Plaintiffs or the Class members but has instead reported oil prices on the Plaintiffs and the Class members' royalty statements that are substantially lower than the actual prices that were paid for oil produced from the same general area by other oil and gas operators in the Denver Julesburg Basin in Colorado, says the suit. C & M Resources, LLC is a Colorado limited liability and has been paid royalties on oil and natural gas produced by Extraction since December 1, 2013. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc., f/k/a Extraction Oil & Gas, LLC, operates as an energy company. The Company focuses on the acquisition, development, and production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquid reserves in the Rocky Mountains.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6253 Facsimile: (913) 563-6259 - and - Lance F. Astrella, Esq. ASTRELLA LAW P.C. 1200 Gregory Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (303) 292-9021 Facsimile: (303) 296-6347 FOUR POINTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mosby Due June 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mosby v. Four Points RV Resorts of IL LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03335 (C.D. Ill., Filed Oct. 28, 2025), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered an order setting the following deadlines: -- Initial disclosures due by Jan. 23, 2026 -- Amendment of pleadings by March 27, 2026 -- Additional parties joined by March 27, 2026 -- Motion for class certification due by June 1, 2026 -- Class certification discovery closed Oct. 10, 2026 -- Fact discovery closed Nov. 23, 2026 -- The Plaintiff discloses experts by Oct. 30. 2026 -- The Plaintiff discloses expert reports by Nov. 16, 2026 -- The Plaintiff's experts deposed by Dec. 21, 2026 -- The Defendants disclose experts by Jan. 15, 2027 -- The Defendants disclose expert reports by Jan. 20, 2027 -- Defendants' experts deposed by Feb. 26, 2027 -- All discovery completed by May 8, 2027 -- Case dispositive motions by April 5, 2027 -- Final Pretrial set by Aug. 2, 2027 -- Jury Trial set by Aug. 17, 2027 -- A telephonic Status Conference set by April 9, 2026 The nature of suit states Denial of Overtime Compensation. Four Points is a collection of premier camping destinations.[CC] GAINESVILLE INC: Hinkle Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY HAWK, v. EASTERN GROUP OF GAINESVILLE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00325-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert L. Hinkle entered an order extending the deadline to move for class certification. The deadline is extended to a date that will be set upon review of the parties' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) report. Eastern Group is a privately-held company that operates in the restaurants industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hCoKMV at no extra charge.[CC] GAINESVILLE INC: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY HAWK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. EASTERN GROUP OF GAINESVILLE, INC., d/b/a Yamato Japanese Restaurant 1, Case No. 1:25-cv-00325-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file Rule 23 motion for class certification. The Plaintiff has been mindful of the current deadline to file the Rule 23 Motion. However, in light of the procedural background to date and this Court's Order staying discovery, the filing of a Rule 23 Motion by Jan. 12, 2026, is premature. On Oct. 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his Class/Collective Action Complaint seeking unpaid minimum wages and related damages under the FLSA and Florida law. On Nov. 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to include claims for retaliation under the FLSA and Florida law. Eastern Group is a privately-held company that operates in the restaurants industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ipJbtO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: kimd@fortheopeople.com GEICO: Class Cert Discovery Closes March 9 ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CUDE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO., Case No. 3:25-cv-00475-N (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to modify class certification scheduling order. The Parties jointly request an extension of 28-days (4-weeks) in the remaining class certification deadlines. The parties request that the Court enter a new Class Certification Scheduling Order, as proposed below, allowing a brief 28-day extension of the current deadlines. The Parties thus request that the Court grant this motion and that the case schedule be altered as follows: The Plaintiffs designate rebuttal experts, Feb. 20, 2026 if any: Class certification discovery closes: March 9, 2026 The Defendant serves (but does not file) March 25, 2026 response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, including all supporting evidence and supporting brief: The Plaintiffs serve on the Defendants (but April 22, 2026 do not file) their reply to the Defendant's response, including rebuttal evidence, if any, and supporting brief: Submission Date: May 7, 2026 GEICO is an American auto insurer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mrHsXL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Austin P. Smith, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, Texas 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com austin@stecklerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: M. Brett Johnson, Esq. Ahtoosa Amini Dale, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 2121 N. Pearl St., 9th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 453-6500 E-mail: mbjohnson@winston.com adale@winston.com GIOVANNI COSMETICS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GIOVANNI COSMETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00092 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://giovannicosmetics.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. Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. sells salon-quality shampoo, conditioner & hair products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal GOOGLE LLC: Settles Children's Privacy Violation Suit for $8.25MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Smalley, writing for The Record, reports that Google has agreed to pay $8.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit centered on claims that it habitually and illegally collected data from devices belonging to children under age 13. The proposed settlement, which came to light Tuesday, January 13, follows a two-and-a-half year trial in a case brought by the parents of six minors who allegedly downloaded apps from Android's Play Store that were targeted at children. The parents alleged that Google's AdMob software development kit collected data from children at scale. The apps the children downloaded included games such as Fun Kid Racing and GummyBear and Friends Speed Racing and were part of a Google class of apps labeled "Designed for Families (DFF)." To be included in the DFF program, developers had to pledge to comply with the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which blocks them from knowingly collecting personal data from children 12 and younger unless a parent consents. The parents suing Google alleged that even after the tech giant banned the apps in question from the app store, its AdMob service collected data from the children's devices through 2021. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that Google knowingly flouted COPPA. According to the complaint, Google told the public that DFF apps complied with COPPA, but in reality, defendants were surreptitiously exfiltrating the personal information of the children under the age of 13" who were playing the games. A spokesperson for Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The proposed settlement surfaced on the same day that a different federal judge greenlit a $30 million settlement in a case involving allegations that Google's YouTube division illegally collected data from children. That class action lawsuit dates to 2019 and centered on claims that Google used the data collected from the YouTube viewers -- including IP addresses, geolocation data and device serial numbers -- for targeted advertising. [GN] HERTZ CORPORATION: Seeks Status Conference Schedule in Retherford ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDY RETHERFORD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00719-KCD-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request scheduling a status conference to openly discuss the case and the pending motions and so this action might move forward. The Plaintiffs request the conference by audio/visual and remote means. The Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, herein files this Motion for the Court seeking a status conference regarding this case, including but not limited to the Plaintiff's pending Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action And Authorize Notice and the related Motion for Equitable Tolling which was filed Jan. 4, 2024, and July 24, 2025, respectively, It has been more than 9 months since the oral argument on the motion for conditional certification, and now 1 year and 9 months since the motion for conditional certification has been fully briefed, as well as now 2 full years since the motion was filed. The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for equitable tolling which has been pending since Aug. 7, 2025. Accordingly, the case is in a state of limbo, awaiting a determination of the scope of this action to be determined by and from Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action And Authorize Notice and the related Motion for Equitable Tolling, and which requires both sides to have to plan for litigation to continue for potentially more years ahead, whether as a single conditionally certified collective action or potentially as 51 separate civil actions filed in this court. There are over 50 Opt-In Plaintiffs who, similar to named Plaintiff Retherford, have been waiting patiently for the opportunity to pursue their claims in an efficient manner and collectively for all those similarly situated. However, applicable to both sides, as now years have passed, Plaintiffs are concerned that records are lost or destroyed and meanwhile, witnesses become unavailable for various reasons, as well as memories are affected by the passage of time which may prejudice the Plaintiffs by the length of time this case has remained in limbo. The Plaintiff Retherford commenced this Section 216(b) FLSA collective action on September 11, 2023. Hertz Answered on October 31, 2023, and amended its answer on November 20, 2023. The Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification was fully briefed on April 11, 2024. Hertz operates as a car rental company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ZLK2Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Feldman, Esq.  FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP  12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225 Tampa, FL 33626  Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatria HOME DEPOT: Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines in Sell Suit OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE SELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT STORE SUPPORT, INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; HOME DEPOT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; HOME DEPOT INCENTIVES, INC.; a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 2:25-cv-01297-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting stipulated motion to extend discovery deadlines: Home Depot is a home improvement retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2tsdM at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Esgate Extended to Nov. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esgate v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01806 (D. Or., Filed Oct. 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Amy E. Potter entered an order granting Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines as follows: Discovery is to be completed by Aug. 20, 2026. Expert Discovery to be completed by Oct. 30, 2026. Motion for class certification to be filed by Nov. 9, 2026. Dispositive Motions are due by Jan. 14, 2027. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Home is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation.[CC] HOMELIGHT INC: Hopkins Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMELIGHT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05017 (W.D. Wash., January 8, 2026) arises from the Defendant's systematic and repeated violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and its implementing regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in sending telemarketing calls to clients to promote its services. The Plaintiff's telephone number ending in -3985 has been registered on the National Do Not Call registry. Despite this registration, Defendant sent at least 13 unsolicited telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's number between October 22, 2025 and November 30, 2025. These communications were part of Defendant's standardized and recurring telemarketing campaign. The Defendant contacted numerous consumers whose numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry in a similar fashion, alleges the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the ensuing invasion of privacy, aggravation and disruption of the daily life of countless individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and Class Members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff Christopher Hopkins a citizen and resident of Pierce County, Washington, and the sole and primary subscriber and user of the cellular telephone number ending in -3985. Defendant Homelight, Inc. owns and operates Homelight, a real estate technology company that operates an online platform connecting consumers with real estate agents and related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Brubaker, Esq. BRUBAKER LAW GROUP PLLC 14506 NE 184th Place Woodinville, WA 98072 Telephone: (206) 335-8746 E-mail: michael@brubakerlawgroup.com - and - Ari H. Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com HOMETOWN AMERICA: Court Certifies Classes in Bartok Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BARTOK, et al., v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Sorokin entered an order certifying the following classes: (1) a Rule 23(b)(3) class of persons who have paid home-site rent to the Oak Point Manufactured Housing Community located in Middleborough, Massachusetts at any time since April 16, 2017 ("Oak Point Class"), with plaintiff Lee as class representative and attorney Horowitz as class counsel; (2) a Rule 23(b)(3) class of persons who have paid home-site rent to the Miller’s Woods and River Bend Manufactured Housing Community located in Athol, Massachusetts at any time from April 16, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2024 ("Miller's Woods Class"), with plaintiff Dernalowicz as class representative and attorney Horowitz as class counsel; and (3) a Rule 23(b)(2) class of persons who are paying or will pay home-site rent to the Oak Point Manufactured Housing Community located in Middleborough, Massachusetts ("Oak Point Rent-Payer Class"), with plaintiffs Lee and MFM as class representatives and attorney Horowitz as class counsel. The parties shall submit a joint status report setting out their joint or separate positions as to (1) the Rule 23(b)(3) class member opt-out deadline; (2) summary judgment motions; (3) the timing, shape, and duration of trial, including whether trial is by jury on some or all issues; and (4) whether the parties wish to build into that schedule mediation either via the Court's program or with a private mediator. The status report is due Jan. 23, 2026. The Clerk shall schedule a prompt status conference after receiving that report. Lee and MFM have satisfied Rule 23. The Court ALLOWS the renewed motion to certify the injunction class. The Court has explained why neither fair-market rent nor home purchase price is a relevant consideration to establishing a Chapter 93A injury in this case. Hometown's injury arguments thus are not a basis on which to strike the expert’s report, and the motion is denied. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on April 16, 2021. The Plaintiffs allege that the rent structures implemented at Oak Point and Miller's Woods are unfair business practices proscribed by Massachusetts law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' assessment of nonuniform rents at these MHCs violates the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Act, Hometown provides real estate management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prmfjE at no extra charge.[CC] HUB GROUP: Rodney Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled RODNEY LARON MCGLOWN JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUB GROUP DEDICATED, LLC, a Delaware limited liability; HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2533908, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 8, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00079 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The said violations stem from Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class all wages owed. Headquartered in Oak Brook, IL, Hub Group Dedicated, LLC provides trucking services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Philippe A. Lebel, Esq. Dixie M. Morrison, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557.2193 E-mail: plebel@proskauer.com dmorrison@proskauer.com - and - Steven J. Pearlman, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 70 West Madison, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602-4342 Telephone: (312) 962-3550 Facsimile: (312) 962-3551 E-mail: spearlman@proskauer.com HYATT CORPORATION: Jean Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nadine Jean, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT REGENCY INDIAN WELLS RESORT & SPA; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2506275 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00031. The Complaint asserts six causes of action for violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, set forth as: Failure to Pay Minimum, Regular, and Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due During Employment and Upon Separation of Employment; and Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com IMPACT REMODELING: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Impact Remodeling, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Impact Remodeling, LLC doing business as: Luxury Bath NJPA, Case No. 3:26-cv-00005-KM (M.D. Pa., Jan. 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Impact Remodeling -- https://impactremodelingco.com/ -- specialize in transforming homes into beautiful, comfortable spaces.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com IOWA HEALTH: Horras Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- AUSTON HORRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a UNITYPOINT HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00018-SHL-WPK (S.D. Iowa, January 8, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, a former hourly employee of Defendant, brings claims based on i) Defendant's timeclock rounding policy and practice and ii) its failure to include non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials in the calculation of each employee's regular rate of pay when calculating overtime pay, as required by the FLSA. Moreover, the Defendant's time clock rounding policies and practices violate the FLSA and result in the underpayment of overtime wages, says the suit. Iowa Health System operates, owns, and controls hospitals and health care facilities in Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 - and - Nathaniel R. Boulton, Esq. HEDBERG & BOULTON, P.C. 100 Court Avenue, Suite 425 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone (515) 288-4148 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 ISSAQUEENA PEDIATRIC: Butler Suit Removed to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessica Butler, on behalf of her minor children, C.B. and J.B; Valerie Monforto on behalf of her minor child, G.M.; Patricia Chauhan on behalf of her minor child, K.T.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Issaqueena Pediatric Dentistry PA; Issaqueena Pediatric Dentistry & Orthodontics, Case No. 2025CP3701043 was transferred from the Oconee County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00020-BHH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Issaqueena Pediatric Dentistry -- https://www.issaqueenadental.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Seneca, SC that specializes in General Dentistry (Dental Assistant) and Dentistry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey Brendan Kelley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS (GRE) 15 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 672-8046 Email: brendan.kelley@jacksonlewis.com ISSAQUEENA PEDIATRIC: Harrison Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as D'asha Maylan Harrison, on behalf of minor child K.K.D.S. and all others similarly situated v. Issaqueena Pediatric Dentistry PA; Issaqueena Pediatric Dentistry & Orthodontics, Case No. 2025CP3701032 was transferred from the Oconee County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00021-BHH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Issaqueena Pediatric Dentistry -- https://www.issaqueenadental.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Seneca, SC that specializes in General Dentistry (Dental Assistant) and Dentistry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karolan Furr Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN AND OHANESIAN PO Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Phone: (843) 626-7193 Email: ohanesianlawfirm@cs.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey Brendan Kelley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS (GRE) 15 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 672-8046 Email: brendan.kelley@jacksonlewis.com ITS LOGISTICS: Class Settlement in Guthrie Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH GUTHRIE, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00729-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class certification and approval of a class action settlement. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and final approval is granted as specified below. 2. The following settlement class is certified: "All current and former truck drivers who resided in California and who were employed by Defendant, ITS Logistics, LLC and paid on a piece rate basis (e.g., per day or per mile) at any time during the period of March 1, 2019, through June 28, 2024 (the Class Period)." 3. The Plaintiff's PAGA Claims are approved as a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act under California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. on behalf of the following: "All current and former truck drivers who resided in California and who were employed by Defendant, ITS Logistics, LLC and paid on a piece rate basis (e.g. per day or per mile) at any time during the period of March 9, 2020, through June 28, 2024 (the PAGA Period)." 4. The Court approves a $550,000 gross settlement amount. 5. The Plaintiff's counsel Misty Lauby and Brian Mankin are approved as class counsel and the Court approves an award of $137,500 in attorneys' fees. 6. The Court approves an award of $26,559.09 in costs. 7. The Plaintiff Keith Guthrie is approved as the class representative and shall receive a $7,500 class representative service payment. 8. ILYM Group, Inc. is approved as the settlement administrator and the Court approves payment of $6,950 to it. 9. The Court approves a $100,000 PAGA payment, with $75,000 of this amount being paid to the LWDA and the $25,000 remainder going to the aggrieved employees. The Plaintiff filed this action in state court on March 9, 2021, alleging that the Defendant violated California employment and unfair-and unlawful-competition laws. The Defendant provides logistics solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=obqnQf at no extra charge.[CC] JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 1, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berger v. JetBlue Airways Corporation et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07374 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order granting the Plaintiffs request for an extension of the class certification and related expert reports deadline. The Plaintiffs are advised that there will be no further extensions barring truly extraordinary circumstances. The Court adopts the proposed deadlines as follows: The deadline for Plaintiffs to file and serve a motion for class certification together with supporting documents and expert reports is extended from Feb. 6, 2026, to July 1, 2026 . The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Jetblue is an American low-cost airline.[CC] KALSHI INC: Josephson Sues Over Unlicensed Betting App ------------------------------------------------------ BRETT JOSEPHSON, LUIS CUEVAS, TYRONE STUCKEY, and TEMUUJIN SHAARIIBUU, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KALSHI, INC, KALSHIEX, LLC, KALSHI KLEAR, LLC, KALSHI KLEAR, INC., and KALSHI TRADING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00220 (N.D. Ill., January 8, 2026) arises out of Defendants' ownership and operation of "Kalshi," an online and app-based gambling platform. According to the complaint, the Defendants falsely represent to consumers and the public that Kalshi is legal and legitimate in every state, including in Illinois. But in reality, Kalshi is an unlicensed betting platform. Kalshi also deceives consumers into believing that they are betting against other users, but in reality, consumers are betting against Kalshi, just like any other book making operation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Illinois Sports Wagering Act, the Illinois Criminal Code, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Headquartered in New York, NY, Kalshi, Inc. provides financial exchange and prediction market solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 979 Green Bay Road Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: jdemay@brysonpllc.com hbryson@brysonpllc.com KEYSTONE RV: Guisinger Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC GUISINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01393-MWC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting application for leave to file under seal attachments to declaration of Simon b. Paris in support of motion for class certification as follows: Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Keystone RV Company Retail Warranty Registration, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 95. Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Robson Forensic expert report dated January 8, 2026. Exhibit 14 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Passport Ultra Lite Top 10 Reasons to Choose Passport, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 17. Exhibit 15 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Passport Ultra Lite Training Manual, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 13. Exhibit 17 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Product Change Notice, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 25. Exhibit 18 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Purchase Line Details Spreadsheet, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 55. Exhibit 19 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Purchase Line Details Spreadsheet, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 54. Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Cost Savings Form, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 101. Exhibit 24 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Change Order, marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 92. Exhibit 29 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Stipulation Regarding Authenticity and Admissibility of Documents. Exhibit 31 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Methodology Report prepared by expert Wade Roberts, dated January 8, 2026. Exhibit 32 to the Declaration of Simon B. Paris, Roof Truss Replacement Cost Analysis by Art Ashley, dated January 8, 2026. Each of the above documents contains information that Defendant Keystone RV Company has designated "Confidential," or "Highly Confidential," or "Confidential – Subject to Confidentiality Order" under the Stipulated Protective Order. These documents purportedly contain marketing, financial, sales or other confidential business information according to Keystone. The Defendant manufactures towable recreational vehicle (RV) products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UIE0F6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3985 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com KEYSTONE RV: Guisinger Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC GUISINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01393-MWC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 20, 2026, will move the Court for an order granting certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) of the following class: "All consumers who purchased a new Passport Brand Western Edition Trailer from a Keystone authorized dealership in California prior to December 1, 2019, with a Serial Number that sequentially ends after HX414101." The Plaintiff also will move the Court to appoint him as Class representative and to appoint Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky PC as class counsel. The Plaintiff wrote the Defendant on Jan. 7, 2026, recognizing Defendant's continued opposition to the motion, but sought to narrow the issues under Rule 23 and to confirm Defendant wished to maintain its "Confidentiality" designation to certain documents now identified as exhibits to that motion. On Jan. 8, 2026, the Defendant advised that it would not discuss either issue. The Defendant manufactures towable recreational vehicle (RV) products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CaAqC4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY,P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3986 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com KIEWIT OFFSHORE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Arriaga Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB SOLIZ-ARRIAGA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIEWIT OFFSHORE SERVICES, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00011 (S.D. Tex., January 8, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Texas common law. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Among other things, the Defendant failed to include the non-discretionary bonuses in Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their correct rate of overtime compensation, says the suit. Headquartered in Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD provides fabrication services and constructs large, complex components for offshore oil and gas projects for its clients throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com KLARITY KRATOM: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Hernandez Due July 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez, et al., v. Ballaj, Case No. 2:23-cv-02965 (E.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order as follows: The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than July 27, 2026. The Defendant shall file his opposition no later than Sept. 25, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief no later than Oct. 23, 2026. A status conference will be held shortly after the courts ruling on the anticipated motion for class certification to reset all other dates and deadlines. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] KRADLE LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Subscription Renewal Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that KradleMyPet.com fails to clearly disclose to consumers the terms of the subscription renewal plan they are automatically enrolled in after purchase and makes it unnecessarily difficult to cancel. The 32-page lawsuit against Kradle contends that the online pets supply retailer automatically enrolls customers in repeating subscription charges when they make a purchase from KradleMyPet.com without presenting the terms of the agreement in a "clear and conspicuous" manner, as well as clearly disclosing the cancellation policy, in violation of the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). Under the ARL, the case relays, online retailers offering automatically renewing subscriptions to California consumers must explicitly state the offer terms near the location where consumers click to agree or consent to enrollment, and relatedly obtain their affirmative consent before making any charges related to the subscriptions. Moreover, the ARL also covers the cancellation process, the complaint explains, and requires retailers to provide an acknowledgment containing the agreement terms and identifying a clear, cost-effective, and easy-to-use means of canceling subscriptions. According to the lawsuit, the disclosure explaining the automatic renewal terms on KradleMyPet.com appears in "minuscule [sic], inconspicuous font" above or below the large payment button a user must click upon checkout, which goes against the ARL's requirements that disclosures appear in a font larger than the surrounding text or in a contrasting color, font, or type. "The language [in the checkout disclosure] was, and did, mislead consumers about the true nature of the recurring charges," the lawsuit claims. Deceptive design tactics that obscure subscription terms, such as those alleged in the lawsuit, are referred to as dark patterns, which deliberately make it more difficult for consumers to understand and cancel subscription plans. If a company violates the ARL, the case explains, all subsequent shipments sent to a consumer are considered "unconditional gifts" that the consumer has no legal obligation to return and may "use or dispose . . . in any manner he or she sees fit without any obligation whatsoever on the consumer's part to the business." The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased two "CBD Sleepy CLEANZzz Dental Hard Chew" products from KradleMyPet.com on September 7, 2025 for $26.32 and, unbeknownst to her, enrolled in a subscription program that assessed her payment method a recurring charge of $26.34 every six weeks, the suit says. After her subscription charge in December 2025, the plaintiff allegedly was able to cancel her subscription. The Kradle class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who were charged a renewal fee for a Kradle subscription during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] KRISTI NOEM: Must Release Amrik from Custody -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMRIK S., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00049-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order: 1. The Petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order is granted. 2. The Respondents must immediately release Petitioner Amrik S. from custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on him, unless such restrictions are determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. 3. Respondents are enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder where: (a) Respondents show material changed circumstances demonstrate a significant likelihood of Petitioner's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, or (b) Respondents demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At any such hearing, Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present. 4. Respondents are ordered to show cause why this Court should not issue a preliminary injunction continuing this Order. Respondents shall file responsive papers by January 16, 2026. Petitioner may file a reply, if any, by January 21, 2026. Petitioner is a citizen of India and an asylum applicant in the United States. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on April 30, 2023, and was detained by immigration authorities. He was then released on May 1, 2023, to pursue his asylum claim. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LZJApB at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Court Considers Bid to Strike Class Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Tomassian, v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-05608-JFW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order taking under submission Kroger Co.'s motion to strike class allegations or deny class certification. Kroger Co.’s Motion to Strike Class Allegations or Deny Class Certification is currently on calendar for Jan. 12, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for January 12, 2026, is vacated and the matter is taken off calendar. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6SNs4I at no extra charge.[CC] LAKESIDE TITLE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Buechler Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BUECHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAKESIDE TITLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00074 (D. Md., January 9, 2026) arises out of the Defendant Lakeside's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in December 2025 to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information ("PII" or "the Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals ("the Class"). The threat actor "PLAY" successfully breached Lakeside's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive customer data. The types of information that PLAY has routinely exfiltrated in their ransomware attacks include, but are not limited to: names, birthdates, addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance details, medical treatment data, financial records, intellectual property, accounting documents, legal files, personnel and customer information, banking details, and etc. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff James Buechler is a citizen of the State of Maryland, residing in the city of Baltimore, and is a former customer who utilized Lakeside for real estate settlement services. Defendant Lakeside Title Company is an organization that provides real estate settlement and escrow services/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com LANDS' END: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Meadows Due July 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON MEADOWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05841-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: Deadline for joining additional parties and April 27, 2026 to amend pleadings: Close of fact discovery for issues related July 10, 2026 to class certification: Deadline to file motion for class July 24, 2026 certification: Deadline to file opposition to motion for Aug. 28, 2026 class certification: Close of expert discovery for issues related Sept. 11, 2026 to class certification: Deadline to file reply in support of motion Sept. 25, 2026 for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the Court Lands' is an American retailer of clothing, baggage, and furniture. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p4nngE at no extra charge.[CC] LASALLE MANAGEMENT: Adjournment of Class Cert Deadline Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILSON BARAHONA, NIKOLAS GAZETAS, and OMAR ISAIAS TAVIRA GARCIA, v. LASALLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a LASALLE CORRECTIONS, LASALLE SOUTHEAST, LLC, CGL IRWIN PROPERTIES LLC, and CGL/LASALLE IRWIN PROPERTIES LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00024-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs and the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order adjourning the Feb. 13, 2026 deadline for motion for class certification. The parties anticipate that discovery is necessary before the filing of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties conferred on Jan. 9, 2026, and agreed to jointly request that the current deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be adjourned because any such motion cannot reasonably be completed by the current deadline. The parties agree that without the benefit of factual discovery, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification cannot reasonably be completed by the current Feb.13, 2026 deadline. The Plaintiffs' operative first amended complaint asserts claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Georgia common law for unjust enrichment, and for violations of international law and customary international law prohibiting coerced labor pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute. The Plaintiffs assert the Defendants violated these laws by orchestrating a scheme to compel detained immigrants at the Irwin County Detention Center like Plaintiffs to work for $1 per day. LaSalle is a developer and operator of correctional centers. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kk6mKI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ken S. Massey, Esq. Barbara J. Hart, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7500 E-mail: kmassey@gelaw.com bhart@gelaw.com - and - Zachary Greenamyre, Esq. MITCHELL SHAPIRO GREENAMYRE & FUNT LLP 881 Piedmont Ave. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone (404) 812-4747 E-mail: zack@mitchellshapiro.com The Defendants are represented by: Deirdre C. McGlinchey, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-5100 Telephone: (504) 582-8731 Facsimile: (504) 589-8731 E-mail: dmcglinchey@joneswalker.com - and - Walter Boone BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1400 Jackson, MS 39201-2133 Telephone: (601) 965-8179 E-mail: wboone@balch.com LAST BRAND: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Last Brand, Inc. d/b/a Quince, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00092-NEB-DTS (D. Minn., January 8, 2026) arises out Defendant's violations of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations and asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are blind and low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet. The 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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Last Brand, Inc. offers apparel and home goods for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LENS.COM INC: Class Cert Hearing in Martin Set for Feb. 3 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-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 Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. at Courtroom 12-3 of the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 400 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. Counsel of record must appear in person. 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 Friday, Jan. 30, 2026. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells contact lenses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UO3ek1 at no extra charge.[CC] LENS.COM INC: Martin Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to continue hearing on motion for class certification. The undersigned counsel request that the Court continue the February 3 hearing and reset it for an available date after Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026. The February 3 hearing conflicts with a previously scheduled multi-day evidentiary hearing beginning the following day. Undersigned counsel and his law partner, Robert G. Methvin, Jr., are scheduled to appear in Miami for a three-day evidentiary hearing on class certification from February 4–6, 2026 in a separate matter pending in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida. That evidentiary hearing was specially set almost a month ago, and counsel have been preparing for it as the primary litigators. This request is made in good faith, and a brief continuance will not prejudice any party and will promote an orderly, efficient presentation. Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rGABzd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com rgm@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com - and - Joshua A. Migdal, Esq. LEVIN MIGDAL & GIBBS 7301 SW 57th Ct., Suite 515 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 374-6617 E-mail: josh@lmgllp.com - and - Matthew Herman, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 797-6333 E-mail: mh@meyers-flowers.com LITE STAR: Chea Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linna Chea, on behalf of the Lite Star, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. LITE STAR ESOP COMMITTEE, B-K LIGHTING, INC., NATHAN SLOAN, KATHLEEN A. HAGEN, KATHLEEN A. HAGEN, as legal successor to DOUGLAS W. HAGEN, ESTATE OF DOUGLAS W. HAGEN, MIGUEL PAREDES, and PRUDENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Class Counsel's Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement. Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants have collectively agreed to a Settlement Amount comprised of a $1.5 million Cash Payment and a $1 million principal reduction on the debt the ESOP owes to the Company (and the Company's corresponding debt to the selling shareholder) from the 2017 ESOP transaction (less deductions for attorneys' fees, costs, settlement administration and a service award). In exchange, the Class will dismiss with prejudice its claims asserted in the Amended Complaint ("AC") against the Defendants. The Class will also release Defendants from any claims relating to or arising out of the allegations of the AC. Lite Star refers to the committee for the employee stock ownership plan of B-K Lighting, Inc. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LKSkdk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN, WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com LIVELY UP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVELY UP YOUR BREATH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00143 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://livelyupyourbreath.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in Simi Valley, CA, Lively Up Your Breath, LLC owns and operates the website which offers ooral care products for sale. [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 LOYA INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle Underinsurance Suit for $1.95MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDEPOT reports that New Mexico residents who purchased uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from Young America Insurance Co. or Loya Insurance Co. between Oct. 1, 2010, and Feb. 28, 2022, or made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits during that time may be eligible to submit a claim for a payment from a class action settlement. Young America Insurance Co. and Loya Insurance Co. agreed to pay $1.95 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they failed to disclose the limitations or misrepresented the value of UIM coverage and applied improper offsets to claims in violation of New Mexico law. Who is eligible for a settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They were a policyholder of or insured under a Young America Insurance Co. or Loya Insurance Co. auto insurance policy between Oct. 1, 2010, and Feb. 28, 2022. -- They lived in New Mexico and purchased or paid premiums for an insurance policy that included UM/UIM coverage. -- They submitted a claim for UIM benefits after Oct. 1, 2010, under a policy that included UM/UIM coverage but did not have the disclosure or exclusion required by New Mexico Supreme Court in Crutcher v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. -- Young America Insurance Co. or Loya Insurance Co. reduced or denied their auto policy UIM benefits due to an offset for the at-fault third party's insurance limits. How much is the class action payment? Class members can submit a claim to receive one of the following benefits: -- UIM claim readjustment: Class members can submit a claim to have their UIM claim readjusted. The settlement administrator will determine each individual payment amount based on each individual claim. However, claimants cannot recover more than what they would have been entitled to according to their policy and cannot receive a duplicate payment for the same loss. -- The total cap for claim readjustment claims is $800,000. -- UM/UIM premium refund: Class members who paid premiums for UM/UIM coverage during the qualifying period but are not eligible for a UIM claim readjustment or choose not to file for one will receive a cash refund of a portion of all premiums paid for UM/UIM coverage. The settlement administrator will determine the payment amount by the total number of claims filed and the premium amount each policyholder paid. Class members do not need to submit a claim to receive this benefit. How to claim a class action rebate To receive UIM claim readjustment settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Swiech & Apodaca v. Loya Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2078, Portland, OR 97208-2078 Class members must submit claims online or postmark them by March 12, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- To submit a claim, class members must provide the unique ID and PIN from their settlement notice. -- To submit a UIM claim readjustment, class members must provide may supporting documentation, such as medical records, itemized medical bills and a record release authorization. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $1.95 million Young Insurance Co. settlement fund The $1,950,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Amount not specified -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $649,935 plus 7.625% state gross receipts tax -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $10,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $10,000 each -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Jan. 26, 2026 -- Claims filing deadline: March 12, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 24, 2026 When is the Young America and Loya Insurance payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members after it completes claim review and processing and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged that Young America Insurance Co. and Loya Insurance Co. violated New Mexico law by failing to properly disclose the limitations of UIM coverage and by applying offsets for the at-fault party's insurance, which reduced or denied benefits to policyholders. The companies denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: March 12, 2026 [GN] LPQ USA LLC: Vazquez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Vazquez, individually and for others similarly situated v. LPQ USA, LLC d/b/a LE PAIN QUOTIDIEN, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 25STCV34801 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-00095. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants which sets forth the following 15 causes of action: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; minimum wage violations; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment; failure to maintain required payroll and employment records; unfair business practices; failure to provide records upon request; harassment and hostile work environment; retaliation for protected activity; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; whistleblower retaliation; and retaliation for exercising Labor Coder rights (the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com - and - Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-8131 Email: Jennell.Shannon@jacksonlewis.com MAJORCA INVESTMENT: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. MAJORCA INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC and KINGS CREEK HOLE IN THE WALL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20131 (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2026) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff, an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA, found the Defendants' commercial property and the business named located within the property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property related to parking, entrance access and path of travel, and access to goods and services, asserts the complaint. The Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals by denying them access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, the suit alleges. Majorca Investment Properties, LLC owns and operates a commercial property located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com MARATHON PETROLEUM: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------------- FERN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00217 (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making unlawful telemarketing text messages to promote its goods and services. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. The Defendant maintains and/or has access to outbound transmission reports for all telephone solicitations advertising/promoting its services and goods. These reports show the dates, times, target telephone numbers, and content of each telephone solicitation made to Plaintiff and the Class members. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. The Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff Fern Gonzalez is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles County, California. Defendant Marathon Petroleum Company LP provides oil refining, marketing, and pipeline transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 754-444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Recommends Partial OK of Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Starnella entered a recommendation granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court certify the following class for the Plaintiff's RICO claim: "All J-1 visa trainees or interns who were employed by the Defendant at the St. Regis Aspen Resort from September 2016 until final judgment." The Court further recommended that the Court deny certification for the same class for the Plaintiff's state and federal human trafficking claims. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated Colorado and federal anti-trafficking laws both as a primary offender and as a participant in a venture with Alliance to procure J-1 visa intern participants to work at St. Regis Aspen under false pretenses. The Plaintiff Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez is a Mexican citizen who studied culinary arts. As part of his studies, in the fall of 2020, he came to Colorado for a J-1 visa internship. The Plaintiff began working at St. Regis in May 2021 but quickly determined that the program was not what had been promised. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AUZH7z at no extra charge.[CC] MATTOS PROPERTY: Filho Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Mauricio Cesar Ricas Filho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mattos Property Management Inc. and Thales Matos De Almeida, Case No. 2685CV00010D (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants' violation of the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statue and the Massachusetts Overtime Statue due to unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants have violated: the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statue and the Massachusetts Overtime Statue by misclassifying him and a class of MPM's workers as independent contractors; and by failing to pay him and their workers time and one half their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 on a weekly basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by MPM in January 2024 to perform painting and demolition-related services on MPM's projects. The Defendant MPM is a Massachusetts domestic profit corporation with a principal office located in Revere, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-723-7700 Fax: 617-227-0313 Email: ashafran@rnawyers.com MDL 3126: Panel Denies Bid to Remand Wang Suit ---------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, rejected a motion to remand the case captioned "Wang v. AT&T, et al.," C.A. No. 2:24−00155 to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. In February 2025, the panel transferred the Wang action from the Southern District of New York (C.A. No. 1:24-07206) to the District of Montana for inclusion in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3126. Pro se plaintiff Hao Zhe Wang moved for remand of the action to its transferor court under Section 1407(a). Defendants AT&T Inc. and Snowflake Inc. opposed the motion. In support of remand, plaintiff principally argued that (1) the pending class settlement devalues his claims, thus entitling him to remand of his case to the transferor court for case-specific proceedings; (2) he has received no benefit from the MDL, as the transferee court has stayed the proceedings against AT&T over the past year; (3) the reasons the Panel cited for transfer no longer exist, in particular, the potential for overlapping discovery; and (4) continued inclusion of Wang in the MDL violates due process. "These arguments are unpersuasive," the panel rules. After considering the arguments of the parties, the panel concludes that remand is not appropriate. It held, among other things, that the alleged unfairness of the class settlement is irrelevant to remand, as plaintiff has the right to opt out of the settlement and pursue his claims individually. Additionally, he had the opportunity to present his objections to the settlement during the objections period, which expired on November 17, 2025. Further, plaintiff's decision to opt out of the settlement does not support remand. Settlement approval proceedings are ongoing, and if the settlement is not granted final approval, substantial pretrial proceedings will remain. The transferee court is in the best position to determine the appropriate course of proceedings for the opt-out actions, as the panel recently held in rejecting similar arguments raised by other plaintiffs claiming they intend to opt out of the class settlement. Plaintiff's assertion that he has received no benefit from the MDL does not support remand. Transfer occurred less than a year ago. Over the past year, the pretrial proceedings have focused on preparation of master complaints, settlement proceedings for the settling defendants (AT&T, Advance Auto Parts, and Neiman Marcus), and dispositive motions by the non-settling defendants, including Snowflake. Is true that the claims against AT&T (including those in Wang) have been largely stayed pending completion of settlement approval proceedings. But the stay does not support remand. Centralization is based on "the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation," the panel opines. "We conclude that remand is not appropriate at this time, and we therefore deny plaintiff's motion," the panel states. "Here, the transferee judge has not issued a suggestion of remand. Without a suggestion of remand, a party advocating Section 1407 remand 'bears a strong burden of persuasion.' We conclude that plaintiff has not met that burden here," it adds. A full-text copy of the court's December 15, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3126-Order_Denying_Remand-12-25.pdf MERANI HOSPITALITY: Fabiano Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA FABIANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MERANI HOSPITALITY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00894-LJV-LGF (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and WDNY Local Rule 7.1. Pursuant to WDNY Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), the Plaintiff intends to seek leave of Court to file a Reply Memorandum to any opposition filed by Defendant, if necessary. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PMgo4F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS--JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan K. Cummings, Esq. Peter C. Godfrey, Esq. HODGSON RUSS LLP 140 Pearl Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 848-1665 E-mail: ryan_cummings@hodgsonruss.com pgodfrey@hodgsonruss.com MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Court Rejects $875,000 Deal Over Misled Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carleen Bongat, writing for HRD, reports that a California employer's mass settlement strategy during a pending class action unraveled when a court found the company misled workers into signing away their claims. On January 14, 2026, a California appeals court delivered a split decision in The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County that carries both warning and guidance for employers navigating wage and hour class actions. The case centers on The Merchant of Tennis, Inc., which paid out more than $875,000 to approximately 954 employees while a class certification motion was pending. The dispute began when Jessica Garcia, who worked at the California-based company from July through December 2019, filed a consolidated class action alleging violations of state wage laws and rest break requirements. In May 2024, she moved for class certification. That same month, and into June, Merchant approached employees and former employees with individual settlement offers in exchange for releasing their claims. Garcia challenged the settlements, arguing the company had used fraud and coercion to obtain them. The trial court partially agreed, finding the agreements were voidable because Merchant had used false and misleading representations. According to the court's findings, Merchant made several problematic statements to workers. The company made what the court called baseless representations that class members typically receive less than 40 percent of a settlement. Merchant falsely told workers that the class action plaintiffs had dismissed certain claims. The company described the case as being in discovery without explaining that its own summary judgment motion had been denied after four years of litigation. Merchant also described the release workers were signing as limited when it actually released all claims, and told workers that arbitration agreements precluded participation without disclosing that only 40 percent of workers had such agreements. After finding the settlements voidable, the trial court ordered both sides to develop a curative notice for workers who had signed agreements, informing them they could rescind within 45 days and join the class action. But the parties could not agree on crucial language about repayment. Merchant wanted the notice to warn workers that if they rescinded their settlements and the company ultimately prevailed, they may have to return the money they had received. Garcia's attorneys objected, arguing that warning workers about potential repayment would discourage them from joining the lawsuit. They pointed out that these were people making just above minimum wage, living paycheck to paycheck, who had already spent and been taxed on the settlement money. The trial court sided with Garcia, ruling that the notice should tell workers that settlement payments may be treated as an offset to any other recovery, but not that they would be required to return the payments. The judge reasoned that the employer-employee relationship involves higher risks of coercion and abuse than ordinary contracts, and that workers would be discouraged from participating in the class action if they thought they could not repay Merchant. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted Merchant's petition in a divided decision. The majority held that under California's contract rescission statutes, putative class members who rescind their settlement agreements would be required to repay Merchant, even if the rescission is based on fraud or duress. The court acknowledged that repayment could be delayed until final judgment, but rejected the trial court's decision to excuse repayment entirely. The majority directed that the curative notice should tell class members they could be responsible for repaying Merchant at the conclusion of the litigation. Justice Raphael dissented, arguing the trial court had acted within its equitable authority. The dissent expressed concern that requiring repayment, or even warning workers they may owe it, would deter participation in the class action and allow the employer to benefit from its wrongful conduct. For HR professionals, the case offers clear lessons. Any communications with potential class members during pending litigation must be scrupulously accurate. The court's finding that Merchant's agreements were voidable stemmed from specific misrepresentations about the litigation's status, the scope of the release, and the likelihood of recovery in the class action. The case also confirms that while employers can pursue individual settlements during class certification proceedings, courts will closely scrutinize those efforts. Misleading communications can result in hundreds of settlement agreements being declared voidable. At the same time, the appeals court decision confirms that California's rescission statutes may require workers to understand potential repayment obligations if they choose to rescind and join the class action. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Filing Modified to Jan. 15, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PURUSHOTHAMAN RAJARAM, EKTA BHATIA, QUN WANG, MICHAEL BROWNE, WILLIAM AUSTIN WEBB, and STEPHEN SCHUTT, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02920-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beeler entered an order modifying case schedule as follows: Case Event Deadline Round one non-expert discovery July 8, 2026 completion date: Opening round-one motion: July 29, 2026 Opposition: Sept. 1, 2026 Reply: Sept. 15, 2026 Opening class certification Jan. 15, 2027 motion/expert disclosures: Opposition and expert disclosures: March 16, 2027 Reply: May 14, 2027 Hearing/Further case management conference: June 10, 2027 Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T4Qh2l at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Low, Esq. Daniel Kotchen, Esq. Lindsey Grunert KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 The Defendant is represented by: Erin M. Connell, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: econnell@orrick.com - and - Scott Morrison, Esq. Esther Lander, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614-8255 Telephone: (949) 567-6700 E-mail: scott.morrison@orrick.com elander@orrick.com MEYER BURGER: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meyer Burger (Holding) Corp. (Re: MEYER BURGER HOLDING CORP., et al., Case No. 25-11217-CTG (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: -- approving the settlement agreement by and between the debtors, the DIP secured parties, the prepetition secured parties, the official committee of unsecured creditors and the putative warn claimants, modifying the Interim Order, the Final DIP Order, any Prepetition Loan Documents or DIP Loan Documents, and granting related relief. The Settlement Deal provides for a global resolution among the Parties that includes funding for the drafting and prosecution of a Chapter 11 plan, the establishment of a Litigation Trust and related funding to finance potential causes of action, and an allocation of distributions that would enable general unsecured creditors to realize recoveries from the Debtors' estates. On June 25, 2025, the Debtors commenced these cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware by filing voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, which are being jointly administered under case number 25-11217 (CTG) (the "Chapter 11 Cases"). A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r43wXQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Counsel to the AHG are: Curtis S. Miller, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Telephone: (302) 351-9412 E-mail: cmiller@morrisnichols.com -and- - and - Debra A. Dandeneau, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 452 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 626 4875 E-mail: debra.dandeneau@bakermckenzie.com The Counsel for the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, are: Paul N. Heath, Esq. Brendan J. Schlauch, Esq. Jason M. Madron, Esq. Zachary J. Javorsky, Esq. Nicholas A. Franchi, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 9210 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Facsimile: (302) 651-7701 E-mail: heath@rlf.com schlauch@rlf.com madron@rlf.com javorsky@rlf.com franchi@rlf.com The Counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditor, are: Seth A. Niederman, Esq. Michael G. Menkowitz, Esq. Jesse M. Harris, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-7444 Facsimile: (302) 656-8920 E-mail: sniederman@foxrothschild.com mmenkowitz@foxrothschild.com jesseharris@foxrothschild.com MIAMI DADELAND HOTEL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MIAMI DADELAND HOTEL LLC D/B/A ALOFT MIAMI DADELAND, Case No. 1:26-cv-20056-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial hotel property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial hotel property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial hotel property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial hotel property, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial hotel property, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial hotel property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. MIAMI DADELAND HOTEL LLC D/B/A ALOFT MIAMI DADELAND owned and operated a commercial hotel property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 19 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veronica L. Taylor, individually and as representative of the Class, v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 5:23-cv-04125-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order the deadlines set forth in the December 11 Order granting the Joint Administrative Motion to Modify Case Management Order as to Class Certification Briefing Deadlines are modified as follows: Event Deadline Opposition to class certification, motions Jan. 16, 2026 to exclude the Plaintiff experts: Reply to class certification, motions to Feb. 19, 2026 exclude the Defense experts: The remaining deadlines as outlined in the Case Management Order, ECF No. 68, remain in effect. Midland provides life insurance and annuities. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Kx17T at no extra charge.[CC] MIKE LEWIS: Godenes's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO REYES-GODENES, v. MIKE LEWIS, Jailer, Hopkins County Jail; SAMUEL OLSON, Interim Field Office Director, Chicago Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department Of Homeland Security, Case No. 4:25-cv-00169-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Reyes-Godenes's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as follows: The United States is directed to release Petitioner Reyes-Godenes because of the unlawful detention in violation of his due process rights. The United States must provide him with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by January 12, 2026. In sum, statutory context, relationship between Section 1225 and Section 1226, and most importantly the text, the Court finds it difficult to read a noncitizen who is "seeking admission" when the individual never attempted to "seek" admission pursuant to Section 1225(b)(2)(A). Petitioner Ricardo Reyes-Godenes is a native and citizen of Mexico. He has been present in the United States since 2000 or 2001 when he entered without inspection or admission into the United States. He has been living in the greater Chicago area. Reyes-Godenes is a father to four children, including one who is a U.S. Citizen. He is the primary financial support for his family. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ceq5Vr at no extra charge.[CC] MISSOURI: Gibbs et al. Sue Over Unlawful REPAYE Plan Implementation ------------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN GIBBS, SUSAN HART, JACOB LEHMAN, ANNETTE A. ROBBINS, ARTHUR SPROGIS, and PAMELA YANGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI a/k/a MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00030 (E.D. Mo., January 8, 2026) accuses the Defendant of breaching contract and violating state consumer protection statutes. As the U.S. recovered from a pandemic-fueled economic crisis, and in an effort to create a stronger safety net for federal student loan borrowers on income-based repayment plans, the Department of Education enacted regulations to transform the then-existing Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) plan into the newly branded Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. However, with the implementation of the SAVE plan, Defendant Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) allegedly failed to comply with federal requirements in three critical ways: First, starting on July 30, 2023, federal regulations required MOHELA to automatically transition borrowers on the REPAYE plan to the SAVE plan to receive two key SAVE plan benefits: the increase of the income exemption threshold and the non-accrual of interest. MOHELA failed to timely do so for a substantial number of borrowers, leading to higher monthly payments and ballooning interest calculations; Second, guidance from the Department also required MOHELA to place loans in general forbearance, where interest would not accrue, if MOHELA could not process borrowers' applications to the SAVE plan within 60 days. For nearly a year, MOHELA routinely failed to meet the 60-day application processing requirement yet failed to place SAVE applicants' loans in the correct type of forbearance, leading to the improper accrual of additional interest and often higher monthly payments for those loans; and Third, after the Eighth Circuit temporarily suspended implementation of the SAVE plan on July 18, 2024, until August 1, 2025 when interest accrual resumed, MOHELA failed to place borrowers' loans in administrative forbearance with a 0% interest rate, as was directed by the Department. Headquartered in Chesterfield, St. Louis County, Missouri, MOHELA operates as holder and servicer of student loans in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Megan M. Duffield, Esq. PAUL LLP 600 Broadway Boulevard, Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Megan@PaulLLP.com - and - Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq. Justin N. Saif, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: norenstein@bermantabacco.com jsaif@bermantabacco.com - and - Caitlyn M. Barresi, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: cbarresi@bermantabacco.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Walsh Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Walsh, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-530 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: Warfel Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Warfel, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-513 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 MYPILLOW INC: Wood Sues Over False and Misleading Sales ------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Wood, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MYPILLOW, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00110-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's false and misleading sales practices, Plaintiff and members of the Class, as defined herein, were induced into purchasing the Products under the false premise that they were of a higher grade, quality, or value than they actually were. The Defendant intentionally misleads consumers as to the quality and value of the bedding products, including pillows (the "Products"), through its deceptive sales tactics. When consumers visit MyPillow.com (the "Website"), they are shown purported "sale" and "discounted" prices on Defendant's Products, including its "Classic MyPillow." But Defendant's purported "sales" are, in reality, anything but. The substantial "discount" shown to consumers is deceptive and misleading because Defendant's Products are never sold at the full price represented. Such findings were confirmed through online archives documenting Defendant's pricing and sale history. Namely, advertising products at a price that does not include all mandatory fees, with the exception of taxes imposed by the government, and shipping costs incurred in shipping a product to a consumer, violates California's consumer protection laws, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act pursuant to (the "Honest Pricing Law"), among other statutes. Here, a so-called "Shipping Protection" fee is not shipping costs and must be included in the price shown to consumers as they browse for items, says the complaint. The Plaintiff made a purchase on Defendant's Website on October 25, 2024. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes its Products throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $303MM "Ray" Class Settlement Gets Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson, Katherine Sebbane, and Rudy Barajas, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, an unincorporated association, Defendant, No. 1:23-cv-00425 (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement involving $303,000,000 for approximately 7,718 volunteer coaches. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. This is one of two related cases assigned to the court involving antitrust challenges to a since-repealed NCAA bylaw barring volunteer coaches from receiving pay. The related case, Smart v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, No. 2-22-cv-02125 WBS CSL, 2025 WL 2651800 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2025), recently ended in settlement. The court previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, which consists of all persons who from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of volunteer coach, as designated by NCAA bylaws. The Plaintiffs estimated the class has approximately 7,718 members. According to the proposed settlement, the gross settlement amount is $303,000,000, to be paid in three separate installments of $101,000,000 into a common fund over the course of two calendar years. Amounts paid to class members will be determined by the school, sport, and year in which he or she worked. The Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Ashenfelter will calculate a Recognized Loss for each six-month period coached by a class member based on the wages paid to the team's lowest-paid coach during that period who was not designated as a volunteer coach, and then incorporate a stepdown to account for the fact that class member coaching positions were lower in the hierarchy than their reference coach. The resulting payment for each claimant will be divided into three amounts corresponding with settlement distributions. The Plaintiffs' counsel anticipated that attorneys' fees will comprise up to 30% of the settlement fund. The Plaintiffs further requested service awards for the class representatives in the amount of $25,000 each. The action was filed in 2023. The court disposed of the NCAA's motions to dismiss and transfer venue in 2023. The parties attempted mediation in summer 2024 but were unsuccessful in reaching a settlement at that time. Following additional litigation, including discovery motions, class certification proceedings, a petition for appeal, and filings on motions for partial summary judgment, the parties resumed settlement discussions in September 2025. These discussions involved almost daily exchanges of proposals over ten days and were informed by the extensive litigation up to that point. The parties agreed to request a continuance of the impending hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and engaged another professional mediator. Following further exchange of memoranda and a full-day mediation on October 10, 2025, the parties reached a settlement. The parties selected A.B. Data, Ltd.'s Class Action Administration Company to serve as the Settlement Administrator. The Plaintiffs' expert calculated the total damages suffered by class members to be $299,600,000. The gross settlement amount of $303,000,000 represented over 100% of estimated damages to the class. The court found this to be an exceptional result for the class and comfortably within the range of percentage recoveries that California courts have found to be reasonable. Based on these figures, the average payment per class member is $39,260 before allowed fees and expenses. The court found this five-figure payout also represented a strong result for the class. The court noted that the Plaintiffs faced numerous risks in this complex antitrust litigation, including proving all elements of the claims, obtaining and maintaining class certification, establishing liability, and the costliness of litigation and potential appeals on these issues. In light of the risks associated with further litigation and the strength of the settlement terms, the court found that the value of the settlement is within the range of possible approval such that preliminary approval of the settlement is appropriate. The court further found the method of processing class member claims to be adequate, as each class member's share of the settlement will be calculated on an individual basis by the Plaintiffs' expert based on factors including school, sport, and length of employment. The Plaintiffs' counsel will seek fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the gross settlement amount. Counsel plans to file a fee petition contemporaneously with its motion for final approval which will provide details regarding expenses incurred and fees sought. Class counsel plans to request service awards for the class representatives in the amount of $25,000 each, for a total of $125,000. In justifying their request, class counsel provided some detail of the class representatives' efforts in this action, including consulting with counsel on numerous occasions about their experience as college coaches, case strategy, and discovery, as well as responding to interrogatories and sitting for depositions. However, the court noted that counsel has not identified specific reasons for why five individuals were needed for these efforts. In light of the unusually high amount of the service award requested, and the number of class representatives listed, counsel was advised to provide a more substantial report in their motion for final approval of the class representatives' contributions to this action meriting the requested award amounts, which should also explain the necessity for having five representatives. The court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate to the members of the settlement class, subject to further consideration at the final fairness hearing after distribution of notice to members of the settlement class. A final fairness hearing was set to occur before the court on May 11, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 of the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the court; whether the settlement class's claims should be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered upon final approval of the settlement; whether final class certification is appropriate; and to consider class counsel's applications for attorney's fees, costs, and incentive awards for the class representatives. A copy of the Court's settlement order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIPISn from PacerMonitor.com NEOGEN CORP: Continues to Defend Operating Engineers Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Neogen Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending November 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Operating Engineers securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. On July 18, 2025, Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan against the Company, John Adent, and David Naemura. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading public statements and omissions by defendants during the period January 5, 2023 through June 3, 2025 relating to the integration of the 3M business into Neogen. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, reasonable costs and expenses and/or other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Neogen is a food safety company that manufactures and markets products and services dedicated to food and animal safety. Neogen operates through two main business segments: Food Safety and Animal Safety. The Food Safety segment provides diagnostic test kits and other products to test for dangerous substances in human and animal food. The Animal Safety segment develops and supplies pharmaceuticals and medical instruments in the veterinary market.[BN] NEW YORK: Class Cert Bid in Bias-Based Profiling Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Plaintiffs 1-3, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, Jessica S. Tisch, Police Commissioner for the City of New York, in her official capacity, Joseph Kenny, Chief of Detectives for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity, and John Hart, Assistant Chief of Intelligence for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-2397 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), District Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and denied the Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously in a Memorandum Decision and Order filed December 29, 2025. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against the City and NYPD officials to end the [NYPD's] unconstitutional practice of disparately criminalizing and targeting tens of thousands of Black and Latino New Yorkers by placing their names in the Department's Criminal Group Database. The Plaintiff brought claims for violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and their parallel rights under the New York State Constitution, and for violation of the New York City Administrative Code's prohibition against bias-based profiling. Since at least 2013, the NYPD has used a centralized, electronic database known as the Criminal Group Database to label, track, and monitor alleged "gang" and "crew" members. Between January 2014 and February 2018, nearly 99% of the 17,452 people whom the NYPD added to the Database as active gang or crew members were Black or Hispanic. As of February 2025, Black and Hispanic people made up 98.58% of the "active" people listed in the Database and 96.84% of the "inactive" people listed in the Database. The Plaintiff sought to certify the following class: All Black and Latino people who have been, or will be, labeled as a member of a 'crew,' 'gang,' or 'criminal group,' and entered into the NYPD's Criminal Group Database. The Court found that the likelihood that the Plaintiff will be wrongfully targeted by the police is grounded in both their prior confrontations with the police and an ongoing NYPD practice of targeting individuals in the Database for increased surveillance, stops and detentions for low-level violations and quality-of-life offenses, and interrogations unrelated to those stops. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff established standing to seek injunctive relief. However, the Court denied the motion for class certification without prejudice to renewal after completion of limited discovery. The Court explained that discovery is necessary to develop the factual allegations, and [n]either party's interests are properly served by determining class certification prior to the completion of the discovery process. The Court addressed and rejected the Defendant's ascertainability argument. The Court stated that in the Second Circuit, ascertainability "requires only that a class be defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries." The Court found that the criteria for membership - race, criminal label, and inclusion in the Database -- are objective and the Database itself prescribes the boundaries. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 29, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MPtXdi from PacerMonitor.com NEW YORK: Marcus Sues OCFS Over Unlawful Solitary Confinement ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus F., Garrett M., a minor, by his next friend Jared Trujillo, Isaac R., a minor, by his next friend Ms. Y., and Christopher M., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated youth, Plaintiffs v. DaMia Harris-Madden, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services ("OCFS", and Norman Hall, in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner, Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00148-LAK (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) is a class action civil rights lawsuit challenging the OCFS's unlawful policy and practice of routinely locking youth in its care in solitary confinement for weeks and sometimes months on end. According to the complaint, OCFS routinely and unlawfully imposes solitary confinement in its five secure placement facilities, locking youth as young as 12 years old alone in small, barren cells for extended periods with no recourse to secure their release. Despite this widespread consensus about the serious and lasting harm of solitary confinement, OCFS continues to impose this dangerous practice on youth in its care. The complaint states that named Plaintiffs are four youth who are currently held in secure placement facilities, where OCFS, acting pursuant to policy and practice, routinely imposes solitary confinement. OCFS has violated and continues to violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end OCFS's cruel and discriminatory use of solitary confinement once and for all. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and hundreds of similarly situated youth across New York, who will continue to endure the profound harms of isolation for as long as OCFS's unlawful policies and practices continue unabated. Marcus F. is a Black, 18-year-old young person who was born in the Bronx and raised in New York City and is currently in OCFS custody at MacCormick Secure Center; Garrett M. is a Black, 16-year-old boy born and raised in New York City and is currently in OCFS custody at Industry Residential Center; Christopher M. is a Black, 20-year-old young person from Harlem, New York and is currently in OCFS custody at Goshen Secure Center; and Isaac R. is a 17-year-old Black boy born and raised in New York City and is currently in OCFS custody at Goshen Secure Center. Defendant DaMia Harris-Madden is the Commissioner of OCFS. Defendant Norman Hall is the Deputy Commissioner of OCFS's Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth. New York State Office of Children and Family Services ("OCFS") operates five secure placement facilities that are intended to serve as rehabilitative and treatment facilities where youth are placed after they are found to have committed an offense in New York's family courts or criminal court youth parts and sentenced to a term of incarceration.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Freeman, Esq. Kathryn Wood, Esq. Emma-Lee Clinger, Esq. Antony Gemmell, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 40 Worth Street New York, NY 100 13 Telephone: (212) 577-3300 E-mail: lafreeman@legal-aid.org kwood@legal-aid.org eclinger@legal-aid.org agemmell@legal-aid.org - and - Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq. Damian Williams, Esq. Jacob D. Alderdice, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 891-1600 E-mail: JCreelan@jenner.com DWilliams@jenner.com JAlderdice@jenner.com NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that NorthBay Healthcare Corp. has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it shared patient information with third parties, such as Facebook and Google, without consent. The NorthBay Healthcare settlement benefits individuals residing in California whose personal information or health information was disclosed to a third party without authorization or consent through any tracking tools on NorthBay Healthcare's websites or patient portal between Nov. 29, 2020, and May 14, 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, NorthBay Healthcare collected and shared patient information with third parties, such as Facebook and Google, without consent. Plaintiffs in the case claim this violated California privacy laws. NorthBay Healthcare is a California-based healthcare system with two hospitals and several outpatient facilities. NorthBay Healthcare has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the privacy class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Northbay Healthcare settlement, class members can receive a one-time cash payment of $15. All class members are eligible for a one-year subscription to CyEx Privacy Shield Pro, a privacy protection service designed to enhance consumer data security and limit online tracking. Class members will receive an enrollment code for this service via email or mail. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 12, 2026. The final approval hearing for the NorthBay Healthcare settlement is scheduled for March 5, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 12, 2026. Who's Eligible California residents whose personal and/or health information was disclosed to third parties through tracking tools on NorthBay Healthcare's website or patient portal between Nov. 29, 2020, and May 14, 2024. Potential Award $15 Proof of Purchase N/A 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 03/12/2026 Case Name J.A., et al. v. NorthBay Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. FCS059353, in the Superior Court of Solano County, California. Final Hearing 03/19/2026 Settlement Website NorthBayPixelSettlement.com Claims Administrator NorthBay Pixel Disclosure Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@NorthBayPixelSettlement.com (833) 417-4991 Class Counsel Jaclyn L. Anderson Graham B. LippSmith MaryBeth LippSmith LIPPSMITH LLP Brandon Wise PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP David S. Almeida Elena A. Belov John R. Parker, Jr. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC Defense Counsel Maveric R. Searle Tammy B. Webb Patrick Gregory SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN] NU ERA BENEFITS AGENCY: Slaughter Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nu Era Benefits Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Bria Slaughter, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nu Era Benefits Agency, Inc., Case No. 55272/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty., Jan. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action)." Nu Era Benefits Agency -- https://nuerabenefits.com/ -- specializes in providing innovative solutions and a comprehensive portfolio of products tailored for brokers and their clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com O'C ON CALL: Wilson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenail Wilson and Bobby Garrin, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. O'C ON CALL SECURITY PLLC and DARIN GRAHAM, Individually, Case No. 2:26-cv-02012-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought against the Defendants as a multi-Plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated security guards who are members of an FLSA multi-plaintiff action as defined herein and currently or previously employed by Defendants during all times material. The Defendants have had a time keeping system to record the compensable work hours of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated during all times material to this action. the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated performed work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to this Complaint. However, Defendants have had a common policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs and those similarly situated the applicable FLSA minimum wage (straight time) and overtime compensation rates of pay for all hours worked within weekly pay periods during all times material herein. The Defendants only paid Plaintiffs and those similarly situated regular hourly rates of pay for hours performed in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods instead of one and one-half times such regular hourly rates of pay for such overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs a were employed as security guards for Defendants. The Defendants provide security services to customers in and around Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com OP PHARMACY: Plaintiffs Must Supplement Class Cert with Briefing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russo v. OP Pharmacy, LLC (re: OnePoint Patient Care, LLC., Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 3:24-cv-00649-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order that Plaintiffs shall supplement their motion with additional briefing regarding the fairness of the settlement, the likelihood of class certification, and with revised notices. The Plaintiffs are individuals who allege that their private information was exposed in a data breach as a result of Defendant OnePoint Patient Care, LLC failing to sufficiently protect their information. Due to the short amount of time between the filing of this action in November 2024 and the filing of the present motion, the record is less developed on whether Plaintiffs and their counsel have adequately represented the putative class. The record does show, however, that Plaintiffs coordinated multiple related actions, hired competent counsel, produced sufficient evidence to permit investigation of their claims, and ultimately secured a nationwide settlement. The Plaintiffs therefore have shown that the procedural factors weigh in favor of preliminary approval. Additionally, the Court finds the proposed allocation of attorneys' fees and costs reasonable at this stage. On April 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs Russo and Cobb filed the Consolidated Complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following proposed class: "[a]ll living individuals residing in the United States whose Private Information may have been accessed during the Data Incident, including those individuals who were sent a notice by OnePoint that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." The Defendant is a Kentucky-based pharmacy and pharmacy benefits manager specializing in hospice care serving over 40,000 patients nationally across various service platforms. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VhmPrn at no extra charge.[CC] ORESTES CRUZ: Directed to Release Karanvir from Custody ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARANVIR S., v. ORESTES CRUZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-00055-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order: 1. The Petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order, converted to a motion for preliminary injunction, is granted. 2. Respondent must immediately release Petitioner KARANVIR S. from custody under the same conditions as he was released prior to his current detention. Respondent shall not impose any additional restrictions on him, unless such restrictions are determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. 3. Respondent is enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days’ notice and a pre deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder where: (a) Respondent shows material changed circumstances demonstrate a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, or (b) Respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At any such hearing, Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present. 4. Respondents are ordered to show cause why this Court should not issue a preliminary injunction continuing this Order. Respondents shall file responsive papers by January 16, 2026. Petitioner may file a reply, if any, by January 21, 2026. Petitioner is a citizen of India and an asylum applicant in the United States. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on April 30, 2023, and was detained by immigration authorities. He was then released on May 1, 2023, to pursue his asylum claim. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LOoB1F at no extra charge.[CC] ORLANDO HEALTH: Allowed Leave to File Response ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file a response exceeding the twenty-page limit established by Local Rule 3.01(c). The Defendant may submit a response to 52 the motion for class certification that is no longer than forty pages. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Orlando is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals.[CC] OX APPSEC: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Koeller Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD J. KOELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OX APPSEC SECURITY INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00641-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to strike the class allegations in the Complaint and/or deny class certification (or for alternative relief bifurcating and limiting discovery). The Plaintiff alleges Ox violated Section 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by "making telemarking calls to Plaintiff and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their written consent as well as calling people who had previously asked to no longer receive calls." Because the Plaintiff's cellular telephone was a "mixed use" phone used extensively for business, the Plaintiff was not a "residential subscriber" and the do not call provisions of the TCPA do not apply to him. As a result, he lacks standing and is not a typical or adequate class representative. Accordingly, the Court should strike the class allegations in the Complaint and/or deny class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a). In the alternative, if the Court does not strike the class allegations in the Complaint or deny class certification at this juncture, the Court should bifurcate and limit discovery to only the issue of the Plaintiff's use of his cellular telephone, pursuant to Rules 1 and 42, as doing so is both in the interests of judicial economy and that limited discovery will likely be dispositive of the Plaintiff's individual claims. OX Appsec develops and operates cloud and virtualization software services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ks69Hf at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Darci F. Madden, Esq. Martha Kohlstrand, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 E-mail: darci.madden@bclplaw.com martha.kohlstrand@bclplaw.com PACIFICHEALTH: Kramer Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Beth Kramer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PACIFICHEALTH LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00065 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive e-commerce website, www.pacifichealthlabs.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore to the essential products and services offered therein, constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite its national reach, sophisticated branding, and longstanding presence in the sports-nutrition market, Defendant has not implemented WCAG-compliant accessibility features across its website. Defendant's failure to adopt accessible design practices reflects a knowing disregard of established digital accessibility standards and denies blind and visually impaired consumers equal access to its goods and services. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its website becomes and remains fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Plaintiff is deeply invested in managing her nutritional and performance-recovery needs and relies on accessible product descriptions, ingredient lists, delivery information, and checkout functionality to complete purchases independently. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on www.pacifichealthlabs.com, Plaintiff will continue to be unable to navigate, browse, and complete transactions on equal terms with sighted consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual living with Cone Rod Dystrophy. The Defendant owns, operates, and controls the website www.pacifichealthlabs.com, which offers nationwide access to its nutritional products, including to residents of New York.[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 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PARTICLE AESTHETIC: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. PARTICLE AESTHETIC SCIENCE LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-0139 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Particle Face Cream 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. 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 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 CARLTON KNOWLES is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant PARTICLE AESTHETIC SCIENCE LTD. operates the Particle For Men online retail store, as well as the Particle For Men interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: skincare 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 PATRICIA HYDE: Moniz Must Release De Oliveira from Custody ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILDAZIO MARTINS DE OLIVEIRA, v. PATRICIA HYDE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-13940-FDS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV entered an order granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241. Respondent Antone Moniz is ordered to release petitioner from custody upon posting of the bond ordered by the immigration judge. The remaining respondents are dismissed. To be clear, the Court is without the authority to determine whether petitioner should be removed from the United States; that is a matter for the immigration courts. Nonetheless, and for the reasons that follow, the Court agrees that petitioner is being detained without lawful authority, and therefore will order that he be released as soon as he posts the bond ordered by the immigration judge. Because petitioner can be held, if at all, only under § 1226(a), he is entitled to a hearing at which the government must "either (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that poses a danger to the community or (2) prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] poses a flight risk." This is a habeas petition that concerns the government’s authority to hold a non-citizen pending removal proceedings. Petitioner Gildazio Martins de Oliveira is a citizen of Brazil who first entered the United States without inspection in 1999. He has resided in Massachusetts for decades and is married to a U.S. citizen. On Dec. 4, 2025, petitioner was taken into ICE custody. He had a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge on December 15, 2025, at which the judge apparently concluded that petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2) and was therefore not eligible to be released on bond, but that bond would have been set at $8,000 if petitioner were eligible to be released. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FWMri9 at no extra charge.[CC] PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Graf et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Graf, Cassandra Franse, and Amber Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiffs v. Perry's Restaurants Ltd d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille; and Christopher V. Perry, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00041 (W.D. Tex., January 8, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the server collective members less than minimum wage while purporting to rely on the tip-credit provisions in U.S. Code Title 29. Labor Section 203 (m) to satisfy their obligation to pay the full minimum wage under the FLSA. The Defendants, however, required Plaintiffs and the server collective members to turnover a fixed percentage of their sales to fund a weekly tip pool. Among other things, Defendants also used the servers' tips from the tip pool to fund the wages of its other employees, alleges the suit. Perry's Restaurants Ltd. operates a multi-state chain of Perry's Steakhouse restaurants, including locations in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, and other states. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com PLUSONE COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLUSONE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00019-DBP (D. Utah, Jan. 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendant as a call center representative. PlusOne Company produces, sells, leases, and maintains computers and related peripherals. Plusone also develops computer software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall L. Jeffs, Esq. JEFFS & JEFFS, P.C. 90 North 100 East P.O. Box 888 Provo, UT 84603 Telephone: (801) 373-8848 Email: rzjeffs@jeffslawoffice.com - and - Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com POPEYES LOUISIANA: Mun Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN MUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20128-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for secretly facilitating live tracking by external entities. Defendant Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. operates a commercial website, https://www.popeyes.com/, through which users browse menus, locate restaurants, customize orders, and explore promotional offers. Like many modern websites, the Website displays a cookie banner and a "cookie preferences" interface (the "cookie settings") purporting to give users meaningful control over what data the Website shares with third parties. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Website, most recently in or around 2025, to browse menu items and locate nearby Popeyes restaurants. Plaintiff clicked "Cookie Settings," toggled off the sale/sharing of personal information, declined all non-necessary cookies, and selected "Confirm My Choices." In reliance on Defendant's representations, Plaintiff believed that the Website would honor these choices. Until December 2025, however, Defendant continued to transmit Plaintiff's browsing activity, page interactions, navigation patterns, and identifiers to the Tracking Entities for advertising and analytics purposes. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's conduct allowed the Tracking Entities to unlawfully intrude into Plaintiff's Sensitive Information, private communications, invade Plaintiff's fundamental right to privacy, and fraudulently misrepresented the Website's data-collection practices. In doing so, Defendant violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), including Penal Code for illegal wiretapping and unlawful use of a pen register or trap and trace device; Florida Security of Communications Act for unlawful use of a pen register or trap and trace device; as well as common-law prohibitions against invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment, and related statutory and common-law protections. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated users harmed by Defendant's deceptive and unlawful surveillance practices. As of December 2025, the banners were configured to correctly deactivate tracking. Plaintiff Ryan Mun is a resident and citizen of California who accessed Defendant's Website for its intended purposes, including browsing menu offerings, locating restaurant locations, and reviewing promotional content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Maland, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Miami Tower, Suite 2900 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-4177 E-mail: servicedanielmaland@rvmrlaw.com dmaland@rvmrlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com E-mail: gishimoto@zlk.com PROVANTAGE CORPORATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moraga Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE MORAGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MELISSA SLEDGE; CHANDLER ROSE; HOUSTON HAWLEY; KAREN JIMENEZ; NICK LAY; PROVANTAGE CORPORATE SOLUTIONS,LLC; and IN DEMAND SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00019 (M.D.N.C., Jan. 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Moraga was employed by the Defendants as a staff. ProVantage Corporate Solutions, LLC is a retail service organization specializing in labor-intense services such as gondola fixture assembly, warehouse/backroom steel builds, millwork installation, signage/graphic placement, and heavy merchandising. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Eric G. Steber, Esq. LEE SEGUI, PLLC 900 W Morgan St Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 796-7500 Email: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com esteber@leesegui.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 Email: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com www.rmlegalgroup.com - and - Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, PMB # 201 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com PRUDENTRX LLC: Gluesing Seeks to Overrule Dec. 29 Text Order ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEILA GLUESING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRUDENTRX LLC & CAREMARK RX, L.L.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-00549-JJM-AEM (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order overruling the December 29 Text Order and compelling Defendants to produce. The Plaintiff argues that she cannot be compelled to arbitrate her dispute with Defendants because CVS Specialty Pharmacy's structurally coercive contracting tactics subjected her to economic duress. PrudentRx is a sub-contractor of CVS Caremark included in the Point Solutions Management (PSM) process. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t3Juqw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Teti, Esq. Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Derek C. Waller, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 535-3763 E-mail: kalasalle@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com dcwaller@locklaw.com - and - Stephen M. Prignano, Esq. MCINTYRE TATE LLP 50 Park Row West, Suite 109 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 351-7700 Facsimile: (401) 331-6095 E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com PURPOSE RESIDENTIAL: Wade Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- DEDRICK WADE, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURPOSE RESIDENTIAL, LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02015 (W.D. Tenn., January 7, 2026) is brought against the Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover the applicable overtime compensation rates of pay owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed work for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to this complaint. However, the Defendant has had a common plan, policy and practice of refusing and failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay for all overtime hours within weekly pay periods during all times material herein. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid employee of Defendant in Memphis, Tennessee at all relevant times herein. Purpose Residential, LLC has managed and maintained residential properties in Memphis, Tennessee; St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri, Columbus, Ohio; Independence, Missouri and in other cities across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com PYM PARTICLES: Yearwood Sues to Seek for Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Yearwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PYM PARTICLES PRODUCTIONS, III, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; MVL PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 2:26-cv-00127 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking for unpaid wages, damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees as well as reimbursement of costs and such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The Plaintiff worked for at least 26.3 hours, but was not paid any premium rest break wage for either day. No premium wages rest break wages were paid, at all, despite the fact that on each of two days of more than eleven hours work, neither Plaintiff nor any other member of the production crew was provided any rest breaks, at all. Plaintiff was entitled to at least three uninterrupted rest breaks of at least ten minutes, each day. These were not provided. Plaintiff should have been paid a premium Rest Break wage for each day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Electric Lighting Technician. PYM PARTICLES PRODUCTIONS, III, LLC ("PYM") is a Delaware Limited Liability Company who conducted business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California and produced at least one motion picture project, hiring temporary workers such as Plaintiff as cast and crew.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 323.962.3777 Fax: 323.962.3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com QUEEN CITY: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUEEN CITY DRY FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00059 (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.queencityfootwear.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. Queen City Dry Goods specializes in handcrafted footwear made in the USA, including sneakers, loafers, and Vermont house shoes. [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 RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Hicks Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANNA HICKS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY, P.C., a North Carolina professional corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00465-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify a class of persons who received prerecorded calls from Raleigh Ophthalmology, P.C. to their cellular telephone numbers based solely on referrals from third parties and despite them not being patients—i.e., without consent—in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's robocalls provision. Accordingly, class certification is warranted in this case because the central issues will all be resolved based on common, class-wide proof, including Raleigh Ophthalmology's own documents and data and testimony from Plaintiff Hicks' telephone and database expert, without regard for the experiences of individual class members. Raleigh Ophthalmology has violated the TCPA by placing thousands of prerecorded calls to non-patient, third party referrals. Plaintiff Hicks has met all of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(3) (predominance and superiority), as well as the implicit requirement of ascertainability. This class action stems from Raleigh Ophthalmology's TCPA violative practice of placing prerecorded calls to non-patients without their consent in the hope of gaining new business. Raleigh is a "private equity-backed" ophthalmology clinic with three North Carolina locations and twelve physicians. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1J7r0v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Ryan Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY, PLLC 1213 W. Morehead Street Suite 500, Unit No. 450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 E-mail: ryan@ryanpduffy.com RAPID ACTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Walker Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- AKIMASIA WALKER; and MEGAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAPID ACTION LLC dba RAPID STAFF; TOTALMED LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV00185 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 5, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs. Rapid Action LLC dba Rapid Staff engages in crisis staffing, job action recruitment, placement, and other short-term assignment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hali M. Anderson, Esq. Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq. ARCH LEGAL P.C. 3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-0800 Facsimile: (619) 692-0822 Email: handerson@archlegal.com mrodriguez@archlegal.com - and - Ashkan Shakouri, Esq. SHAKOURI LAW FIRM 401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (424) 252-4711 Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com RECYCLINE INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. RECYCLINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-142 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.preserve.eco/, 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 (ADA). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on November 24, 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. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has been discriminated against by Defendant's conduct and violations of the statues and regulations set forth herein 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 RECYCLINE, INC. operates the Preserve Eco online retail store, as well as the Preserve Eco interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's eco-friendly household 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 in Manaskie 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 Hon. Judge Bly entered an order granting the Parties joint motion to extend class certification deadlines. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 7, 2026. The Defendant's opposition should be filed no later than June 8, 2026, and the Plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than June 29, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LzhhGS at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Martinez Failure to Safeguard PHI and PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00077 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI"), and personally identifiable information ("PII"), and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. On July 4, 2025, upon information and belief, unauthorized third party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII and financial information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a real estate development and property management firm that specializes in luxury residential and commercial properties throughout New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (914) 860-4994 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Vauvelle Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockrose Development, L.L.C. The case is styled as Richard Vauvelle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rockrose Development, L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-00074 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Rockrose -- https://rockrose.com/ -- is a luxury residential and commercial developer specializing in no-fee apartment rentals located in Manhattan, Long Island City, and Washington DC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com SALESFORCE INC: Milton Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sieb Milton, Michelle Garza, Adriana Winkler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salesforce, Inc., Transunion LLC, Qantas Airways, Limited, Louis Vuitton North America, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-09781 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15749 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Salesforce, Inc. -- https://www.salesforce.com/ap/ -- is an American cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com - and - Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD 580 California Street, Ste. 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Fl New York, NY 10004 Phone: (917) 805-9243 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Email: tcheung@mofo.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Tracking ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that a group of Samsung TV owners filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America Inc. Why: The plaintiffs allege Samsung illegally tracks, stores and sells TV owners' viewing data without their knowledge or consent. Where: The Samsung class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Samsung Electronics America Inc. illegally tracks, stores and sells the viewing data of its Samsung TV owners without their knowledge or consent. Five plaintiffs filed the class action complaint against Samsung on Jan. 9 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal privacy laws. The lawsuit claims Samsung's smart TVs include automatic content recognition (ACR) software that tracks what consumers watch and shares this data with advertisers. Samsung has sold this data to companies like Google and X (formerly Twitter) for targeted advertising, all without obtaining informed consent from its customers, the Samsung class action says. The plaintiffs allege that Samsung's ACR tools record the image and audio played on Samsung TVs every 500 milliseconds, identifying the content being watched, regardless of its source. This data includes information about programs watched, content streamed through third-party apps, and even information displayed when the TV is used as a computer monitor. Class action: Samsung monetizes TV owners' data without consent The plaintiffs argue that Samsung's ACR tools allow the company to trace viewing data back to specific consumers, even in households with multiple Samsung TV users. The five allege that Samsung never obtained informed consent from TV owners to collect or share their viewing data. They claim Samsung's privacy notice is misleading, as it only mentions "processing" viewing history, not the extent of data collection and sharing that actually occurs. The plaintiffs allege Samsung's actions violate the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which was enacted in 1988 to prevent unauthorized disclosure of video consumption data. They also allege Samsung violated state privacy laws in California, New York, Vermont and Maryland. As a result of Samsung's conduct, the plaintiffs claim they and other class members have suffered invasion of privacy, loss of trust in electronics retailers, emotional distress and diminished value of their personal data. The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and seeking damages, including statutory damages under the VPPA, as well as injunctive and equitable relief. Samsung is also facing separate class action allegations that its Galaxy Watch bands contain excessive levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and that it uses its website to unlawfully collect and disclose visitors' private data and communications. The plaintiffs are represented by Alyssa Tolentino of Siri & Glimstad LLP. The Samsung class action lawsuit is DiGiacinto, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00196, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] SEALED AIR: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Clayton Dubilier -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Sealed Air Corp. (NYSE: SEE) related to its sale to Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sealed Air shareholders will receive $42.10 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sealed-air-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. (NYSE: ALEX) related to its sale to MW Group and funds affiliated with Blackrock Real Estate and DivcoWest. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Alexander & Baldwin shareholders are expected to receive $21.20 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/alexander-baldwin-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Ryerson Holding Corporation (NYSE: RYI) related to its merger with Olympic Steel, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Ryerson shareholders will own approximately 63% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 12, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ryerson-holding-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Olympic Steel, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZEUS) related to its sale to Ryerson Holding Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Olympic shareholders will receive 1.7105 Ryerson shares of common stock for each Olympic share of common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 12, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/olympic-steel-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SKI BARN: Cazares Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ski Barn Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00044 (E.D. Wis., January 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.skibarn.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cazares and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The complaint relates that Cazares has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On June 21, 2025, Cazares searched Google to find trusted online stores offering skiing gear in an attempt to discover out-of-season promotions. Among the top results was Skibarn.com, offering a selection of ski and snowboard gear, apparel, and accessories for all ages and skill levels. While exploring their offerings, Cazares decided to purchase a pair of skis. However, as Cazares tried to navigate the website and complete her purchase, she encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed. These barriers to access have denied Cazares full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the Website. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Cazares and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Cazares seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Amelia Cazares is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Ski Barn Corporation provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase an extensive collection of premium skis, snowboards, bindings, boots, apparel, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SLM CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 17 --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SLM Corporation ("SLM" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SLM) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 25-cv-18834, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that invested in SLM securities between July 25, 2025 and August 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired SLM securities during the Class Period, you have until February 17, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. SLM, more commonly known as Sallie Mae, primarily originates and services private education loans ("PELs") to students and their families. SLM prides itself on its purported "high-quality" PELs, as well as its loss mitigation and loan modification programs to improve the collectability of PELs. SLM classifies its PELs as being in repayment when customers are making interest-only or fixed payments, or when they have entered full principal and interest repayment status after any applicable grace period. SLM charges off delinquent PELs at the end of the month in which they reach 120 days delinquent, or otherwise when they are classified as a loss by SLM or its regulator. SLM's cost to service a delinquent borrower is significantly higher than the cost to service a current or in-school borrower. Accordingly, delinquency rates on SLM's PELs are a critical metric that investors rely on in determining the health and profitability of SLM's PEL business. At all relevant times, investors and analysts were reassured by Defendants' statements that rising delinquency rates for SLM's PELs were attributable to, inter alia, purportedly "normal seasonal trends" and minor refinements to SLMS's loan offerings, as well as reassured by Defendants' statements touting the effectiveness of SLM's purportedly "enhanced" loss mitigation and new loan modification programs. For example, during a conference call with investors and analysts on July 24, 2025, SLM's Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer, Defendant Peter M. Graham, assured investors that "the trends that we're seeing in both delinquencies as well as sort of the Grace programs and the like, really are following the normal seasonal trends that we would expect in the business." Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SLM's business, operations, and prospects that artificially inflated the prices of SLM's securities during the Class Period. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SLM was experiencing a significant increase in early stage delinquencies; (ii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the effectiveness of SLM's loss mitigation and/or loan modification programs, as well as the overall stability of the Company's PEL delinquency rates; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements made a materially false and misleading impression regarding SLM's business, operations, and prospects at all relevant times. On August 14, 2025, investment bank TD Cowen issued a report addressing SLM, flagging that, "[o]verall, July [2025] delinquencies were up 49 bp m/m, higher (worse) than the seasonal (+10 bps) performance for July, driven by a 45 bps increase in early stage delinquencies." Notably, TD Cowen's findings directly contradicted Defendant Graham's assurances—made late in the month of July 2025—that Defendants were observing delinquency rates that "really are following the normal seasonal trends we would expect in the business." Following TD Cowen's report, SLM's stock price fell $2.67 per share, or 8.09%, to close at $30.32 per share on August 15, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com[GN] SMUCKER CO: $350K California Wage Class Settlement Has Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jose Arellano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The J.M. Smucker Company, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-1540 WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, and for attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement payments. The Court approved a $350,000.00 settlement of California wage and hour law violations and certified the settlement class. Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Defendant TruRoots, LLC, the only remaining defendant, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. The parties selected Phoenix Settlement Administrators to serve as the Settlement Administrator. According to the Settlement Agreement, the gross settlement amount of $350,000.00 includes the following: (1) a $5,000.00 plaintiff incentive award for Jose Arellano, the lead plaintiff; (2) maximum attorneys' fees of $116,666.67, or 33.33% of the gross settlement amount, plus reasonable documented costs up to $17,000.00; and (3) settlement administration costs of approximately $7,000.00. Plaintiff estimates that the claims are worth up to $665,770.15. The portion of the gross settlement amount allocated to class claims, $204,802.48, constitutes approximately 30.76% of the $665,770.15 maximum valuation. The Court stated this amount is comfortably within the range of percentage recoveries that California courts have found to be reasonable. Prior to mediation and settlement negotiations, counsel engaged in thorough investigation of the claims and informal discovery, including securing employee records and policy documents, obtaining and reviewing Defendant's wage and hour practices, analyzing Defendant's payroll and timekeeping records, and preparing a damage analysis to assess Defendant's potential liability. On May 21, 2024, the parties participated in a full-day private mediation over Zoom with an experienced class action mediator. Despite both sides entering into mediation fully prepared to litigate this case should negotiations fail, the parties were ultimately able to reach a settlement. The parties spent several months negotiating the final terms of the Settlement Agreement, executing the agreement on December 11, 2024. The Court found that the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class. The Court stated that given that the settlement reached was the product of arms-length bargaining following extensive informal discovery and with the help of an experienced mediator, this factor weighs in favor of final approval. The Court is satisfied that the outcome of the negotiations was not infected by counsel's pursuit of their own self-interests. In light of the risks associated with further litigation and the relative strength of Defendant's arguments, the Court finds that the value of the settlement counsels in favor of granting final approval. The Court found the requested fees to be reasonable and granted counsel's motion for attorneys' fees. Counsel represent that they have dedicated 119.1 hours of work to these cases. Counsel states that their customary hourly rates in class actions range from $800.00 to $1,500.00. For purposes of the lodestar calculation, the Court applied the rate at the lower end of the range provided by counsel. Based on 139.13 hours billed at an hourly rate of $800.00, the lodestar figure is $111,280.00. This figure is nearly identical to the $116,666.67 award requested, with a multiplier of 0.98, confirming the reasonableness of the requested award. Counsel's litigation expenses and costs currently total approximately $16,530.85, though they seek up to $17,000.00. These expenses include copying and mailing expenses, filing fees, mediation fees, consultant fees, and travel expenses. The Court finds these are reasonable litigation expenses and granted class counsel's request for costs up to the amount of $17,000.00. Plaintiff seeks a $5,000.00 incentive award for Jose Arellano, the lead plaintiff. Plaintiff's efforts included interviewing and selecting counsel, providing documents to counsel, providing statements to counsel, providing information to counsel, keeping counsel informed of developments and relevant new information, reviewing documents and discovery responses, making himself available to assist counsel in mediation, spending roughly 14 hours litigating the case, and actively participating in decision-making in the case. Counsel represents that Plaintiff's efforts were instrumental and that the recovery provided for in the Settlement Agreement would have been impossible to obtain without Plaintiff's participation. In light of Plaintiff's efforts and the risks incurred in bringing this action, the Court finds the requested incentive awards to be reasonable and approved the awards. The Court ordered that Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement payments be granted. The Court certified the following class: all persons employed by Defendant in California and classified as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant or Defendant's predecessor between October 31, 2018, and April 14, 2025. The Court appointed Jose Arellano as class representative and appointed Justin F. Marquez, Arsine Grigoryan, and Dorota James of the law firm Wilshire Law Firm PLC as class counsel. The Court found that the settlement agreement's plan for class notice satisfies the requirements of due process and Rule 23. The Court found that the parties and their counsel took appropriate efforts to locate and inform all class members of the settlement. Zero employees have requested to be excluded from the class. Given that no class member filed an objection to the settlement, the Court finds that no additional notice to the class is necessary. Plaintiff and all class members who have not timely opted out of this settlement do and shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, settled, compromised, relinquished, and discharged Defendant of and from any and all settled claims, pursuant to the release provisions stated in the parties' settlement agreement. Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of $116,666.67, and litigation costs up to the amount of $17,000.00. Phoenix Settlement Administrators is entitled to administration costs in the amount of $7,000.00. Plaintiff Jose Arellano is entitled to an incentive award in the amount of $5,000.00. The remaining settlement funds shall be paid to participating class members and aggrieved employees in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This action is dismissed with prejudice. However, without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement with respect to all parties to this action and their counsel of record. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 6, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pQV5H4 from PacerMonitor.com ST. JOHN'S RIVERSIDE: Ortiz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. John's Riverside Hospital. The case is styled as Jeanette Ortiz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. St. John's Riverside Hospital, Case No. 55262/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty., Jan. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts - Other (Data Breach)." St. John's Riverside Hospital -- https://riversidehealth.org/ -- is a private, community hospital located in Yonkers, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Toxic Coffee Ingredients -------------------------------------------------------------- Kenn C. Bivins, writing for Parade, reports that Starbucks faces class-action lawsuit over alleged human rights violations and toxic coffee ingredients. Lawsuit claims misleading "100% Ethically Sourced" labels; alleges unsafe farm conditions and harmful chemicals. Starbucks denies allegations, asserts supply chain oversight and adherence to safety standards. As members of the general public, we often rely on the businesses that we frequent to be upfront about who they are and the services they provide. We rely on restaurants to adhere to certain cleanliness standards and place the burden of sourcing fresh, wholesome ingredients in their hands without thinking twice. At the grocery store, we negotiate with ourselves about which brands to buy based on perceived reputation and often go with what we assume aligns more with our personal values and needs. In today's ever-changing consumer landscape, though, the blind assumption that companies have our best interest at heart has only gotten blurrier and murkier by the day. Consumers and workers are demanding transparency and holding institutions accountable by whatever means necessary, including filing lawsuits. In the last few weeks, lawsuits have been filed against Pepsi, Walmart, and McDonald's, and now it appears Starbucks has joined the list. According to a new class-action lawsuit filed on Jan. 13 by Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman, Starbucks is being sued for alleged human rights violations and for failing to disclose toxic ingredients in its coffee. The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks falsely labels its products as "100% Ethically Sourced," despite recent investigations that allegedly reveal otherwise. Starbucks Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Citing Alleged Human Rights Violations Findings by the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations alleged that Starbucks' Coffee and Farmer Equity Program (C.A.F.E.) forced workers to work in dangerous conditions without proper protective gear, and that they lived in "wretched housing" with mold, vermin infestations, and inadequate water and sewage systems. The suit also cites evidence that independent testing of Starbucks' decaf house blend, medium roast, detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including methylene chloride, benzene and toluene. Alleged Toxins Found in Decaf Coffee Simply put, VOCs are gases emitted by many common liquids and solids, such as paints, cleaning supplies, and building materials, that can cause adverse health effects, including respiratory irritation, headaches and nausea. According to the EPA's guidelines, the levels of VOCs allegedly found in Starbucks coffee exceed those considered safe, thereby putting consumers at risk. Starbucks maintains that its coffee meets or exceeds applicable safety standards. In a statement regarding the lawsuit, a Starbucks representative said, "We take the allegations raised in the Williams and Strauss lawsuit seriously, but we firmly believe they are inaccurate. We maintain visibility into our supply chain, audit farms regularly, and take swift action when violations are reported—including terminating supplier relationships when necessary." So far, no major developments have been made in the case, but we'll keep our eyes peeled as it unfolds. [GN] STORR OFFICE: Class Settlement in Allen Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY ALLEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, V. STORR OFFICE ENVIRONMENTS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00713-D-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Personal Information was potentially compromised in the Data Incident discovered by Storr in May 2024, including all those who were sent notice of the breach." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (I) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. The Court finds that Plaintiff Gregory Allen will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds Cassandra P. Miller of Strauss Borrelli PLLC will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on July 1, 2026. Storr provides new office furniture and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2YzoxA at no extra charge.[CC] SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------ PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS, APPOINT CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, AND APPOINT CLASS COUNSEL AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandra Vanipenta v. SVB Financial Group, et al. (RE SVB FINANCIAL GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 5:23-cv-01097-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on April 22, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., pursuant to the Court's Order of Dec. 23, 2025, will move for an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to: (i) certify the Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (ii) appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appoint Lead Counsel as Class Counsel. The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of investors in SVB, which collapsed on March 10, 2023, then the second largest bank failure in U.S. history. Through this Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class (the "Class"): "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the SVB Securities during the Class Period (defined herein) and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers, directors, and affiliates of Defendants and SVB at all relevant times, the immediate family members and legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any excluded person, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. SVB was the parent holding company for Silicon Valley Bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qvmfHo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com preethi@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Sharan Nirmul, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Suit Seeks to Seal Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandra Vanipenta v. SVB Financial Group et al., (RE: SVB FINANCIAL GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 5:23-cv-01097-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the administrative motion to consider whether the materials designated confidential by the Defendants should be sealed in connection with Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel and certain exhibits. Certain portions of the Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their Motion and Exhibits B-F contain information that the Designating Parties have designated as "Confidential" under the Stipulated Amended Protective Order. The Plaintiffs' motion includes yellow highlights where it seeks to file the Designating Parties' information under seal. T By filing this motion, the Plaintiffs do not concede that these materials are "Confidential" or warrant remaining under seal. SVB was the parent holding company for Silicon Valley Bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z6KNTn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. Preethi Krishnamurthy, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com preethi@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Sharan Nirmul, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com SWAGELOK COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in Patterson Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA L. PATTERSON, v. SWAGELOK COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00566-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Mr. Patterson may proceed against Optum and the United Healthcare Defendants under Section 1132(a)(3) for prohibited transactions and breach of a fiduciary duty on behalf of himself. Mrs. Patterson may proceed with her State-law claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and tortious interference, but not her claim for civil conspiracy. Finally, the Court denies Mr. and Mrs. Patterson's motion for leave to file a partial surreply. The Court received enough briefing from the parties, who had ample opportunity to develop all arguments they wished without the need for a surreply. Swagelok is a privately held developer of fluid system products, assemblies, and services for the oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical, semiconductor, and transportation industries. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AKf8Df at no extra charge.[CC] TAQUERIA LOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAQUERIA LOS 2 BROTHERS, INC.; and RAUL CAMACHO, Case No. 1:26-cv-00145 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher. Taqueria Los 2 Brothers, Inc. is a family-owned Mexican restaurant, with locations including Terrytown, Louisiana, that emphasizes authentic Jalisco-style cuisine, handmade tortillas, and fresh ingredients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. Alonzo Rivas, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 1300 Greenbrook Blvd., Suite 200 Hanover Park, IL 60133 Telephone: (847) 893-9106 Email: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com arivas@lopezsanchezlaw.com TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Laboy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARLEY LABOY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. TECHNICAL RESPONSE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00368-KAC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's dispositive and Daubert motions. Based on the foregoing, the parties request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class Certification up to and including Jan. 19, 2026, and extend the deadline for Dispositive and Daubert Motions up to and including Jan. 30, 2026. Per the Agreed Case Management Order entered by this Court on November 21, 2024, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is currently due on or before Jan. 12, 2026, and Dispositive and Daubert Motions are due on or before January 23, 2026. The Parties have conferred and come to a mutually beneficial agreement regarding the extensions, and the extension of these deadlines does not prejudice either party. The Defendant is an engineering and manufacturing company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ZGrz2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com The Defendant is represented by: John M. Lawhorn, Esq. Sharon H. Kim, Esq. FRANTZ, MCCONNELL & SEYMOUR, LLP 550 W. Main Street, Suite 500 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 546-9321 E-mail: jlawhorn@fmsllp.com skim@fmsllp.com TECHZOTIC LLC: Mendoza Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Techzotic LLC. The case is styled as Manuel Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Techzotic LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00089-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Techzotic LLC -- https://techzoetic.com/ -- offers trusted digital transformation partner for cloud modernization, AI, automation, and custom software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com TERRAN ORBITAL: Taylor Files Verification Under Delaware Law ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Bruce Taylor filed verification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Delaware Court of Chancery in connection with the filing of verified class action complaint captioned as BRUCE TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARC H. BELL, Defendant, Case No. 2025-1505 (Del. Ch., December 31, 2025). The Plaintiff held shares of Terran Orbital Corporation common stock from November of 2023 continuously throughout the unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint until the consummation of the acquisition of Terran Orbital Corporation by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Plaintiff Taylor has read and authorized the filing of the complaint against the Defendants in this action and noted that allegations as to him and his own actions are true and correct and all other allegations are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. In accordance with Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23, he has not received, been promised or offered, and will not accept, any form of compensation, directly or indirectly, for prosecuting or serving as a representative party in this class action, except for: (1) such damages or other relief as the Court may award her as a member of the class; (11) such fees, costs, or other payments as the Court expressly approves to be paid to or on her behalf; or (iii) reimbursement, paid by my attorneys, of actual and reasonable out-of-pocket expenditures incurred directly in connection with the prosecution of this action. Terran Orbital Corporation is a manufacturer of satellite products primarily serving the aerospace and defense industries. Marc H. Bell is the Company's CEO. [BN] TICKETMASTER LLC: Scruggs Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY SCRUGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETMASTER L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00070 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website, www.ticketmaster.com, without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish the Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying pen-register or trap-and-trace devices or processes. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the collection and transmission of dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, says the suit. Ticketmaster L.L.C. operates as a ticket distribution company. The Company buys, transfers, and sells tickets for live music, sporting, arts, theater, and family events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com TOPO ATHLETIC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Topo Athletic LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-247 (N.D. Ill., January 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.topoathletic.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Williams and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Williams has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. Williams, who is interested in athletic footwear designed to support comfort and performance, became interested in purchasing running shoes from Topoathletic.com after reviewing the company's offerings. After reading positive customer reviews praising the shoes' comfortable fit, high-quality materials, and reliable performance, he decided to proceed with a purchase. On December 19, 2025, after considering the product's features and favorable feedback, he attempted to make a purchase directly through the company's Website. The complaint alleges that during his attempt to purchase Atmos running shoes, Williams encountered accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the transaction. The Website did not provide a "skip to content" mechanism, which prevented him from bypassing repetitive navigation elements using a keyboard. As a result, he was forced to navigate through the same menu items on each page with his screen reader, significantly hindering efficient access to the main content and disrupting the overall navigation experience. Additionally, the product images lacked alternative text, which prevented him from perceiving the content, purpose, and key features conveyed by those images. This limitation made it difficult for him to understand important visual information about the products, including their design, functionality, and distinguishing characteristics. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Williams, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States, says the suit. Williams seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Darnell Williams is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Topo Athletic, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase The website offers a variety of performance-focused athletic products, including road running shoes, trail running shoes, hiking shoes, recovery and lifestyle footwear, as well as athletic apparel and accessories, available in multiple models, sizes, and designs for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law TRIZETTO PROVIDER: De la Pena Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANTE DE LA PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC; COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; and SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00264 (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other certain customers. 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. The complaint alleges that 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, says the suit. 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 is a healthcare technology firm that provides care management services to physicians, hospitals, and health systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Peters Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twist Bioscience Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Peters securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) ("Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California ("Court") against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (the "Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws. The Securities Class Action's claims are based in large part on allegations made in a report issued on November 15, 2022 by Scorpion Capital ("Scorpion Report") concerning, among other things, the Company's DNA chip technology and accounting practices. The initial complaint filed in the Securities Class Action alleges that various statements that the Defendants made between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 were materially false and misleading in light of the allegations in the Scorpion Report. The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 and sought damages as well as certain other costs. On July 28, 2023, the Court appointed a new plaintiff, not the original plaintiff who filed the case, as lead plaintiff in the case and appointed a new law firm as lead counsel. On October 11, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between December 20, 2018 and November 15, 2022. The amended complaint alleges that certain statements regarding, among other things, the Company's DNA products and accounting practices were false and misleading. On December 6, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on November 13, 2024. On September 3, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff leave to further amend by September 24, 2025. The plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint. The Company is engaged in discovery and intends to continue vigorously defending the remaining claims under this action in all respects. Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform. UNITED PARKS: Petrun Sues Over Deceptive Ticket Sales Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ CLAIRE PETRUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARKS & RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00090-BTM-BLM (S.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2026) alleges violation of the California Ticket Seller Law and the California Business and Professions Code. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant sells tickets to theme parks, including California theme park SeaWorld. To sell these tickets, the Defendant uses unfair and illegal tactics to trick and manipulate consumers into purchasing tickets and paying more than they otherwise would. These include using (1) fake sales, and (2) hidden fees. The Defendant advertised one price, only to later disclose a higher, different price later in the checkout process. Such fees are deceptive and unfair because it interferes with consumers' ability to price-compare and manipulates them into paying fees that are either hidden entirely or not presented until late in the transaction, after the consumer already has spent significant time selecting and finalizing a product or service plan to purchase, says the suit. United Parks and Resorts Inc. is a theme park and entertainment company. The Company owns and licenses a portfolio of theme and water parks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd. 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4450 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Patterson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC L. PATTERSON, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00470-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Mr. Patterson may proceed against Optum and the United Healthcare Defendants under Section 1132(a)(3) for prohibited transactions and breach of a fiduciary duty on behalf of himself. Mrs. Patterson may proceed with her State-law claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and tortious interference, but not her claim for civil conspiracy. Finally, the Court denies Mr. and Mrs. Patterson's motion for leave to file a partial surreply. The Court received enough briefing from the parties, who had ample opportunity to develop all arguments they wished without the need for a surreply. UnitedHealth Group is a health care and well-being company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=avjTQ0 at no extra charge.[CC] VALLEY STRONG: Rizzoto Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- MAL SUN RIZZOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY STRONG CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-at-00051 (E.D. Cal., January 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") of its customers, including, but not limited to: names along with dates of birth, Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, financial account numbers and/or payment card data. On August 2025, Defendant Marquis detected unusual activity on its IT systems and then notified Defendant Valley Strong Union. Between October 27, 2025, and November 25, 2025, Marquis began notifying affected businesses -- including Valley Strong Credit Union that a third party viewed or copied certain files on the Marquis network that contained some of Valley Strong's members' personal information. According to the complaint, the Defendants have not provided any assurances that all data acquired in the Data Breach, or copies thereof, have been recovered or destroyed; or, that Defendants have modified its data protection policies, procedures, and practices sufficient to avoid future, similar, data breaches. The Defendants' conduct, as evidenced by the circumstances of the Data Breach, has created a substantial risk of future identity theft, fraud, or other forms of exploitation, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff, therefore, 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. Plaintiff Mal Sun Rizzoto is a citizen and resident of Rosedale, California who has been a customer of Valley Strong for the past 7-8 years. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions provides marketing and compliance software services to many financial institutions including Defendant Valley Strong Credit Union. Defendant Valley Strong Union is a financial institution and requires customers to provide their PII in connection with the transaction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com VARONIS SYSTEMS: Molchanov Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- ARTEM MOLCHANOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VARONIS SYSTEMS, INC.; YAKOV FAITELSON; and GUY MELAMED, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00117 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2026) is a class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Varonis' common stock between February 4, 2025, and October 28, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Varonis' ability to convert its existing customer base; notably, that it was not truly equipped to convince existing users of the benefits of converting to the SaaS offering or otherwise maintain those customers on its platform, resulting in significantly reduced ARR growth potential in the near-term. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Varonis' securities at artificially inflated prices. The price of Varonis' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $63.00 per share on October 28, 2025, Varonis' stock price fell to $32.34 per share on October 29, 2025, a decline of about 48.67% in the span of just a single day, says the suit. Varonis Systems, Inc. designs and develops data security software solutions. The Company offers data management systems to organize, manage, and protect unstructured and semi-structured data such as documents, spreadsheets, presentations, media files, and other business data. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Zeiders Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY ZEIDERS, CALVIN WESTLUND, MARIA LYDIA MARTINEZ, JAE YOUNG CHOI, AMANDA DeLONG, BRIAN CRAMER, and SCOTT WORTHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLKSWAGEN AG, a German Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-11197-BRM-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian Martinotti entered an order -- denying VW America's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); and -- granting in part and denying in part VW America's Motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is VW America's Motion to Dismiss the nationwide claims for lack of Article III standing is granted in part to the extent such claims are premised on state law claims brought on behalf of putative "Nationwide Class" members who purchased a Class Vehicle outside of the seven states represented by Plaintiffs—Delaware, Pennsylvania, Georgia, New York, Maryland, Illinois, and Minnesota. The breach of express warranty claim is based on a workmanship defect and not a design defect. Therefore, the CAC sufficiently states a claim of breach of express warranty under the respective state laws. Based on the foregoing, VW America's Motion to Dismiss the Tenth Cause of Action for failure to state a breach of express warranty claim is denied. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants defectively installed the piston ring assembly in the Class Vehicles' engines. The Class Vehicles employ "four reciprocating pistons to convert pressure into a rotation motion." Absent properly tensioned compression rings, engine oil would enter the combustion chamber, which would result in decreased engine performance, damaged internal parts, and reduced engine oil. On Dec. 16, 2024, Zeiders and Westlund filed a class action complaint against VW America. Both Martinez and Worthington subsequently filed their own class action complaints under separate docket numbers. On Feb. 4, 2025, Zeiders, Westlund, Martinez, and Worthington filed a motion to consolidate the three actions, which the Court granted on Feb. 11, 2025. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the CAC against the Defendants on behalf of all individuals who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in the nation (the "Nationwide Class") and in the states of Delaware (the "Delaware Subclass"), Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Subclass"), Georgia (the "Georgia Subclass"), Maryland (the "Maryland Subclass"), New York (the "New York Subclass"), Illinois (the "Illinois Subclass"), and Minnesota (the "Minnesota Subclass") (collectively, the "Statewide Subclasses"). Volkswagen markets and distributes automobiles and auto parts. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ltqMJz at no extra charge.[CC] W.S. BADGER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. W.S. BADGER COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-144 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.badgerbalm.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 Daily Mineral Sunscreen - SPF 30 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, notes the complaint. 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 W.S. BADGER COMPANY, INC. operates the Badger Balm online retail store, as well as the Badger Balm interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: skincare 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 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Joint Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HENDRICKSON, et al., v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order denying joint motion to amend scheduling order to accommodate mediation on Feb. 12, 2026. Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Accommodate Mediation on February 12, 2026, is DENIED. The pending deadlines of the Feb. 10, 2025, Scheduling Order remain in full effect. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. refers to the employees of Walmart Inc., the world's largest retailer, known for its vast network of physical stores (supercenters, Sam's Clubs) and e-commerce platforms, focused on helping customers save money while providing career growth and benefits for its millions of global associates. The company, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, offers comprehensive programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8oh8W5 at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREEN CO: Class Action Settlement in Naro Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERENA NARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; TRISH GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; AND THE CALIFORNIA LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ex rel. SERENA NARO AND TRISH GONAZALES, a California governmental entity, v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation; and WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1-15, Case No. 4:22-cv-03170-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order and judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action and private attorney's general act settlement, attorneys' fees and costs, class representative incentive awards, and settlement claims administration costs as modified. The Court does find for purposes of judgment on the Settlement Agreement only that the Settlement Class defined in the Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Court confirms the appointment of Aiman-Smith & Marcy as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), and finds that Settlement Class Counsel have protected and will continue to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, which the Court finds to be 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount, which is $237,500, and expenses in the amount of $17,828.76. The Representative Plaintiffs Serena Naro and Trish Gonzalez are each entitled to an incentive award of $10,000, for total incentive awards in the amount of $20,000. Claims administrator Atticus Administration is entitled to $37,200 for settlement administration costs. Walgreens is an American pharmacy store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AmzNaC at no extra charge.[CC] WENDY'S PROPERTIES: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. WENDY'S PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20130-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the "Americans with Disabilities Act" or "ADA". The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming aware of his rights, and their repeated infringement, he has dedicated his life to this cause so that he, and others like him, may have full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations without the fear of discrimination and repeated exposure to architectural barriers in violation of the ADA. Defendant WENDY'S PROPERTIES, LLC owned and operated a commercial building at 2400 NW 87th Ave., Doral, FL 33172, (the "Commercial Property") and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami Dade County, Florida. In addition, the Defendant owns, operates, and oversees a general parking lot and parking spots specific to the business located therein. The Plaintiff alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access have denied or diminished his ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to him, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, the Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, adds the complaint. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual over 18 years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Primary E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mails: yabdalla@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-Mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com WESTGATE SQUARE: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. WESTGATE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, PAEZ EATERY WEST, INC., and 158 WEST GATE FOOD CORP., Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-60050-AHS (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the "Americans with Disabilities Act" or "ADA". The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming aware of his rights, and their repeated infringement, he has dedicated his life to this cause so that he, and others like him, may have full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations without the fear of discrimination and repeated exposure to architectural barriers in violation of the ADA. Defendant WESTGATE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, as landlord, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its common areas, walkways, paths of travel, general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Broward County, Florida, that is the subject of this Action. Defendants PAEZ EATERY WEST, INC. and 158 WEST GATE FOOD CORP. own and/or operate places of public accommodation located at or within the Commercial Property at 15740-15984 W State Road 84, Sunrise, FL 33326. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintif's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, adds the complaint. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Primary E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: yabdalla@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-Mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com WORKDAY INC: Mobley Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MOBLEY for and on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, V. WORKDAY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the class certification and collective decertification schedule as follows: Deadline Proposed Date Class certification motion and July 16, 2026 motion to decertify: Opposition to class certification motion Sept. 13, 2026 and motion to decertify: Reply to class certification motion and Oct. 10, 2026 opposition to motion to decertify: Class certification hearing: On or after Dec. 2, 2026 The Parties stipulated that they agreed to that Schedule "[b]ecause of the unique challenges related to notice in this case [and] the discovery issues that must be resolved before notice can issue." Workday is an American on‑demand (cloud-based) financial management, human capital management, and student information system software vendor. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0nh4uN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee D. Winston, Esq. Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. Bethany Mae Logan, Esq. WINSTON COOKS, LLC 420 20th Street North, Suite#2200 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 482-5174 Facsimile: (205) 278-5876 E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com rcooks@winstoncooks.com bneal@winstoncooks.com - and - Jay Greene, Esq. GREENE ESTATE, PROBATE, AND ELDER LAW FIRM 447 Sutter Street, Suite 435 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 905-0215 E-mail: greeneattorney@gmail.com - and - Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq. Ann K. Wiggins, Esq. Jennifer Wiggins Smith, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com awiggins@wigginschilds.com jsmith@wigginschilds.com WORLD WRESTLING: Misleads Consumers, Diesa and Toback Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL DIESA and REBECCA TOBACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00039 (D. Conn., January 8, 2026) alleges that the Defendant World Wrestling Entertainment conspired with ESPN, through its acts and omissions, to mislead consumers who had already subscribed to ESPN to believe that they would not have to pay anything more to access ESPN's direct-to-consumer streaming service and to watch all its Premium Live Events. Allegedly, WWE and ESPN collaborated to market the new DTC service, intending to convince WWE fans to sign up for the new service. As a result, thousands of individuals, who lacked the benefit of full disclosure, were made to pay an unlawful fee that violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and suffered a substantial and ascertainable economic injury, which flowed from WWE's violation of this law, says the suit. Headquartered in Stamford, CT, WWE operates as a professional wrestling company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph P Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.net arusi@scott-scott.com - and - Michael H. Sampson, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: mike@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com XLEAR INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XLEAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00094 (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://xlear.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on November 24, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Xlear(R) Sinus Rinse Refill Pack - 50 Xylitol & Saline Packets from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. 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. Xlear, Inc. operates the website that offers sinus care products.[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: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal YALE UNIVERSITY: Ahsan Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yale University. The case is styled as Tashroom Ahsan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YALE UNIVERSITY, Case No. NNH-CV26-6164555-S (Conn. Super. Ct., New Haven Cty., Jan. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Contracts - All Other." Yale New Haven Health System (YNHHS) -- https://www.ynhhs.org/ -- is a nonprofit healthcare system with headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW (418017) 156 SOUTH MAIN STREET PO BOX 192 Colchester, CT 06415 ********* 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 ***