---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 22, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 16

                            Headlines

1 MD EXPRESS: Ayupov Sues Over Unlawful Wages Deductions
1236 SECOND AVENUE: Fuentes Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumer Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Gutierrez Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
AFP 103 CORP: Marino Sues Over Property's Access Barriers

ANGEION GROUP: Duarte Suit Transferred to D. Columbia
BABY BREZZA: Quiros Files Suit Over False Discount Prices
BARRACO'S PIZZA: Ramirez Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid Wages
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Parents Appeal Dismissal of Baby Food Suit
BK LOGISTICS: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
COREWEAVE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 28
COREWEAVE INC: Masaitis Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Singleton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COTTON TOPS ENTERPRISES: Petrie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

DUFF CAPITAL: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Okelola Alleges
DYNAMIC LIFE: Oregon Sues Over Breach of Contract in Foster Care
ECKERD YOUTH: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Class Settlement in Van Cott Gets Final Nod
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Aldrich Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Hudgen Files Suit Over Data Breach
HERRMAN & HERRMAN: Casillas Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
HF SINCLAIR: Faces Gas Mix Up Class Suits in Denver/Adams Counties
HOBBY LOBBY: Website Secretly Operates Tracking Tools, Erakat Says
IDAHO: Injunction Bid in ACT Services Suit Denied

INNOVATIVE APARTMENT: Sued Over Sublease Scheme in Washtenaw, MI
JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Amend "Retzolff" Class Suit OK'd
JDBN LLC: Gionco Sues Over Nonpayment of Minimum, Overtime Wages
L'OREAL USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges
LEGACY STUDIOS: Marino Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

LENS.COM INC: Court Continues Class Cert Hearing to March 3
LENS.COM INC: Martin Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal
LUCKY WHEELS: Ford Sues Over Unlawful Employment and Wage Practices
MYPILLOW INC: Faces Class Suit Over Fake Discounts, Drip Pricing
OPTUM SERVICES: Becker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

OTS SOLUTIONS: Mendez Suit Removed to C.D. California
PBT BANCORP: Visitacion Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
PHARMERICA CORP: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $5.2MM
PLUSONE COMPANY: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ROAD KNIGHTS: Allou Sues Over Unlawful Deductions

ROBINS KAPLAN: Adams Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
ROBLOX CORP: Sued Over Platform's Harmful Risks to Minors
SILICON VALLEY MECHANICAL: Sica Suit Removed to N.D. California
STEVEN AOKI: Berger Sues over Unfair and Misleading Promotion
SWISSPORT USA: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington

TCM PRODUCTS: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
TESLA INC: Faces Urban Suit Over Defective Vehicle Door Handles
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Burge Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
TOLEDO JALIMAR: Property Not Accessible to Disabled, Marino Says
TRANSUNION LLC: McLeod Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

TRIBAL NUTRITION: Weisman Sues Over Ka'Chava Shakes' False Ad
TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Taylor Says
UKIYOHI LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Says
WESTERN DENTAL: Espinoza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WOLFSPEED INC: Ferreira Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina

WOLFSPEED INC: Maizner Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina
WOLFSPEED INC: Zagami Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina
YAKIMA VALLEY FARM: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington

                            *********

1 MD EXPRESS: Ayupov Sues Over Unlawful Wages Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------
Artyom Ayupov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 1 MD EXPRESS, INC. and VICTOR SONTU, Case No.
1:26-cv-00141 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought to challenge
the Defendants' unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as
independent contractors and the Defendants' unlawful practice of
making deductions from delivery drivers' wages and requiring them
to bear expenses which should have been properly borne by 1MD in
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff worked for 1MD full time, routinely working up to 70
hours a week. Plaintiff did not work anywhere else while working
for 1MD. Throughout the course of Plaintiff's employment, 1MD made
deductions from his pay for items including escrow account, ELD,
and repairs, among others, which often came to hundreds of dollars
per week. Plaintiff did not authorize these deductions. Finally,
Plaintiff and other drivers were not paid for all their weeks of
work, despite working up to 70 hours a week for 1MD. Specifically,
Plaintiff Ayupov did not receive any compensation for his first
three weeks of work for 1MD, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for 1MD as a truck driver, making deliveries
in Illinois and other states between August 2025 and December
2025.

The Defendant is "a company that offers car transporting services"
and "provides door-to-door auto transport in a timely, smooth and
safe manner."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax (617) 994-5801
          Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax (617) 994-5801
          Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 osavytska@llrlaw.com

1236 SECOND AVENUE: Fuentes Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeri Fuentes, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 1236 SECOND AVENUE RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
SILVER STAR RESTAURANT, 207-07 NORTHERNRESTAURANT CORP, d/b/a
BAYSIDE DINER, ELIAS KATSIHTIS and SPIRIDON KATSIHTIS, Case No.
1:26-cv-00136 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
spread of hours pay, for the plaintiff and the similarly situated
coworkers--waiters, counter people, servers and delivery people
(collectively "waiters and service people") and similarly situated
current and former employees holding comparable positions but
different titles, who have worked for the Defendants.

The Plaintiff worked for defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Fuentes appropriately for any hours worked, either at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which the spread of hours
exceeds 10 hours a day.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Fuentes and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations. The Defendants
have denied their hourly service workers, including waiters,
counter people, and delivery people the proper minimum wages,
overtime compensation, and spread of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Silver Star as a counter manager
and/or service person, from April of 2023, until July 31, 2024, at
the Silver Star restaurant.

1236 Second Avenue Restaurant Corp. doing business as Silver Star
operates or has operated the restaurant located in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          Email: Mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                 Cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                 Droth@hgrlawyers.com
                 Rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumer Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as ALANA GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No.
25CV3078, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of El Dorado to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on January 12, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00063 to the
proceeding.

The Court Docket states the cause as Diversity-(Citizenship).

This complaint alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, common
law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Abbott Laboratories is an American global health care and medical
device products company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
     San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
     Telephone: +1-415-391-0600
     Facsimile: +1-415-395-8095
     E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Gutierrez Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as ALANA GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No.
25CV3078, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of El Dorado to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on January 12, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00089-JAM-CKD to
the proceeding.

The Court Docket states the cause as Petition for Removal.

This complaint alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, common
law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Abbott Laboratories is an American global health care and medical
device products company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
     San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
     Telephone: +1-415-391-0600
     Facsimile: +1-415-395-8095
     E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com

AFP 103 CORP: Marino Sues Over Property's Access Barriers
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MARINO, Plaintiff v. AFP 103 CORP D/B/A MIAMI MERCHANDISE MALL
and GRAB, EAT & GO XPRESS I, LLC D/B/A GRAB EAT & GO., Defendants,
Case No. 1:26-cv-20150 (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 shopping
center property and commercial restaurant to be rife with ADA
violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs
for ADA violations. The barriers to access at Defendants'
commercial shopping center property and commercial restaurant have
each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the
commercial shopping center property and commercial restaurant and
have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.

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 their places of public accommodation and commercial restaurant,
says the suit.

AFP 103 Corp, d/b/a Miami Merchandise Mall, is the owner of a real
property which is a commercial shopping center property and place
of public accommodation, with its principal place of business in
Miami, 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
          Telephone: (786) 361-9909
          Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
          E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com

ANGEION GROUP: Duarte Suit Transferred to D. Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mayra Duarte, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ANGEION GROUP LLC, EPIQ SYSTEMS,
INC., JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, TREMENDOUS LLC, BLACKHAWK NETWORK
HOLDINGS, INC., DIGITAL SETTLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC doing business
as: DIGITAL DISBURSEMENTS PAYMENTS, HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK,
WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, Case No. 2:25-cv-11142 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 7,
2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00025-JDB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

Angeion Group International LLC -- https://www.angeiongroup.com/ --
is a technology-enabled legal services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. McNulty, Esq.
          Brett L. Rosenthal, Esq.
          MCNULTY LAW FIRM
          827 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Phone: 310.471.2707
          Email: peter@mcnultylaw.com
                 brett@mcnultylaw.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Phone: (205) 612-0243
          Email: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com

BABY BREZZA: Quiros Files Suit Over False Discount Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
ERIC QUIROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BABY BREZZA ENTERPRISES LLC, a New York
limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.BABYBREZZA.COM, Defendant,
Case No. 30-2026-01539449-CU-MT-CXC (Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Cal.,
January 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for
making material misrepresentations to deceive Plaintiff and Class
members.

According to the complaint, on November 17, 2025, Plaintiff
purchased a product called "One Step Baby Bottle Sterilizer And
Dryer Advanced - Electric Steam Sterilizer With HEPA Filter" from
Defendant's website for the allegedly discounted price of $116.99,
which Defendant compared to a strike-through reference price of
$149.99, after visiting a webpage advertising the Product. The
Plaintiff read and relied upon the strike-through reference pricing
advertising the Product that she purchased before completing his
online purchase of the Product via the Website. Plaintiff purchased
the product because he believed, based on Defendant's advertising,
that he was receiving a substantial discount from its regular
price.

However, the complaint alleges that the Defendant advertises
fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on
products sold through its website. This practice allows Defendant
to fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price
as "discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price
disparity that is per se illegal under California law, it adds.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and Class members have
suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of
Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct.

Plaintiff ERIC QUIROS is a citizen of California who acquired, by
purchase, the Product, which is a good, for personal, family, or
household purposes.

Defendant BABY BREZZA ENTERPRISES LLC is an online retailer
operating the website https://www.babybrezza.com/ that sells baby
feeding products nationwide and in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
     PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
     A Professional Corporation
     4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Telephone: (949) 706-6464
     Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
     E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
             vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

BARRACO'S PIZZA: Ramirez Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ramirez and Roberto C. Rivera, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Barraco's Pizza, Inc., Case No.
1:26-cv-00176 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought under the
Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), the Fair Labor Standards
Act("FLSA"), the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (Workers' Comp
Act), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") and the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") for Defendant's wrongful
termination and retaliation as well as unpaid wages.

The Plaintiffs were wrongfully terminated after seeking medical
attention and taking time off for injuries they sustained on the
job. The Defendant's failed to pay one of the Plaintiffs at the
overtime premium rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of
pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and
withholding or delaying paychecks to retaliate for being absent
from work, failed to pay the Plaintiffs their earned vacation pay
upon their termination, failure to allow the Plaintiff Ramirez to
take her earned paid vacation leave during her close to five years
of employment, and by unlawfully requiring the Plaintiffs to scan
their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means
of authentication, instead of using only cards, codes or other
methods, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as restaurant workers.

The Defendant is an Illinois corporation operating 7 Italian
restaurants in Beverly, Chicago, Crestwood, Evergreen Park and
Orland Park, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          Alonzo Rivas, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          1300 Greenbrook Blvd., Suite 200
          Hanover Park, IL 60133
          Phone: (847) 893-9106
          Email: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com
                 arivas@lopezsanchezlaw.com

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Parents Appeal Dismissal of Baby Food Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a group of parents and
consumers urged a New York federal appeals court on Friday, January
16, to reverse the dismissal of their class action claims against
the Beech-Nut Nutrition Company over heavy metals contamination of
the brand's premium organic infant cereal.

A group of parents sued Beech-Nut in February 2021 for breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment over the upstate New York company's
marketing of its natural and organic baby foods as "free from
artificial preservatives, colors and flavors." The lawsuit followed
a congressional investigation that found significant levels of
arsenic, lead and other toxic metals linked to harm in brain
development in popular baby foods.

The congressional report cited Beech-Nut alongside brands including
Gerber, Happy Family Organics maker Nurture Inc., and Earth's Best
Organics maker Hain Celestial.

In the class action filed in the Northern District of New York, the
parents said Beech-Nut's marketing and labels emphasized its
products were natural, organic and safe for infants, even though
its rice cereal contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals.

The parents argued Beech-Nut's defense against risks of harm was
undercut by the company's recall of certain rice cereal products
after the congressional report found they exceeded the FDA's limit
for inorganic arsenic.

Beech-Nut later exited the rice cereal market, saying it could not
consistently source rice or rice-based ingredients that met the
FDA's 100 parts per billion limit for inorganic arsenic.

However, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that the
parents lacked standing because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has primary jurisdiction to determine whether the
levels of heavy metals in baby food are harmful.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, the parents argue the lower court
erred by deferring to the FDA and dismissing the case for lack of
standing.

"Here, liability turns on whether reasonable consumers were misled
based on information omitted from Beech-Nut's packaging and whether
Beech-Nut made and breached any warranties," the parents wrote in
an appeals brief." This case is not about complex heavy metal
issues that require the specialized knowledge of the FDA. It solely
concerns warranties and whether they were breached and deceptive
packaging and whether reasonable consumers were misled by
Beech-Nut's concealment of material facts under state law."

Represented at oral arguments by attorney Stephen Bloch, the
parents argued that they do not lack standing because they
sufficiently demonstrated that specific levels of heavy metal
contaminants were exceeded.

"We've certainly alleged, at length, what the what the neurotoxic
effects through bio-accumulation in children and infants are from
the toxic heavy metals," Block told the three-judge panel. "We've
laid out at length, the specific lead and inorganic arsenic levels
that were exceeded through the products that were sold, both in the
ingredients that were tested as set forth in the congressional
reporting, as confirmed through FDA testing, and in fact, Beech-Nut
itself requested that the FDA confirm that testing and its samples,
in fact, confirmed it as well."

U.S. Circuit Judge Eunice Lee said the parents' underlying
allegations "could be described as general," and questioned the
plaintiffs whether that was a problem for their case.

Bloch rebutted the assertion of generality in the class action's
claims.

"With all due respect, we don't think they're general," he said.
"What is important is the plaintiffs here specifically alleged that
had they known about the toxicity of the heavy metals in the in the
baby foods that they purchased, or the material risk of the
toxicity of the heavy metals in the baby foods that they purchased,
they wouldn't have purchased them, or they would not have paid the
same price."

Ashley Parrish, attorney for Beech-Nut, meanwhile, concurred with
Lee's query on the lack of specificity, commenting that there is "a
very high level of generality" in the plaintiffs' claims about baby
food broadly, which he said are not supported by their specific
claims about the rice cereal products.

"You can take judicial notice of the FDA findings, which is which
they don't really contest that heavy metals are present everywhere
-- The question is, is whether it reaches a level that is dangerous
or not and out," Parrish said.

"Nobody has ever alleged that we said 'These do not contain heavy
metals,' -- that's not an allegation," he argued.

Beech-Nut, based in Montgomery County in New York's Mohawk Valley,
urged the appeals court to uphold the dismissal, saying the FDA is
currently working to address trace amounts of heavy metals in baby
food and to set additional action levels as needed.

"Since FDA has taken up the specific question before this court,
deference serves this court's stated purpose of ensuring that the
courts and FDA do not work at cross-purposes," the company wrote in
its appellee brief.

"Permitting plaintiffs and their counsel to act as FDA, under the
guise of state law, to set their own requirements and ban trace
amounts (or the risk) of heavy metals altogether or to find,
retroactively, that baby food products should not have been sold or
should have a warning label, would 'disrupt the expert balancing
underlying the federal scheme,' especially where, as here, there is
no scientific basis for such relief," the company wrote.

Lee, a Joe Biden appointee, was joined on the Second Circuit panel
by U.S. Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi, a Bill Clinton appointee,
and Gerard Lynch, a Barack Obama appointee.

The panel did not immediately rule on the appeal on January 16.
[GN]

BK LOGISTICS: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. BK LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00091 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 7, 2026), is brought against the Defendant (or "Dose Daily"),
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://childlifenutrition.com/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

BK LOGISTICS LLC, operates the ChildLife Nutrition online retail
store, as well as the ChildLife Nutrition interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Danalgottlieb@aol.com
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on December 18, 2025, Judge Sherilyn Peace
Garnett of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed a putative securities class action
against a multinational "fast-casual" restaurant chain (the
"Company") and several of its officers ("Individual Defendants"
and, collectively, "Defendants") under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5. Stradford v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., et al., No.
8:24-cv-2459-SPG-JDE (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants falsely denied complaints
from customers that the Company allegedly reduced portion sizes to
cut costs and boost profit. The Court dismissed the claims, holding
that plaintiff failed to (1) allege Defendants' denials were false
or (2) raise a strong inference that Defendants acted with
scienter. The dismissal was without prejudice.

The Plaintiff alleged that, responding to "inflationary pressure,"
the Company allegedly reduced portion sizes beginning in 2022 using
a "Critical Inventory" metric that tracks high-cost items. Using
that metric, the Company allegedly generated reports comparing
Company-sanctioned portions to actual inputs sold, with an alleged
target variance of 0.6% or less that the Company allegedly
"pressured" its restaurants and employees to meet. In 2023, the
Company allegedly faced backlash for what customers claimed were
smaller portions. Despite Defendants' alleged denials, plaintiff
claimed the complaints were accurate, that senior management
allegedly instructed restaurants to increase portions in response,
and that the Company's cost of sales subsequently rose.

The Court held plaintiff failed to plead that any denial of
portion-size reduction was false. First, the complaint did not
allege when the Critical Inventory metric or the 0.6% target was
instituted, defeating a particularized link to an alleged 2022
portion-size reduction. Second, the confidential witnesses were too
"low-level" and their accounts regarding portion reductions too
vague and hearsay-laden to support the inference of a company-wide
reduction. Third, "viral" customer criticism, standing alone, is
legally insufficient to plead falsity. Fourth, allegations that
Company management privately instructed portion increases after an
"internal investigation" lacked who/what/when particulars required
by Rule 9(b). Fifth, the CEO's alleged July 2024 statement about
"relook[ing] at our execution . . . with generous portions" and
later cost-of-sales increases did not plausibly imply a prior
reduction in portion size.

The Court also rejected plaintiff's claim that the Company's
disclosures that it could face risks if it failed to respond
effectively to social media backlash were misleading. According to
plaintiff, this risk disclosure was misleading because it said that
the Company may fail to respond when it already had. The Court held
that, read in context, plaintiff failed to allege that the risk
disclosures were misleading when read in context and in light of
the total mix of information to investors, which included
plaintiff's own allegations of widespread public attention.

The Court also held that the complaint did not give rise to a
strong inference of scienter. Plaintiff's "core operations" theory
failed because the complaint did not allege Individual Defendants
were exposed to Critical Inventory data or comparable red flags
suggesting reduced portions. The Court also found that the
confidential witness statements did not tie any Individual
Defendant to knowledge of reduced portions, or any instruction to
reduce portions, and, at most, suggested reputational-response
efforts to "viral" customer complaints. Finally, the Court found
plaintiff's stock-sale allegations impermissibly threadbare, noting
plaintiff did not identify the dates or amounts of any trades, the
percentage of holdings sold by any Individual Defendant, or any
deviation from prior trading patterns, nor did plaintiff allege
that the trades were outside pre-existing Rule 10b5-1 plans.

Having found no falsity or scienter, the Court dismissed
plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims and, as a result,
Section 20(a) claim, granting leave to amend. [GN]

COREWEAVE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
CoreWeave, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRWV) securities between March 28, 2025
and December 15, 2025. CoreWeave purports to be an artificial
intelligence ("AI") cloud computing company and self-described
"Hyperscaler", which it defines as "a cloud provider or technology
company that is capable of delivering computing infrastructure and
services at massive scale, typically through large data centers and
geographically distributed networks."

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
CoreWeave, Inc. (CRWV) Misled Investors Regarding its Ability to
Accommodate Customer Demand

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) defendants had overstated CoreWeave's ability
to meet customer demand for its service; (ii) defendants materially
understated the scope and severity of the risk that CoreWeave's
reliance on a single third-party data center supplier presented for
CoreWeave's ability to meet customer demand for its services; and
(iii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's revenue.

A series of disclosures revealing the truth resulted in a decline
in CoreWeave's stock price. From a high of $183.58 on June 20,
2025, the stock closed at $69.50 per share on December 16, 2025.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against CoreWeave, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by
March 13, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, visit link
https://robbinsllp.com/coreweave-inc/.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.

To be notified if a class action against CoreWeave, Inc. settles or
to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact:

    Aaron Dumas, Jr.
    Robbins LLP
    5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
    San Diego, CA 92122
    adumas@robbinsllp.com
    (800) 350-6003
    www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

COREWEAVE INC: Masaitis Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND MASAITIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. COREWEAVE, INC., MICHAEL INTRATOR,
NITIN AGRAWAL, and BRANNIN MCBEE, Defendants, Case No.
2:26-cv-00355 (D.N.J., January 12, 2026) is a federal securities
class action seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").

The complaint relates that CoreWeave purports to generate
substantially all of its revenue from committed long-term contracts
providing customers with access to its AI infrastructure and
proprietary managed software and application services through
CoreWeave Cloud Platform (the "Cloud Platform"). CoreWeave's Cloud
Platform is hosted in its distributed network of active
purpose-built data centers. Without these underlying data centers,
CoreWeave is unable to sell its services to customers or recognize
revenue from committed long-term contracts for its services.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Defendants had overstated CoreWeave's ability to
meet customer demand for its service; (ii) Defendants materially
understated the scope and severity of the risk that CoreWeave's
reliance on a single third-party data center supplier presented for
CoreWeave's ability to meet customer demand for its services; (iii)
the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's revenue; (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

Plaintiff Raymond Masaitis acquired CoreWeave securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was
damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

CoreWeave, Inc. purports to be an artificial intelligence ("AI")
cloud computing company.

Defendant Michael Intrator is one of CoreWeave's Co-Founders and
has served as the Company's CEO at all relevant times. Defendant
Intrator has also served as Chairman of the Company's Board of
Directors.

Defendant Nitin Agrawal has served as CoreWeave's Chief Financial
Officer.

Defendant Brannin McBee is one of CoreWeave's Co-Founders and has
served as the Company's Chief Development Officer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian Calandra, Esq.
     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
     E-mail: bcalandra@pomlaw.com
             jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Singleton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corinthian
International Parking LA, Inc. The case is styled as Henry
Singleton, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Corinthian International Parking LA, Inc., Case No. 26STCV00741
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 7, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Corinthian Transportation, Parking & Valet --
https://corinthiantransportation.com/ -- is a leader in ground
transportation and parking services across Silicon Valley & the
Greater Bay Area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

COTTON TOPS ENTERPRISES: Petrie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cotton Tops
Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Latasha Petrie, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cotton Tops
Enterprises, Inc., DOES 1-10, Case No. 26CV000320 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 7, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Cotton Tops Enterprises, Inc. is a privately-held company that
operates in the specialized consumer services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com

DUFF CAPITAL: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Okelola Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAOFEEK OKELOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUFF CAPITAL INVESTORS, LLC and SOUTHERN
TIRE MART, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-2-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.,
January 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that they collected and maintained as part
of their regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and
direct deposit or bank account information (the "Private
Information").

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and Class Members who are
current and former employees are required to entrust Defendants
with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of
employment, without which Defendants could not perform their
regular business activities. Defendants retain this information for
many years, including after the employment relationship has ended.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information--and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
In breaching their duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate
notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendants' conduct amounts
to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered injury as a result of Defendants' conduct. These injuries
include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private
Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information;
(iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of
benefit of the bargain; (vi) actual misuse of the compromised data
consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails;
(vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and certainly
increased risk to their Private Information.

Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data
compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants'
inadequate data security practices.

Plaintiff Taofeek Okelola is a resident and citizen of Texas.

Defendant Duff Capital Investors, LLC ("DCI") is comprised of over
20 businesses from trucking, tires, and automotive to construction,
energy and insurance.

Defendant Southern Tire Mart, LLC ("STM")is one of the largest
commercial tire dealers and retread manufacturers in North America
and is owned by Defendant DCI.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Segars, III, Esq.
     DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
     208 Waterford Square
     Madison, MS 39110
     Telephone: (601) 607-3456
     Facsimile: (601) 607-3393
     E-mail: tripp@diazlawfirm.com

DYNAMIC LIFE: Oregon Sues Over Breach of Contract in Foster Care
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Oregon is suing a religious nonprofit it once paid
millions of taxpayer dollars to take care of the state's most
vulnerable children.

The lawsuit focuses on one of the smaller contracts the state had
with Dynamic Life, a nonprofit based in Marion County.

The $1.3 million contract was so that Dynamic Life could create a
mobile child-caring agency. The idea was to offer services to
families in crisis in their homes in order to avoid having to
remove kids and teenagers and put them in hotels.

But the lawsuit filed last week alleges that, despite the state
sending $966,666.64 to the nonprofit, none of the "specific
deliverables" or "anything else of any value" to the state was
received.

Dynamic Life Inc. was founded by a former pastor based in Keizer,
Oregon. Fueled by taxpayer dollars, it grew quickly.

The lawsuit filed Jan. 6 alleges that Dynamic Life's founder,
Nathan Webber, and his son Josiah, entered the contract with the
state through a "series of misrepresentations and false promises as
to Dynamic Life's experience and capabilities, when they had no
intent or ability to actually perform, and used the funds obtained
from ODHS for their own personal benefit."

Jake Sunderland, a spokesman for the Department of Human Services,
said the agency referred the matter to the Department of Justice
for help enforcing the contract.

"ODHS is committed to accountability and good stewardship of public
funds," Sunderland wrote in an email.

Webber did not respond to a request for comment.

An OPB investigation published in 2023 first raised questions about
the nonprofit, which had several state contracts at the time. One
of the contracts was to pay the nonprofit nearly $3,000 per day for
every child placed in their care.

At the time, the state was paying foster parents about $795 per
month. The state had paid nearly $8 million of taxpayer dollars
when OPB started asking questions.

Despite initially pushing back on the public revelations about the
nonprofit, the state cancelled all contracts shortly after OPB's
story and stopped placing foster kids in Dynamic Life's care.

The lawsuit is the latest iteration of the state reversing course
with the nonprofit.

The state also allowed Dynamic Life to rent unlicensed short-term
rentals where they housed groups of foster care kids and offered
little oversight, both over the state contracts and over the
well-being of the children who were placed in care.

At the time of OPB's initial report, the state could not say
definitively whether the Dynamic Life staff working with the kids
placed in care had passed appropriate background checks.

The state has struggled for years to find appropriate placements
for children and teenagers placed in its care. It's been sued over
its practice of placing kids in hotel rooms. As part of a
class-action lawsuit against the state's Department of Human
Services, a "neutral expert" is now overseeing the system and
expected to help shepherd the agency through changes.

ODHS, which is responsible for overseeing the care of about 5,000
children placed in its care, is also undergoing a leadership
change.

The state Senate also recently confirmed Liesl Wendt to be the next
director of the agency.

Gov. Tina Kotek nominated Wendt after Fariborz Pakseresht, the
long-time director, retired in October. [GN]

ECKERD YOUTH: Brown Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ECKERD YOUTH ALTERNATIVES INC. d/b/a ECKERD CONNECTS,
Case No. 8:26-cv-00044 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought on
behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health
Information ("PHI", or collectively with PII "Private Information")
who were impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the
"Breach"), arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure
and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its
accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that
information.

On November 11, 2024, Defendant detected unauthorized access to its
network. Upon detection, Defendant secured its network and launched
an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity
experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. On
December 17, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of Data Breach with
the Attorney General of Maine and began sending notice letters to
impacted individuals.

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 take precautions designed to keep
individuals' Private Information secure. Defendant, despite having
the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the
Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security
procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive,
unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class
Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital
security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information was exposed to criminals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant.

The Defendant 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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Tyler A. Litke*
          Melissa G. Meyer, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: mreich@zlk.com
                 tlitke@zlk.com
                 mmeyer@zlk.com

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Class Settlement in Van Cott Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY VAN COTT
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL, a real estate investment trust, ERP OPERATING LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a partnership, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
Case No. 4:25-cv-02358-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge White
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval
of class action settlement, the Plaintiff's motion for reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $430,000, and
Plaintiff's motion for a Class Representative service award in the
amount of $5,000.

The Court further entered an order directing the Parties and the
Settlement Administrator to effectuate the Settlement according to
the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and this Final
Approval Order and Judgment.

No later than 75 days after the date of this Order, Equity will
deliver payments in the amount of $430,000 for the Plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and $5,000 for Plaintiff's service award to Class
Counsel.

Accordingly, the Court unconditionally certifies, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the following class for
settlement purposes only:

    "All Equity Residential tenants in the State of California
    who, from Oct. 29, 2022, through April 30, 2024, were first
    charged one or more late fee(s) under Equity Residential's
    former "Standard Late Fee" provision: 5% of the outstanding
    balance owed (capped at 5% of the total amount of monthly
    recurring charges) or $50, whichever is greater."

Equity is a United States–based publicly traded real estate
investment trust.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hv2KPH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margaret McBride, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO
          1861 Bay Road
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 326-6440
          Facsimile: (866) 688-5204
          E-mail: mmcbride@clsepa.org

                - and -

          Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
          Andrew P. Lee, Esq.
          Katharine F. Trabucco, Esq.
          DARDARIAN HO KAN & LEE
          155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: ldardarian@dhkl.law
                  alee@dhkl.law
                  ktrabucco@dhkl.law

                - and -

          Craig Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: craig@nicholaslaw.org
                  alex@nicholaslaw.org

FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Aldrich Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ferguson Enterprises,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dylan Aldrich, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Ferguson Enterprises, LLC,
Does 1 to 100, Case No. 26CV000389 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 7, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Ferguson -- https://www.ferguson.com/ -- sells quality plumbing
supplies, HVAC products, and building supplies to professional
contractors and homeowners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Hudgen Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
QUENTON HUDGEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:26-cv-00236 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2026) is a class
action against the Defendant for failing to adequately protect its
employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach,
and obfuscating the nature of the breach, in violation of state
law.

The complaint relates that the Defendant required Plaintiff to
provide personally identifiable information ("PII") to obtain
employment and payment for that employment.

On September 17, 2025, GMS discovered it had lost control over its
computer network and the highly sensitive personal information
stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). The Data Breach has impacted
approximately 377,082 of current and former employees as well as
consumers. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned
cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees'
personally identifiable information ("PII"), including but not
limited to address, Social Security Number, driver's license
number, government ID number including passport and state ID card,
and financial information. On January 5, 2026, around four months
after the Breach first occurred, GMS finally began notifying Class
Members about the Data Breach.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's failure to timely report the
Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without
any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports
to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. In addition to injunctive
relief, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members
of the Class, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion
of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest
invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their
credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment
interest and costs.

Plaintiff Quenton Hudgen is an employee of GMS and a data breach
victim.

Defendant GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. ("GMS") is a gas station
and convenience store management company that oversees close to 150
gas stations and convenience stores, branded as Handi Plus and
Handi Stop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
     Miami, FL 33132
     E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
             lloginov@shamisgentile.com

HERRMAN & HERRMAN: Casillas Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herrman & Herrman,
PLLC. The case is styled as Adrianna Montez Casillas, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Herrman & Herrman,
PLLC, Case No. 26-0057-CV-E (Tex. Dist. Ct., Guadalupe Cty., Jan.
7, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Civil."

Herrman & Herrman, PLLC -- https://www.herrmanandherrman.com/ -- is
a full-service personal injury law firm serving those who have been
injured through no fault of their own in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark T. Freeman, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th St., Ste. 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607-3625
          Phone: 510-891-9800
          Email: mtf@colevannote.com

HF SINCLAIR: Faces Gas Mix Up Class Suits in Denver/Adams Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Whitehead, writing for 9News, reports that two people who
claim to have gotten contaminated gas at separate stations affected
by fuel mix-up have filed civil lawsuits against companies that are
known to have distributed and sold tainted gas.

Ryan Mahon from Littleton filed his suit in Denver District Court
on Tuesday, January 13. He said he filled up his truck at the
Costco gas station off of Santa Fe Boulevard and Oxford Avenue. He
claims that his truck was not running properly after he got gas.

After Mahon dropped his wife off at work, he went back to the
station and alerted the Colorado Division of Oil and Gas to report
the bad gas and file a complaint, the suit says. Mahon had his
truck towed to a repair shop and was quoted $800-$1,000 to make
initial repairs. The suit says Mahon was warned that there could be
additional "unforeseen damages" that may come up after initial
repairs.

Mahon's lawsuit names HF Sinclair and Sinclair Oil, King Soopers
Fuel Center, Costco and Murphy Oil USA as defendants. The suit does
not ask for specific monetary damages.

In a separate lawsuit filed in Adams County, plaintiff Charlene
Franklin names King Soopers Fuel Center, King Soopers Inc., and HF
Sinclair as defendants.

Franklin's suit says she filled up at a King Soopers fuel station
on South Peoria Street in Aurora and that her car began running
improperly after filling up. She experienced sputtering,
sluggishness and a strong smell of gas with her car, the suit
claims. She took her car to a repair shop where it was still being
held as of filing, the suit states.

Neither lawsuit lists specific amounts that the plaintiffs are
requesting, and the attorneys list unnamed victims in hopes of
turning these cases into a class action lawsuit. [GN]

HOBBY LOBBY: Website Secretly Operates Tracking Tools, Erakat Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SALEEM ERAKAT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., an Oklahoma
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00323 (N.D. Cal., January
12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for intentionally
deploying Trackers on its Website without Plaintiff's or Class
Members' knowledge or consent.

The complaint relates that the Defendant uses a tool which was
engineered to surreptitiously capture and transmit granular
behavioral data, including addressing, signaling, and routing
information such as IP addresses, URL paths, referrers, device
attributes, and mouse activity, to third parties. The data
collected was detailed and persistent, enabling Third Parties to
monitor Plaintiff's and Class Members' conduct across websites,
associate that behavior with unique identifiers, and build a
behavioral profile of Plaintiff and Class Members for marketing and
data monetization purposes.

The complaint alleges that as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered an
invasion of privacy, loss of control over personal information, and
emotional harm, including anxiety, indignity, and concern over
being unknowingly tracked, profiled, and exposed to targeted
advertising based on private digital conduct. The Defendant's
conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive, thereby justifying
the imposition of punitive and exemplary damages, adds the
complaint.

The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Class
Members seek injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing
its deceptive and unlawful data tracking practices and to require
clear and conspicuous notice and opt-in consent for any behavioral
tracking involving third-party tools; and also seeks restitution of
the value derived from the unauthorized use of their personal
information, attorneys' fees where permitted by law, and such other
and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Plaintiff SALEEM ERAKAT was in California when he visited the
Website, which occurred on multiple occasions during the class
period, including but not limited to on December 24, 2025.

HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. is an Oklahoma corporation that owns,
operates, and/or controls the Website, which is an online platform
offering arts, crafts, home decor, seasonal items, and related
retail goods to consumers, including the ability to browse
products, view detailed product information, and make purchases
through a web-based interface.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
     NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
     2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
     Newport Beach, CA 92663
     Office: (949) 270-2798
     E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

          - and -

     Ross Cornell, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC
     P.O. Box 1989 #305
     Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
     Office: (562) 612-1708
     E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com

IDAHO: Injunction Bid in ACT Services Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Ramon, by and through next friend, G.C.;
Thomas, by and through next friend, C.G.; Cameron, by and through
next friend, B.E.; Anthony; and Wendy, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Juliet Charron, in her
official capacity as Director, Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare; Sasha O'Connell, in her official capacity as Deputy
Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; Ross Edmunds, in
his official capacity as Administrator, Division of Behavioral
Health, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00676-AKB (D. Idaho), Judge
Amanda K. Brailsford of the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho denied Plaintiffs' renewed motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction and denied their
motion for class certification without prejudice.

The Court concluded Plaintiffs failed to make a clear showing they
are entitled to injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide
Assertive Community Treatment services.

Plaintiffs include Ramon, Thomas, Cameron, Anthony, and Wendy, who
suffer from serious mental illness and qualify for
Medicaid-reimbursed ACT services to treat these illnesses. The crux
of the parties' dispute regarding this element is whether ACT
services can be feasibly and effectively provided as an unbundled
service, billed and reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis versus
under a single billing code.

The Plaintiffs argued that the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare denied them benefits by unbundling ACT services. In
contrast, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare disputed
Plaintiffs' assertion that unbundling ACT services is a denial of
benefits. It argued current ACT beneficiaries continue to have
access to community-based services like crisis intervention and
crisis response, psychiatric diagnostic and psychotherapy, family
support and family psychoeducation, recovery coaching; behavioral
health case management, targeted care coordination, intensive
outpatient programs, and more.

The Court noted that none of Plaintiffs or their guardians on their
behalf attest that they have been denied ACT benefits, although
each attests they are very fearful of losing their access to a
comprehensive support team. The Court stated the record shows only
that Anthony, Wendy, and Cameron are not receiving unspecified
nursing services from Marshall and Neihart. Meanwhile, nothing in
the record shows what benefits Thomas and Ramon have been denied.
On this record, Plaintiffs have not shown a serious question
whether the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is denying
Plaintiffs benefits or whether unbundled ACT services under
Magellan's new billing procedure provides a comparable
alternative.

The Court concluded that for purposes of injunctive relief, the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has shown they are likely to
succeed on their fundamental alteration defense and that Plaintiffs
have not refuted that defense. Because Plaintiffs have not clearly
shown they have been denied comparable benefits and have not
refuted the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's fundamental
alteration defense, the Court concluded that for purposes of
preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed
on the merits of their ADA claim.

The Plaintiffs also sought to certify a class of all
Medicaid-eligible patients residing in the State of Idaho with
serious mental illnesses for whom ACT services have been
recommended, provided, and reimbursed from July 1, 2024, and which
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has stopped providing as
of December 1, 2025. Because the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for injunctive relief, it did not need to address their
motion for class certification at this time. Regardless, the Court
had concerns about certifying a class on the present record. The
Court noted that each Plaintiff's disability is unique and their
mental illnesses and symptoms differ significantly. Also,
determining whether each Plaintiff is facing a serious risk of
institutionalization and the necessary care to avoid that risk will
require a fact-intensive inquiry which is generally not conducive
to a class action.

In summary, the Court concluded Plaintiffs failed to make a clear
showing that they have been denied benefits comparable to ACT
services, to refute that granting them relief will require the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to cut or eliminate programs
which will jeopardize the care for other mentally disabled
individuals, and to show that each of them will be irreparably
harmed. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
is denied and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied
without prejudice.

A copy of the Court's decision dated January 05, 2026 is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8KOuCH from PacerMonitor.com

INNOVATIVE APARTMENT: Sued Over Sublease Scheme in Washtenaw, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordyn Pair of MLIVE reports that a class action lawsuit against a
Grand Rapids-based company for running what officials called a
subleasing "scheme" has been filed in Washtenaw County.

Despite advertising that it would help renters with low credit
repair their scores, Washtenaw County prosecutors alleged that
Innovative Apartment Group instead engaged in predatory subleasing
and debt collection, according to the prosecutor's office's
complaint filed against the company Jan. 12 in Washtenaw County
Circuit Court.

The group used "confusing and deceptive organization and tactics"
to act as "extractive middlemen," prosecutors argued. The business
would sublease apartments and homes in Washtenaw County to renters
who have low credit but are otherwise able to make payments, the
lawsuit alleges. The subleases, however, allegedly contained
thousands of dollars of fees and upcharges.

In some cases, tenants were paying roughly $300 per month above the
market price, in addition to a "risk fee" around $1,000, the
complaint states.

Requests for comment to members of the Innovative Apartment Group
were not returned.

The group also often failed to pay the landlord, despite receiving
money from the tenants, leading to evictions, the lawsuit alleges.
The business would then allegedly use aggressive debt collection
techniques, including in some cases where allegedly no debt was
owed.

"Every renter in Michigan deserves to be treated fairly," said Eli
Savit, prosecutor for Washtenaw County, in a statement announcing
the lawsuit. "Companies and landlords who take advantage of the
housing crisis and unfair tenant screening practices to mislead
renters, place them at greater risk of eviction, and torpedo their
credit scores are in violation of Michigan law."

One of the renters listed in the lawsuit, a single mother from
Clinton Township, paid roughly $3,000 above the market rent in
surcharges and fees, attorneys allege. She later received an
eviction notice because Innovative Apartment Group did not pay the
traditional landlord, despite receiving money from her.

She was able to work with the actual landlord to pay them directly,
remaining in the apartment, the lawsuit reads.

The Center for Civil Justice and the National Consumer Law Center
are representing the tenants.

"Despite promising to help Michigan families to obtain stable
housing, Innovative Apartment Group exploits the very families they
claim to be helping," said Jennifer Wagner, senior attorney at the
National Consumer Law Center, in a statement. "Renters are coming
out of these rental agreements with less money and lower credit
scores than when they started."

The lawsuit alleges the group violated the Michigan's Consumer
Protection Act, Credit Services Protection Act, Regulation of
Collection Practices Act, and Occupational Code.

Court records did not indicate when a hearing would take place.
[GN]

JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Amend "Retzolff" Class Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Stephanie Retzolff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jacobs
Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No.
24-cv-03538-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Kathryn A.
Starnella of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on December 23, 2024,
asserting claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment arising from a data breach
Defendant experienced on or around September 23, 2024. On March 6,
2025, the Court held a Scheduling Conference and adopted the
parties' proposed deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of
pleadings: April 21, 2025. On April 2, 2025, Defendant filed a Rule
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint. On that same date, the Chief District
Judge struck the Amended Complaint based on Plaintiff's failure to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which requires a
party to seek leave to amend a complaint more than 21 days after
the filing of a Rule 12(b) motion. Plaintiff filed the current
Motion on May 13, 2025.

In her Motion, Plaintiff explained that following the Complaint's
filing, her counsel continued to investigate the facts surrounding
Defendant's data breach. On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel
received information from their expert detailing Defendant's
history of data leaks, the preventability of this Data Breach and
the Private Information made available on the Dark Web as a result
of the Data Breach. Plaintiff sought to add allegations to her
Complaint regarding Defendant's history of prior, preventable data
breaches and that Plaintiff's private information was posted and
sold on the dark web. Plaintiff also stated that the proposed
Amended Class Action Complaint adjusted errors throughout the
document, including paragraphs 96, 227, 229.

The Defendant argued that good cause does not exist because
Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint includes allegations that
she knew or should have known at the time she filed her original
pleading. In her original Complaint, Plaintiff stated that her son
worked for Defendant but her proposed Amended Complaint indicates
that Plaintiff, not her son, worked for Defendant. Plaintiff
presumably knew that she was Defendant's previous employee when she
filed her original Complaint. In the Proposed Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff also includes allegations regarding three unauthorized
charges in her Cash App account immediately after the underlying
data breach. Defendant argued that Plaintiff knew or should have
known of these three unauthorized charges well before the deadline
to amend her pleading.

The Court examined good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). Giving Plaintiff
an extreme benefit of the doubt, the Court found that she arguably
addressed Rule 16's good cause requirement by asserting she did not
receive the bases of her new allegations until April 30, 2025, when
she received additional information from her investigator.
Plaintiff was diligent in her attempts to amend her pleading upon
receiving this information on April 30, 2025, and filing the
current Motion on May 13, 2025. While Plaintiff's counsel's
handling of the pleadings and compliance with the Local Rules thus
far has been careless at best, the Court found the amendment should
be allowed. The Court concluded Plaintiff should be permitted to
seek amendment outside of the pleading deadline. The Court,
however, warned Plaintiff's counsel that future carelessness is
unlikely to yield similar results.

Regarding undue delay, Plaintiff stated that she received the
information from her investigator underlying most of her new
allegations on April 30, 2025, and filed the current Motion on May
13, 2025. Given Rule 15(a)(2)'s liberal standard and Plaintiff's
explanation for the timing of her amendment request, the Court
found there was not undue delay.

Defendant offered a two-paragraph argument that Plaintiff's
amendments do not resolve the deficiencies identified in its
pending Motion to Dismiss, and therefore, the amendments are
futile. Due to the stay issued in this case, Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is not fully briefed. Courts in this District often prefer
to address futility of amendment on merits briefing rather than
briefing on leave to amend. The Court found the parties' futility
arguments are better addressed in the context of a fully briefed
motion to dismiss without placing a thumb on the scale at the
amendment stage.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Motion is granted.
Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended
Complaint within the timeframe set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(3).

A copy of the Court's decision dated January 4, 2026 is available
at  https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9uJYhl from PacerMonitor.com

JDBN LLC: Gionco Sues Over Nonpayment of Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maysara Gionco, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. JDBN LLC d/b/a DOMODOMO, JAE HYUN PARK, and BRIAN KIM, Case No.
1:26-cv-00125 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defednants'
nonpayment of minimum wage, nonpayment of overtime, nonpayment of
spread of hours pay, and retention of tips.

The Defendants paid Plaintiff an amount that was less than the full
New York minimum wage for the hours she worked for Defendants.
During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked over forty
hours during a work week at the Restaurant. For example, during the
week of October 21-27, 2024, Plaintiff worked 42.26 hours.
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff 1.5 times the full minimum wage
for hours in which Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants unlawfully retained 30-40% of Plaintiff's and other
servers' tips. During Plaintiff's employment, Defendants
implemented a tip sharing system that directed up to 40% of the
tips generated by the servers on the floor (including Plaintiff) to
back of house employees, namely, sushi chefs, who had no
interaction with the customers, and therefore performed no direct
customer service work.

The Defendants knew that nonpayment of minimum wage, nonpayment of
overtime, nonpayment of spread of hours pay, and retention of tips
would economically injure Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and members of the Class and violated federal and state
laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server at the
Restaurant from 2020 until December 12, 2025.

The Defendant is a New York limited liability company that owns and
operates Domodomo sushi restaurant in Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          45 Broadway, Suite 320
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 688-5640
          Fax: (212) 981-9587

L'OREAL USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc. d/b/a Kiehl's Since
1851, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00187 (D. Minn., January 12,
2026) arises because Defendant's Website, www.kiehls.com, is not
fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have
low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and its implementing regulations.

The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience
visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from
an investigation performed on her behalf, 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.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly
situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant
to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class;
and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices,
and procedures, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains
accessible in the future. Plaintiff also seeks an award of
statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier,
a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just,
equitable, and appropriate.

Plaintiff Julie Dalton is blind and low-vision individual and is
reliant upon screen reader technology to navigate the Internet.

Defendant L'Oreal USA owns, operates, and/or controls its Website
which offers cosmetics for sale including, but not limited to,
skincare, moisturizers, serums, masks, oils, hair care, body wash,
scrubs, fragrances, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
     Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
     Jason Gustafson, Esq.
     THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
     80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (763) 515-6110
     E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
             pat@throndsetlaw.com
             jason@throndsetlaw.com

LEGACY STUDIOS: Marino Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legacy Studios, LLC.
The case is styled as James Marino, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Legacy Studios, LLC, Case No.
2:26-cv-00099 (D.N.J., Jan. 7, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Legacy Studios, LLC -- https://www.legacystudiosllc.com/ -- is a
dance school and studio in Newton, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

LENS.COM INC: Court Continues Class Cert Hearing to March 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 granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to continue
hearing, filed on Jan. 8, 2026.

The hearing scheduled for Feb. 3, 2026, is continued and will now
take place on Tuesday, March 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.

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, Feb. 27, 2026.

Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YFtSVx at no extra
charge.[CC]

 


LENS.COM INC: Martin Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 unopposed motion for leave to file Exhibit
in support of reply to Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification under seal.

The Plaintiff requests leave to file the Expert Report Regarding
Lens.com's Pricing Algorithm/Source Code under seal.
The Plaintiff suggests that this proposal appropriately balances
the public's right of access to judicial proceedings with the
Defendant's interests in its highly-confidential and proprietary
commercial and financial information, and there is no means other
than sealing available to protect and maintain the confidentiality
of the information at issue.

This exhibit should remain under seal indefinitely because the
confidential and proprietary character of the materials will remain
unchanged even after this matter is concluded. In addition, the
potential harm to Lens.com and other non-parties by way of public
disclosure of this information will remain even after this matter
is concluded.

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=jiwPsY 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

LUCKY WHEELS: Ford Sues Over Unlawful Employment and Wage Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaquant Ford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUCKY WHEELS, LLC and MARKO KUNDACINA, Case No.
1:26-cv-00139 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought challenging the
Defendant's unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as
independent contractors and of making deductions from delivery
drivers' wages and requiring them to bear expenses which should
have been properly borne by Lucky Wheels in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Plaintiff worked for Lucky Wheels full time, routinely working
up to 70 hours a week. Plaintiff did not work anywhere else while
working for Lucky Wheels. Throughout the course of Plaintiff's
employment, Lucky Wheels made deductions from his pay for items
including escrow account, an electronic logbook device, and
repairs, among others, which often came to hundreds of dollars per
week. Plaintiff did not authorize these deductions.

Finally, Plaintiff and other drivers were not paid for their final
weeks of work, despite working up to 70 hours a week for Lucky
Wheels. Specifically, Plaintiff Ford did not receive any
compensation for the first two weeks of July of 2025. Although
Lucky Wheels classified Plaintiff and other delivery drivers as
independent contractors, the behavior and financial control
manifested over the drivers by Lucky Wheels demonstrates that they
were employees of Lucky Wheels, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Lucky Wheels as a truck driver, making
deliveries in Illinois and other states between November 2024 and
July 2025.

Lucky Wheels is a "Transportation Service" and prominently
advertises job openings for drivers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax (617) 994-5801
          Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax (617) 994-5801
          Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 osavytska@llrlaw.com

MYPILLOW INC: Faces Class Suit Over Fake Discounts, Drip Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Elizabeth Wood filed a
class action lawsuit against MyPillow Inc.

Why: Wood claims MyPillow misleads consumers by advertising false
discounts and charging hidden fees.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges MyPillow Inc. misleads consumers
by advertising false discounts on its products and charging a
hidden "shipping protection" fee.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Wood filed the class action complaint against
MyPillow Inc. on Jan. 6 in California federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer protection laws.

According to the lawsuit, MyPillow, which sells bedding products
like pillows and mattresses, displays "sale" and "discounted"
prices on its website, MyPillow.com, that are deceptive and
misleading.

Wood claims MyPillow never sells its products at the full price
represented but instead uses inflated, fictitious reference prices
to create the illusion of a bargain.

"MyPillow's purported 'sales' are, in reality, anything but," the
MyPillow class action lawsuit says. "The substantial 'discount'
shown to consumers is deceptive and misleading because MyPillow's
products are never sold at the full price represented."

MyPillow 'shipping protection' not disclosed, class action claims

Wood claims MyPillow's website is configured in a way that makes a
promotional code trivially available to all consumers, rendering
its "promotional code" pricing deal illusory.

The MyPillow class action lawsuit alleges the company employs these
deceptive sales tactics to deceive consumers into believing they
are receiving a bargain on their purchases, and to induce them into
making a purchase they otherwise would not have made.

In addition to the false discounts, Wood claims MyPillow also
violates California's prohibition on "drip pricing" by charging a
mandatory "shipping protection" fee at checkout that is undisclosed
in the initial advertising of its products.

The class action lawsuit alleges this fee is separate from actual
shipping charges and is not included in the price shown to
consumers as they browse for items.

Wood seeks to represent anyone who purchased MyPillow products in
California during the applicable statute of limitations period. She
is suing for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, fraud and
unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' costs and fees, and an
order to prevent MyPillow from engaging in the alleged deceptive
sales practices.

MyPillow has previously agreed to class action settlements to
resolve allegations around false discounts and deceptive
advertising.

The plaintiff is represented by Neal J. Deckant of Bursor & Fisher
P.A.

The MyPillow class action lawsuit is Wood, et al. v. MyPillow Inc.,
Case No. 3:26-cv-00110, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]

OPTUM SERVICES: Becker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optum Services, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Jodie Becker, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Optum Services, Inc., Does 1 to 100,
Case No. 26CV000302 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 7,
2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Optum, Inc. -- https://www.optum.com/en/ -- is an American
healthcare company that provides technology services, pharmacy care
services and various direct healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

OTS SOLUTIONS: Mendez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Elsa Mendez, individually, and on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. OTS SOLUTIONS, LLC; and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV30680 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. 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00176.

The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: Failure to
pay all wages, including minimum and overtime wages; failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to
provide recovery periods; failure to produce wage statements;
failure to produce personnel records; failure to produce signed
records; failure to maintain legal temperature controls; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay waiting
time penalties; failure to reimburse for necessary business
expenditures; enforcement of Private Attorneys General Act of 2004;
and unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Facsimile: 800.715.1330
          Email: sdavoudian@littler.com

               - and -

          Alvin Arceo, Esq.
          Valentina Wilson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          101 Second Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415.433.1940
          Fax: 415.399.8490
          Email: aarceo@littler.com
                 vwilson@littler.com

PBT BANCORP: Visitacion Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PBT Bancorp. The case
is styled as Voltaire Visitacion, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PBT Bancorp formerly known as:
People's Bank & Trust of Hazard, Case No. 6:26-cv-00057-SCM (E.D.
Ky., Jan. 7, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Truth in
Lending.

PBT Bancorp -- https://www.pbtb.com/ -- operates as a full service
bank.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph A. Arabbo, Esq.
          ARABBO LAW, PLLC
          4501 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101B #168
          Detroit, MI 48201

               - and -

          Michele D. Henry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHELE HENRY PLC
          517 W. Ormsby Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Phone: (502) 536-0085
          Email: mhenry@michelehenrylaw.com

PHARMERICA CORP: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $5.2MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder, of The HIPAA JOURNAL, reports that PharMerica has
agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over a 2023 hacking
incident and data breach that affected 5.8 million individuals. In
addition to paying $5.2 million to cover costs and benefits,
PharMerica has committed to investing millions to strengthen its
security posture.

PharMerica, a Fortune 1000 pharmacy services provider, experienced
a cyberattack in March 2023 for which the Money Message ransomware
group took credit. The group claimed to have exfiltrated 4.7
terabytes of data in the attack, and it proceeded to leak the
stolen data on its dark web data leak site, including files
containing patient information. Data compromised in the attack
included names, addresses, birth dates, medications, Social
Security numbers, and health insurance information.

Several class action lawsuits were filed against PharMerica in
response to the data breach, alleging negligent collection and
storage of patient data. The lawsuits had overlapping claims and
were consolidated into a single complaint -- Lurry v. PharMerica
Corporation -- in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, Louisville Division. PharMerica denies all
claims of liability and wrongdoing and sought to have the lawsuit
dismissed. On January 12, 2024, a federal judge partially granted
the motion to dismiss; however, she allowed the lawsuit to
proceed.

For the negligence claim, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged damages arising from the breach; however, she
dismissed the claims of breach of implied contract for certain
plaintiffs who had no direct relationship with PharMerica, the
claim of breach of fiduciary duty, and certain claims under
California and Michigan law.

Under the terms of the settlement, PharMerica has agreed to pay
$5,275,000 into a settlement fund, which will be used to pay
attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs, PharMerica's past
and future costs of data mining to identify membership to the
settlement class, service awards for the six class representatives,
and benefits for the class members.

Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented,
unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of
$10,000 per class member, and are also entitled to claim a one-year
membership to a credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, payday loan
monitoring, credit score reporting, fraud consultation, and
identity theft resolution service. That package also includes a $1
million identity theft insurance policy. In addition, class members
may claim a one-time cash payment, which will be paid pro rata and
will depend on the number of claims received. In addition to that
settlement, PharMerica has agreed to change its business practices
and improve security to better protect patient data in its
possession.

The settlement received preliminary approval from the court on
January 12, 2026. The deadline for objection and opting out is
April 12, 2025. Claims must be submitted by April 27, 2026, and the
final fairness hearing has been scheduled for May 12, 2026. [GN]

PLUSONE COMPANY: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garcia, an Individual, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. PLUSONE COMPANY, a Utah Corporation, Case No.
4:26-cv-00004 (D. Utah, Jan. 7, 2026), is brought as a result of
the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
due to unpaid overtime compensation.

The Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly,
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees, wages for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 each
workweek in violates the FLSA., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a call center
representative during which he worked remotely from his home in
Nephi, Utah from May 15, 2023 through July 9, 2025.

The Defendant, a business support company, employs call center
representatives, including but not limited to customer service and
sales agents (hereinafter "call center representatives") across the
country.[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
          Phone: (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
          Phone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

ROAD KNIGHTS: Allou Sues Over Unlawful Deductions
-------------------------------------------------
Simplice Allou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROAD KNIGHTS, INC. and SLOBODAN JOKIC, Case No.
1:26-cv-00129 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought on behalf of
current and former delivery drivers challenging the Defendants'
unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as independent
contractors and the Defendants' illegal deductions were made from
his and other delivery drivers' wages in violation of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Plaintiff worked for Road Knights full time, routinely working
up to 70 hours a week. The Plaintiff did not work anywhere else
while working for Road Knights. Throughout the course of
Plaintiff's employment, Road Knights made deductions from his pay
for items including an escrow account, insurance payments, fines
and penalties, and repairs, among others, which often came to
hundreds of dollars per week. Plaintiff did not authorize these
deductions. As a result of these deductions, there were weeks in
which Plaintiff and other drivers did not receive any compensation,
or received compensation significantly below the Illinois and
federal minimum wage, despite working up to 70 hours a week for
Road Knights, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Road Knights as a truck driver, making
deliveries in Illinois and other states between March 2023 and
December 2024.

The Defendant is "a family owned trucking company that has been in
operation since 2010" and advertises "quality transportation and
logistics services to all US clients."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax (617) 994-5801
          Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax (617) 994-5801
          Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 osavytska@llrlaw.com

ROBINS KAPLAN: Adams Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michelle Adams, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP and TARA
SUTTON, Esq. Case No. CAM-L-004049-25 was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 7,
2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00100.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants overcharged legal fees and
costs in connection with representation of clients in litigation
involving the prescription drug Benicar, purportedly in violation
of New Jersey Court Rules, Rules of Professional Conduct, and/or
applicable contingent fee agreements. The Plaintiff alleges claims
for, inter alia, breach of contingent fee rules or agreements,
conversion, and unjust enrichment, and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, costs, and class-wide relief.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bryan J. Vogel, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Ave. of the Americas, Ste. 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212.980.7400
          Fax: 212.980.7499
          Email: BVogel@RobinsKaplan.com

ROBLOX CORP: Sued Over Platform's Harmful Risks to Minors
---------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOES 1-3 and JANE DOES 1-2 individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBLOX CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00271 (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence/wantonness,
design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment arising from the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
managing its Roblox Platform to minor users.

The complaint alleges that children frequently become highly
motivated to obtain Robux, the in-game currency of Roblox, to buy
sought-after items and to keep up with peers, and that this dynamic
predictably increases children's vulnerability to manipulation by
strangers offering, promising, or leveraging Robux.

Roblox knew or should have known that minors -- including children
-- use the Platform in large numbers, that children are uniquely
vulnerable to manipulation and coercion, and that foreseeable risks
of harm include predatory contact, grooming, sexual exploitation,
sextortion, and related psychological and physical harms.

Further, Roblox breached its duties by failing to implement
reasonable safeguards to prevent or meaningfully reduce foreseeable
harms to minor users, including by failing to adopt reasonable age-
and identity-verification measures and reasonable parental-consent
protections appropriate for a child-directed platform, says the
suit.

The Plaintiffs are minor children and users of the Roblox
platform.

Roblox Corp. owns, operates, develops, markets, and profits from
the online gaming and social platform known as "Roblox," including
its mobile, desktop, and web-based applications, account-creation
systems, communications features, recommendation tools,
virtual-currency economy, and safety and moderation systems.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Bohren, Esq.
          YANNI LAW APC
          145 South Spring Street, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90012  
          Telephone: (619) 433-2803  
          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

SILICON VALLEY MECHANICAL: Sica Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frank Sica, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. SILICON
VALLEY MECHANICAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV153171 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
Jan. 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00180.

The Complaint asserts wage and hour class action against SVM
stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and the putative class
members. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action on a
class-wide basis: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums;
Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not
Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant
Wage Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records;
Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in Violation of California
Labor Codes and Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher H. Conti, Esq.
          Benjamin P. Carney, Esq.
          Andrew B. Dizon, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          Email: cconti@fisherphillips.com
                 bcarney@fisherphillips.com
                 adizon@fisherphillips.com

STEVEN AOKI: Berger Sues over Unfair and Misleading Promotion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Berger, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
STEVEN HIROYUKI AOKI and MATTHEW KALISH, Case No. 1:26-cv-20095-KMW
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought arising from the deceptive,
unfair and misleading promotion by the Defendants of products sold
by Metazoo in Florida and throughout the United States.

Non-party Metazoo Games LLC ("Metazoo") was founded in 2020.
Metazoo initially created a tabletop collectible card game based on
folklore. Although the company initially began as a collectible
trading card game, it quickly expanded to other products such as
skateboards, apparel, and non-fungible tokens ("NFTs").

The Defendants misrepresented the material connection they had with
Metazoo by endorsing Metazoo without disclosing the fact that they
were compensated for doing it, a practice that is highly unfair and
deceptive. Relying on the undisclosed endorsements and misleading
advertising, Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased products
from Metazoo while the Metazoo products proved to be of a lower
value than the price paid. Additionally some Class Members held
onto the Metazoo Coin NFTs believing that they would increase in
value based upon the undisclosed endorsements and misleading
advertising.

The difference in price can be attributed exclusively to the
undisclosed endorsements. Prior to its bankruptcy, Metazoo products
were sold predominately online and many, if not all, of Metazoo's
customers during the Class Period were exposed to social media
posts containing the undisclosed advertising. In order to
artificially inflate the prices for the Metazoo products; Metazoo,
Aoki, and Kalish devised a scheme in which they would will endorse
Metazoo products by tagging or recommending such products sold on
Metazoo's website or through various NFT marketplaces, pretending
they are disinterested consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased the Metazoo products at
inflated prices.

The Defendant Aoki, for many years he advertised and endorsed
Metazoo products on social media while failing to disclose that he
was an owner of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

SWISSPORT USA: Spencer Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shannon Spencer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., a foreign
profit corporation; SWISSPORT FUELING, INC., a foreign profit
corporation; SWISSPORT CARGO SERVICES, L.P., a foreign limited
partnership; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities,
Case No. 25-2-37253-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of
King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington on Jan. 7, 2026, and assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-00060.

The Plaintiff asserts one claim against all Defendants for
purported violations of RCW 49.58.110. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that "Plaintiff and more than 40 Class members applied to
job openings with Defendants for positions located in Washington
where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range
or a general description of all of the benefits and other
compensation to be offered to the hired applicant."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
          Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
          Paul Cipriani, Esq.
          Hannah M. Hamley, Esq.
          EMERY REDDY, PLLC
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 442-9106
          Fax: (206) 441-9711
          Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
                 reddyp@emeryreddy.com
                 paul@emeryreddy.com
                 hannah@emeryreddy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erin M. Wilson, Esq.
          Priya B. Vivian, Esq.
          Joseph Q. Ridgeway, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
          Seattle, WA 98101-3808
          Phone: 206.223.7000
          Facsimile: 206.223.7107
          Email: wilsonem@ballardspahr.com
                 vivianp@ballardspahr.com
                 ridgewayj@ballardspahr.com

TCM PRODUCTS: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TCM PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-00185 (S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://tcmlifestyle.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 a TCM Ingrown Hair
Treatment 1.7oz 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.

TCM Products LLC operates the website that offers body and skincare
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

TESLA INC: Faces Urban Suit Over Defective Vehicle Door Handles
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN L. URBAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA INC., d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00051-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla., January 9,
2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of a nationwide class for the benefit and protection of
purchasers and lessees of Defendant's model years 2014-2016 Model S
vehicles that are allegedly defective insofar as they are equipped
with door handles that routinely fail after or within only a few
years of normal use in violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, when the door handles fail, drivers and
passengers are unable to enter the vehicle through the affected
door, which creates a significant safety risk in emergency
situations.

Tesla knew or should have known about the defect when testing the
vehicles, as the vehicle provides no alternative method to open an
affected door from the outside when the defect manifests, and the
defect began manifesting soon after Defendant first started selling
and leasing the vehicles to consumers, asserts the complaint.

Nevertheless, and despite its duty to do so, the Defendant did not,
and does not, disclose the defect to consumers. Accordingly, the
Defendant has engaged in unfair, deceptive, and misleading consumer
practices with respect to the marketing and sale and/or lease of
the unsafe and defective Vehicles and has breached its warranty
with the vehicles' purchasers and lessees, says the suit.

Tesla Inc. operates as a multinational automotive and clean energy
company. The Company designs and manufactures electric vehicles,
battery energy storage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          2103 N. Commerce Pkwy.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nczipperian@millershah.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          Matthew P. Suzor, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806  
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
                  nfinkelman@millershah.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Watkins, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 440
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
          E-mail: mrw@edgarlawfirm.com

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Burge Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dena Burge, Leigh Hockett, Jordan Furlan,
Cristine Ridey, Patricia Sawczuk, Anne Arundel County, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva
Sales & Marketing, Inc., Case No. 1:25-mc-91527 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Jan. 7,
2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-mc-00201-TC-RES to
the proceeding.

Teva Pharmaceuticals -- https://www.tevapharm.com/en/ -- is a
leading innovative biopharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan A. Kakazu
          Ruth Anne French
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 901-0419
          Email: nkakazu@midwest-law.com
                 rafrench@midwest-law.com

The Defendants appear pro se.

TOLEDO JALIMAR: Property Not Accessible to Disabled, Marino Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MARINO, Plaintiff v. TOLEDO JALIMAR CORPORATION, 305 PUPUSAS,
LLC D/B/A 305 PUPUSAS, and EL GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD INC. D/B/A EL
GALLEGO SPANISH FOOD, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20152 (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 commercial plaza and restaurants to
be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by
other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The barriers to access at
Defendants' commercial plaza and coffee shop have each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza and
restaurants and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
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, says the suit.

Toledo Jalimar Corporation owns and operates a commercial plaza
located in Miami, 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
          Telephone: (786) 361-9909
          Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
          E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com

TRANSUNION LLC: McLeod Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Durant McLeod, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TransUnion, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-08553 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 7, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15376 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American
consumer credit reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deanna Silva Leifer, Esq.
          Kristen Doyan, Esq.
          Matthew John Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          2101 East El Segundo Boulevard Suite 403
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (310) 531-1900
          Fax: (310) 531-1901
          Email: dleifer@maternlawgroup.com
                 kdoyan@maternlawgroup.com
                 mmatern@maternlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Young Pak, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 735-2546
          Email: James.Pak@skadden.com

TRIBAL NUTRITION: Weisman Sues Over Ka'Chava Shakes' False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA WEISMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIBAL NUTRITION LLC D/B/A
KA'CHAVA, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00184-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
January 12, 2026) arises from Defendant's false and misleading
marketing of Ka'Chava All-In-One Nutrition Shakes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant represents that the
Shakes contain "everything" the body needs, including all essential
nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and macronutrients, and that they
can function as a "complete meal." However, these representations
are false and misleading. The Shakes lack essential nutrients,
provide insubstantial amounts of certain macronutrients and
calories, and cannot function as a complete or comprehensive meal
as marketed.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's false and misleading
statements caused Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes to
pay a price minimum for the Shakes. Had they known the truth, they
would not have purchased the Shakes or would have paid
significantly less.

The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others situated,
hereby seeks restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages,
attorney's fees, and all other relief which the Court may deem
appropriate for violating the California Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the common law prohibition on unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff Melissa Weisman is a resident of San Diego, California
who purchased one order of the Shakes from Woot.com in September
2024.

TRIBAL NUTRITION LLC manufactures, markets and sells the Shakes
nationwide through its own website Ka'Chava.com and through major
retailers and e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Whole Foods,
Target, The Vitamin Shoppe, Costco, Woot, Thrive Market, and
Sprouts Farmers Market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan Ellersick, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
     6420 Wilshire Blvd.
     Suite 1080
     Los Angeles, CA 90048
     Telephone: (480) 348-6400
     E-mail: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com

          - and -

     Raphael Janove, Esq.
     JANOVE PLLC
     500 7th Avenue
     8th Floor
     New York, NY 10018
     Telephone: (646) 347-3940
     E-mail: raphael@janove.law

TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Taylor Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC and CARES
COMMUNITY HEALTH d/b/a ONE COMMUNITY HEALTH, Defendants, Case No.
2:26-cv-00086-AC (E.D. Cal., January 12, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to properly secure and safeguard
the protected health information ("PHI") and personally
identifiable information ("PII") of Plaintiff and other similarly
situated patients of Defendant One Community Health, and thus
TriZetto Provider Solutions.

The complaint relates that One Community Health chose to allow
TriZetto access and control over its patients' highly sensitive
personal and health information. The Data Breach occurred
approximately between November 2024 and October 2, 2025. Following
an internal investigation, Defendants learned the Data Breach
resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of
current and former patients' PII including names, Social Security
numbers as well as PHI, including patient health insurance numbers,
patient healthcare company names, primary or dependent insured
information, and other demographic, health, and health insurance
information.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' failure to timely detect
and report the Data Breach made patients vulnerable to identity
theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or
credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive
Information. The Defendants violated state and federal law and
harmed an unknown number of its current and former patients and
prospective patients, says the complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a class of
similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking
injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be
based on information in Defendants' possession.

Kimberly Taylor is a patient of Defendant One Community Health and
a Data Breach victim.

One Community Health is a not-for-profit community-based hospital
which provides medical, dental, and behavioral health services to
its patients in California.

TriZetto Provider Solutions operates as a health insurance
clearinghouse service to process insurance eligibility and claims
information for One Community Health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vess A. Miller, Esq.
     Natalie Lyons, Esq.
     COHENMALAD, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Telephone: (317) 636-6481
     E-mail: nlyons@cohenmalad.com
             vmiller@cohenmalad.com

UKIYOHI LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UKIYOHI LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-00186 (S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its nteractive website, https://ukiyohi.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 a "D'Fuze" Candle -
Sandalwood + Palo Santo - Three Wick 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.

Ukiyohi LLC operates the website that offers candles and other
scented 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

WESTERN DENTAL: Espinoza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Western Dental Services, Inc., Case No.
8:26-cv-00045 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2026), is brought to recover for
unpaid overtime wages, unpaid straight-time wages, liquidated
damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest as a result of the
Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the California Labor Code, and the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").

The Plaintiff regularly worked at least 40 hours per workweek.
Regardless of whether Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work a
workweek totaling under 40 hours, a workweek totaling 40 hours, or
a workweek totaling in excess of 40 hours, Plaintiff regularly
worked a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of her
job duties as a CSR. Defendant never compensated Plaintiff for this
necessary time worked off-the-clock, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in California as an Account
Solutions Specialist from November 2012 to September 2023.

The Defendant provides dental services at hundreds of locations
across California, Nevada, and Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

WOLFSPEED INC: Ferreira Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Luis Ferreira, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WOLFSPEED, INC., GREGG A. LOWE,
NEILL P. REYNOLDS, Case No. 6:25-cv-00062 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on
Jan. 7, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00022-LAF-LPA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.

Wolfspeed, Inc. -- https://www.wolfspeed.com/ -- is an American
developer and manufacturer of wide-bandgap semiconductors, focused
on silicon carbide materials and devices for power applications
such as transportation, power supplies, power inverters, and
wireless systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah E. Delaney, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Email: sarah@blockleviton.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Debo P. Adegbile, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL
          99 Hudston ST., 16th Fl.
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: (212) 965-2200

WOLFSPEED INC: Maizner Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William Maizner, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WOLFSPEED, INC., GREGG A. LOWE,
NEILL P. REYNOLDS, Case No. 6:25-cv-00046 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on
Jan. 7, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00021-LAF-LPA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.

Wolfspeed, Inc. -- https://www.wolfspeed.com/ -- is an American
developer and manufacturer of wide-bandgap semiconductors, focused
on silicon carbide materials and devices for power applications
such as transportation, power supplies, power inverters, and
wireless systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Joseph Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Debo P. Adegbile, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL
          99 Hudston St., 16th Fl.
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: (212) 965-2200

WOLFSPEED INC: Zagami Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gary Zagami, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WOLFSPEED, INC., FUND, INC., GREGG
A. LOWE, NEILL P. REYNOLDS, Case No. 6:24-cv-01395 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina on Jan. 7, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00018-LAF-LPA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.

Wolfspeed, Inc. -- https://www.wolfspeed.com/ -- is an American
developer and manufacturer of wide-bandgap semiconductors, focused
on silicon carbide materials and devices for power applications
such as transportation, power supplies, power inverters, and
wireless systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Garrett Schiller, Esq.
          SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC
          304 East Jones Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: (919) 789-4677
          Fax: (919) 789-4469
          Email: david@schillerfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Alan Ellman, Esq.
          Cauley Geller, Esq.
          David Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100
          Email: aellman@rgrdlaw.com
                 drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Debo P. Adegbile, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL
          99 Hudston ST., 16th Fl.
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: (212) 965-2200

YAKIMA VALLEY FARM: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yakima Valley Farm
Workers Clinic. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic, Case No. 1:26-cv-03003 (E.D.
Wash., Jan. 7, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic -- https://www.yvfwc.com/ --
provide comprehensive medical, dental and social services in
communities across Washington and Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (872) 263-1100
          Fax: (872) 263-1109
          Email: sam@straussborrelli.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***