260126.mbx

260126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 26, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 18 Headlines 1450 PROFESSIONAL PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property 1A AUTO: Dyer Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit 880-882 LEX: Norman Files Suit Over ADA Violation A&A SERVICES: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Prestby" Data Breach Suit ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM: Lewis Suit Removed to E.D. California ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Exclude Hughes' Opinion Tossed AEGIS TRUST: Ralston Files ERISA Suit Over Stock Plan Mismanagement AERONES AMERICA: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation AGI CARGO LLC: Gumbs Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AHMC SETON MEDICAL: Flowers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALEXION PHARMA: Bids for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due June 1 ALORICA INC: Parties Must Confer on Scope of Court's Jurisdiction AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Maher Gets Final Nod AMENTUM BENEFITS: Filing for Class Cert in Middleton Due March 25 AMERICAN DREAM AUTO: Borden Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York AMN HEALTHCARE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Gardner FLSA Suit ANGELINA'S KITCHEN: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Provisions APPLIED THIN-FILM: Cochran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ASPIRUS INC: Team Schierl Appeals Class Cert. Order to 7th Circuit ATTAIN INC: Rice Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Partial Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit BANNER HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kelly Suit Due Oct. 2 BAREBONES SYSTEMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Battle Says BBBB BONDING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Benton Suit Due May 18 BEI FRAMING: Court Tosses Kempf's Bid for Class Certification BELVEDERE NRDE: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines BELVEDERE NRDE: Court Extends Deadline in "Rios" BOCA DEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Duran Suit Due June 1, 2027 BON CHARGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "King" TCPA Class Suit BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Caughey Response to Denial Bid Due Feb. 10 BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 29 BUTTERBALL LLC: Case Management Order Entered in Marc Class Suit C&H MOTORS: Yates Bid to Issue Notice Tossed w/o Prejudice CAPITAL ONE: Settlement Class Provisionally Certified CARVANA OPERATIONS: Erakat Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection CASTLERY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges CATALENT INC: $78MM Securities Suit Settlement Has Prelim OK CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Harmon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAVALRY SPV: "Griffin" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval CCC GROUP: Wood Appeals Denied Motion to Alter Judgment to 4th Cir. CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL: Michaud Seeks Class Cert Deadline Revision CERTEGY PAYMENT: Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order Tossed COMPASS GROUP: Mehlberg Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CONDUENT BUSINESS: Broman Suit Removed to S.D. California CONDUENT BUSINESS: Kinsey Files Suit in D. New Jersey CONNECT HOLDING: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Black Says CORPORATE MANAGEMENT: Scheduling Order Entered in Day Class Suit COTY DTC HOLDINGS: Crooks Suit Removed to D. Maryland COTY DTC HOLDINGS: Santic Suit Removed to W.D. Washington D.R. HORTON INC: Williams Suit Removed to D. South Carolina DENNY'S INC: Ramirez Suit Transferred to C.D. California DENTON COUNTY MHMR: Alphonse Files Suit in Tex. Sup. Ct. DIXON: Filing for Class Certification Bids in Wilson Due May 25 DOLGENCORP LLC: Loses Bid to Strike "White" Collective Allegations DOLLAR TREE: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action DUCK CAMP: Hippe Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website E-DISTRIBUTORS INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EIGHT ORANGES: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Mangahas Suit ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Pitts Must File Redacted Class Cert Copy EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT: Marzo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois EXAMWORKS LLC: Smith Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal EXP REALTY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hollis Suit Due Sept. 30 EXPERIAN INFO: Initial Phase Fact Discovery in Adams Due Nov. 18 FITNESS VENTURES: Vidotte Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA FLOWERS BAKERIES: Walls Suit Removed to E.D. California FRED LOYA: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Mendez Labor Suit FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Leach Suit Due May 27 FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Broomes Suit GIORGIO ARMANI: More Time for Class Cert Briefing Date Sought GIORGIO ARMANI: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Ahumada by April 7 GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Wyman Seeks Conditional Cert for Action GLOBAL PRODUCT: Scheduling Order Entered in Williams Class Suit GMO-Z.COM TRUST: Class Settlement in Donovan Gets Initial Nod GOOSE CREEK: Scheduling Order Entered in McCaskill Class Suit GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Private Info, Deberry Says GURU NANAK: Singh Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL HASBRO INC: Appeals Court Order in Milito Suit HEALTHCARE HD: Lewis Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline HEALTHEC LLC: Class Settlement in Lempinen Suit Gets final Nod HENRY ROSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hippe Alleges HERTZ CORPORATION: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Hearing Granted HOMER DELOACH: Williams Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot HTLC VENTURES: Zachman Allowed Leave to File SAC IDAHO: Ramon Appeals TRO and Class Certification Order to 9th Cir. JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Must Pay $6.6M Atty Fees in Turbocharger Suit JOHN MUIR: Class Settlement in Nado Suit Gets Final Nod JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Lewandowski Appeals Court Judgment to 3rd Cir. KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 16 KPC PROMISE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lebrun Due April 30 LASALLE MANAGEMENT: Court Adjourns Class Cert Deadline LENS.COM INC: Martin May File Exhibits Under Seal LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 30 LSG1 TRAIL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Saenz Suit Alleges LYFT INC: Faces Zigler Suit Over Failed "Priority Pickup Service" MACY'S RETAIL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Nelson Suit to 9th Cir. MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Court OKs $247K Atty Fees in "Beck" MCDONALD'S CORP: Fairley Appeals Class Cert. Order to 7th Circuit MD BUILDING: Anchahua Seeks Class Cert. Notice Approval MDL 2951 : Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes MDL 2951: Class Cert Briefing Stayed in Refund Litigation MDL 3035: Alexander Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order MDL 3035: Ewing Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order MERCK SHARP: Seeks to Maintain Sealing of Class Cert & Exhibits META PLATFORMS: Appeals Court Order in Calise Suit to 9th Circuit MHR FUND: IsZo Appeals Final Judgment Order to the Sup. Ct. of Del. MONROE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Baboolal Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Pynes Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Robledo Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Schell Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Stangle Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Tran Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution OPEN HOUSE: Class Cert Discovery Closes on May 8 ORACLE CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Private Info, Hilferty Says PORSCHE CARS: Turner Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Gallo Suit Removed to S.D. California PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Horowitz Files Suit in D. New Jersey PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought QUAKER OATS: Barquero Appeals Denied Notice of Appeal to 2nd Cir. RESIDEO LLC: Straub Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROYAL UNITED: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended in Wilson Lawsuit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Digiacinto Sues Over Unlawful User Tracking SCOTT SEMPLE: Dinham Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SCOTT SEMPLE: Fernandez Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SRG GLOBAL: Peeler Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification STEM INC: Lawale Appeals Petersen Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit STOCKX LLC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Ashworth TCPA Suit SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Strickland Due July 28 SURESITE CONSULTING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 25, 2027 SYNGENTA CROP: Rehkopf Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 6 TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd TOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Cabrera Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TOWN & COUNTRY: Marino Suit Asserts ADA Breach TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Greiwe Says UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Amends Class Cert Order UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO Order in Tincher Suit to 8th Circuit UNITED STATES: Briefing & Hearing Schedule Modified UNITED STATES: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class Stayed UNITED STATES: Gallardo Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.D.C. UNITED STATES: Jordan Appeals Court Order to the Federal Circuit VERA BRADLEY SALES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VETERANS GUARDIAN: Appeals Class Certification Order in Ford Suit VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Chaney Sues Over Failure to Compensate VONS COMPANIES: Sandoval Seeks to Certify Three Classes W.C. SMITH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Chichester Says WESTERN ASSET: Western Pa Electrical Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ZINOFF & COMPANY: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZUFFA LLC: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit ********* 1450 PROFESSIONAL PLAZA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. 1450 PROFESSIONAL PLAZA LLC, SHOIS RESTAURANT II CORP D/B/A BAKU ASIAN FUSION BAR BY SHOIS, and KEIK GROUP LLC D/B/A KEIK BAKESHOP, Case No. 1:26-cv-20177-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Defendants' commercial property, commercial restaurant, and bakeshop businesses to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject property and Defendants' businesses and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the commercial property and the commercial restaurant and bakeshop businesses therein. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA, at the commercial property, commercial restaurant, and bakeshop businesses. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza property, commercial restaurant, and bakeshop businesses have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and listed commercial restaurant and bakeshop businesses therein and likewise endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property, commercial restaurant, and bakeshop businesses, including, but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property and businesses therein which are open to the public and in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have each individually and together discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the properties and the businesses thereon, in a manner prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. 1450 PROFESSIONAL PLAZA LLC, owned and operated a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com 1A AUTO: Dyer Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- HOMER DYER, IV, is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Homer Dyer, IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Richard Green, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11152-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In this putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Dyer alleges that the 1A Auto, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan was funded with overpriced shares of stock contributed by owners of the company, resulting in a diminution of the Plan's present and future value to participants. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Richard G. Stearns granted on Nov. 26, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Dyer v. Green, et al., Case No. 26-1010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 7, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant HOMER DYER, IV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Carl Engstrom, Esq. Mark Thomson, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE 323 Washington Ave N., Ste. 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 - and - Jason Mathew Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Ste. 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Defendants-Appellees RICHARD GREEN, et al. are represented by: William Bard Brockman, Esq. Katelyn W. Harrell, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1201 W. Peachtree St., NW, 14th Fl. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-5904 - and - Tara Elizabeth Lynch, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 28 State St., Ste. 1050 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (857) 504-2022 - and - Meredith Wilson Doty, Esq. Alan D. Rose, Jr., Esq. ROSE LAW PARTNERS LLP 1 Beacon St., 23rd Fl. Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 536-0040 - and - Mark A. Nebrig, Esq. Drew Patrick Newman, Esq. MOORE & VAN ALLEN 100 N. Tryon St., Suite 4700 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 331-3602 (704) 331-1163 880-882 LEX: Norman Files Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------- KIMMARIE NORMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. 880-882 LEX LLC and JOHN DOE d/b/a DUNKIN' DONUTS, Defendants, Case No. 26 Civ. 460 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for deprivation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, despite the unequivocal mandate of the ADA which has been in place for more than 3 decades, the Defendants have elected to disregard their legal obligation by failing to remove existing unlawful architectural barriers at its public accommodation. This deliberate indifference constitutes an ongoing policy and practice that systemically denies Plaintiff, and all other individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters due to disabilities, equal access to and full enjoyment of Defendants' facilities. As a result, mobility impaired individuals are unjustly excluded from the benefits, privileges, and services that a public accommodation is required to provide under the law. The Plaintiff files this action on behalf of herself and as an action for those similarly situated, complaining of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Civil Rights Law, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City [Administrative Code] Human Rights. The Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as fees and costs against the Defendants. Plaintiff Kimmarie Norman is paralyzed and cannot walk and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Defendant 880-882 LEX LLC owns or leases the commercial property which houses the public accommodation named 882 Lexington Ave., New York, NY. Defendant John Doe d/b/a Dunkin' Donuts owns or operates the public accommodation named Dunkin' Donuts located at 882 Lexington Ave., New York, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. Telephone: (646) 290-8258 Facsimile: (646) 435-4376 E-mail: james@civilrightsNY.com A&A SERVICES: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Prestby" Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as David Prestby, Derek Summerville, Connor Geerhart, Heather Krueger, Samantha Moser, Tiffany Sutherlin, and Sean Schrieo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. A&A Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:24CV204 (D. Neb.), Chief United States District Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Plaintiffs alleged that Sav-Rx failed to implement and maintain adequate data security to protect its systems from unauthorized access, and then unreasonably waited more than seven months to publicly disclose the data breach. They claimed their Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals and sought damages, statutory damages, and injunctive relief. The Court found that Geerhart, Krueger, Prestby, Summerville, and Schrieo failed to allege an injury-in-fact based on actual misuse of their Private Information. As to Moser's Venmo account access, the Court found she failed to allege traceability because she did not allege that Sav-Rx had her Venmo password in its computer system at the time of the data breach. Regarding loss of privacy, the Court found that Moser and Sutherlin alleged their social security numbers along with other identifying information were posted on the dark web -- a public forum. The Court stated, "Moser and Sutherlin have therefore alleged loss of privacy as a concrete injury." However, the Court found that Sutherlin failed to allege facts showing the public disclosure of her Private Information is traceable to the Sav-Rx data breach. In contrast, Moser alleged her information was found on the dark web in November of 2023, only one month after the Sav-Rx data breach. The Court concluded: This temporal proximity between the dark web posting and the Sav-Rx data breach is sufficient to nudge the traceability issue across the line from conceivable to plausible. Accordingly, Moser has sufficiently alleged both injury-in-fact and traceability sufficient to support a finding of standing. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to allege a certainly impending or substantial risk of future harm arising from the Sav-Rx data breach. The Court stated, "Having considered the Plaintiffs' factual allegations in the totality, the Court finds they have failed to allege a certainly impending or substantial risk of future harm arising from the Sav-Rx data breach." The Court conducted a choice-of-law analysis for the consumer protection claims. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' states of residence have the most significant relationship with their consumer protection claims, and the Plaintiffs therefore lack standing to assert a claim under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. The Court stated, The Plaintiffs may have claims under the consumer protection laws of their home states, but they cannot assert legally protected interests under the NCPA. As to the individual state statutory claims, the Court found that Moser has standing to pursue a claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. However, Geerhart, Sutherlin, and Schrieo failed to sufficiently allege an actual harm or a certainly impending or substantial risk of future harm, and therefore lack standing to pursue their state statutory claims. The Court dismissed Moser's breach of implied contract claim, finding she failed to allege the meeting of the minds requirement for forming a contract. The Court stated, "Pleading just the disclosure of confidential information is not enough to create an implied contract to safeguard that data." The Court dismissed Moser's third-party-beneficiary claim, finding she failed to allege facts to support a claim that she was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Sav-Rx and her health plan. The Court dismissed Moser's unjust enrichment claim, stating she does not allege that any specific portion of her health-plan premium was for data protection or even designated by the health plan for payment of Sav-Rx's services." The Court dismissed Moser's breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence claims, finding that the relationship between an insurer and insured arises from an arms-length transaction creating an insurance contract with competing interests incompatible with a fiduciary relationship. The Court denied Sav-Rx's motion to dismiss Moser's negligence claim. The Court stated: The Court has little difficulty in concluding that having gathered the plaintiff's PII, the defendant had a legal duty to take reasonable care to secure it. The Court found the amended complaint sufficiently states a negligence claim, and that claim is not precluded by Nebraska's economic-loss doctrine. The Court dismissed Moser's negligence per se claim, finding that violation of the FTC Act and HIPAA is evidence of a violation of the standard of care, but cannot serve as bases for negligence-per-se claims. The Court dismissed Moser's invasion of privacy claim, finding she failed to allege facts to support an allegation of intent. The Court stated, "Alleging the defendant knew better than to configure its security the way it did falls short of a plausible allegation that Sav-Rx intentionally intruded upon Moser's privacy." The Court dismissed Moser's Pennsylvania UTPCPL claim, finding she failed to allege justifiable reliance or ascertainable damages. The Court ordered that the claims of Plaintiffs David Prestby, Derek Summerville, Connor Geerhart, Heather Krueger, Sean Schrieo, Tiffany Sutherlin (on behalf of herself and her minor children), and Samantha Moser's minor children are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. Moser's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are likewise dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Moser's negligence claim for damages is denied, but all other claims by Moser are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A copy of the Court's decision dated 5th January is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Trafbw from PacerMonitor.com ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM: Lewis Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Spencer Lewis, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV027574 was removed from the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00055. The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint for: 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: Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq. Michael A. Pearlson, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Phone: 213-532-2000 Facsimile: 213-532-2020 Email: ebvicente@Hunton.com mpearlson@Hunton.com ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Exclude Hughes' Opinion Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03560-GLR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George L. Russell III entered an order that the Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Opinions of James W. Hughes and Sean Nicholson Related to Class Certification as to Dr. Nicholson only is denied: The Court further entered an order that: -- The Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Damages Opinions and Proposed Testimony of Meredith Rosenthal, Ph.D. is denied. -- The Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Proposed Testimony of Todd Clark and Daisy Rivera-Muzzio is denied. -- The Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Martin Shimer and Sean Nicholson is denied. -- The Plaintiff's Motion to Allocate Trial Time is denied. Actelion is a Swiss biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v3B8fJ at no extra charge.[CC] AEGIS TRUST: Ralston Files ERISA Suit Over Stock Plan Mismanagement ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI RALSTON, on behalf of the ARCO/Murray Construction Company Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICHARD R. ARNOLDY, JEFFREY L. COOK, STEPHEN F. HOLSTE, DONALD MICHAEL HARTZOG, JR., BRADLEY J. DALBOL, ROBERT E. LESSER, AEGIS TRUST COMPANY, LLC, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00054 (E.D. Mo., January 13, 2026) is a class action seeking to enforce her rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Plan. This action is brought under ERISA for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants caused by the Trustee when it caused the Plan to engage in ERISA prohibited transactions in connection with its leveraged purchase of ARCO/Murray Construction Company, Inc. ("AMCC") stock from the Selling Shareholders, and other plan-wide relief. Specifically, the Trustee caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions under ERISA, when it caused the Plan to purchase Company stock from the Selling Shareholders and transfer assets of the Plan to them, and financed that purchase with loans from the Selling Shareholders and the Company, who were parties in interest to the Plan. The Selling Shareholders, as the counterparties to the transactions and AMCC directors, senior officers, and shareholders, were knowing participants in the prohibited transactions. AMCC was a closely held private company, the Plan's sponsor, and a party in interest to the Plan. AMCC established the Plan to be retroactively effective as of January 1, 2021. As alleged, the Plan, Plaintiff, and all Plan participants have been injured and participants deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and the improper profits realized by Defendants resulting from their actions causing prohibited transactions and knowingly participating in the prohibited transactions, and equitable relief, including reformation of Transaction contracts, rescission of the Transaction (as a fallback remedy only in lieu of the Plan's losses and restitution or disgorgement), and removal of the Trustee as a fiduciary and enjoinment of it from acting as a fiduciary for any employee benefit plan that covers or includes any AMCC employees or members of the Class. Plaintiff requests that Defendants be required to restore any losses to the Plan arising from their ERISA violations, Defendants be ordered to disgorge to the Plan any improper profits, that these prohibited transactions be declared void, and any monies recovered for the Plan to be allocated to the accounts of the Class members. Plaintiff Heidi Ralston is a participant, as defined by ERISA, in the Plan who was vested in shares of AMCC allocated to her account in the Plan. Defendant Aegis Trust Company, LLC ("Aegis Trust"), a New Hampshire limited liability company, is the surviving entity following a merger effective on July 18, 2023, with Aegis Fiduciary Services, LLC ("Aegis Fiduciary," and together with Aegis Trust, "Aegis"), which at the time of the ESOP Transaction was a New York limited liability company. Aegis provided trustee services to privately held companies wishing to sponsor employee stock ownership plans. Defendant Robert E. Lesser, at the time of the ESOP Transaction, was the Managing Member, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and owner of Aegis Fiduciary. Defendant Lesser is the President and CEO of Aegis Trust. Defendants Richard R. Arnoldy, Jeffrey L. Cook, Stephen F. Holste, Donald Michael Hartzog, Jr., and Bradley J. Dalbol are Company directors and parties in interest to the Plan from whom the Plan acquired the stock (and/or from trusts or other entities owned directly or indirectly or controlled or held by them or of which they held a beneficial interest). Defendants John and Jane Does 1–10, parties in interest to the Plan from whom the Plan acquired the stock (together with Arnoldy, Cook, Holste, Hartzog, and Dalbol, "Selling Shareholders"). The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 34 N. Gore Avenue, Suite 102 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 863-5446 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com todd@feinbergjackson.com - and - Mary Bortscheller, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 970 Raymond Avenue, Suite G-70 St. Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: (510) 606-5219 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: mary@feinbergjackson.com AERONES AMERICA: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Josiah Cano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AERONES AMERICA LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00047 (D.N.M., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought seeking all available relief, including overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The decision by the Defendant to not pay the correct amount of overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members was neither reasonable nor in good faith. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members did not and currently do not perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the FLSA or the NMMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Aerones in New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming from June 20, 2025 until December 12, 2025. Aerones is a wind turbine service company operating throughout the Northern Europe and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com AGI CARGO LLC: Gumbs Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AGI CARGO, LLC. The case is styled as Jaylen Gumbs, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and current and former aggrieved employees v. AGI CARGO, LLC, Case No. 26STCV00991 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction). AGI -- https://agi.aero/ -- is one of the fastest growing, US-owned, ground handling companies in North America, providing ground, cargo, mail handling, and security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com AHMC SETON MEDICAL: Flowers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AHMC Seton Medical Center LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer M. Flowers, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. AHMC Seton Medical Center LLC, AHMC Healthcare Inc., Case No. 26STCV01302 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." AHMC Seton Medical Center -- https://www.ahmchealth.com/smc/ -- has been serving the health care needs of San Francisco and northern San Mateo County since its founding as Mary's Help Hospital in 1893.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Power Jean Hopkins, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: j.power@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law ALEXION PHARMA: Bids for Leave to Amend Pleadings Due June 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EmblemHealth, Inc. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10985 (D. Mass., Filed April 16, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order modifying the parties' joint proposed schedule as follows: -- Any motions for leave to amend pleadings due by June 1, 2026. -- Motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude any merits expert reports due 4 weeks after the Court's ruling on class certification. -- Oppositions due 4 weeks after; replies due 7 days after. The nature of suit states Anti-trust. Alexion engages in the discovery, development, and commercialization of biologic therapeutic products. [CC] ALORICA INC: Parties Must Confer on Scope of Court's Jurisdiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryan Baldwin, et al., v. Alorica, Inc. et al., AAron Munoz, v. Alorica, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order as follows: The parties are directed to meet and confer forthwith regarding the scope of this Court's jurisdiction over this case during the pendency of Alorica's Rule 23(f) appeal of the Class Certification Order. The parties are ordered to show cause in writing no later than January 30, 2026, why this Court should not stay this case until the Ninth Circuit resolves the pending appeal. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is SET for February 13, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California. In September 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified the following class: "All participants in or beneficiaries of the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN from six years prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter through Dec. 31, 2022, excluding the Defendants and members of the Defendant Committee." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ktiGCH at no extra charge.[CC] AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Maher Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL MAHER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00152-JXN-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered a judgment granting final approval of class action settlement: The Court finally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3): "All natural persons who took, were prescribed, purchased, paid for, or otherwise incurred out-of-pocket costs in connection with treatment with Makena in the United States, from March 8, 2019 through the date of Preliminary Approval (the "Class Period")." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) Any judge presiding over the Litigation, their staff and their immediate family members; (2) Defendant; (3) any of Defendant's subsidiaries, parents or affiliates, and its and their officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (4) Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant; and (5) any persons who timely excluded themselves from the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section VI of the Settlement Agreement, as fully shown in Exhibit A hereto. The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all of the applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and affirms the certification of the Settlement Class. Based on the Court's familiarity with the claims and Parties, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately represented and continue to represent the interests of the Settlement Class, and the Court confirms their appointment as Class Representatives. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court finds that Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and continue to represent the interests of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, and the Court confirms them as Settlement Class Counsel. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement on July 11, 2025, and preliminarily certified the Class for purposes of settlement only. AMAG is an American pharmaceutical company developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in adult patients. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1NSgZc at no extra charge.[CC] AMENTUM BENEFITS: Filing for Class Cert in Middleton Due March 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY MIDDLETON and GEORGE A. LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of the AMENTUM 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN and DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. AMENTUM BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Severson entered an order regarding class certification scheduling as follows: The Plaintiff to serve narrowly tailored discovery requests relating to class certification: Jan. 28, 2026 Motion for class certification (if opposed) or for the parties to stipulate to class certification: March 25, 2026. Joint email status report to chambers for undersigned with the parties’ position regarding limited merits-based discovery (while class certification motion pending) and indicating whether a telephone status conference is desired: April 8, 2026. On Jan. 14, 2026, U.S. Mag. Judge Brooks G. Severson conducted an in-person status conference with counsel for the parties to discuss the status of the case and scheduling issues related to the Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwroZ7 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN DREAM AUTO: Borden Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Dream Auto Protect, Inc. The case is styled as Lea Stacy Borden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Dream Auto Protect, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00142 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Dream Auto Protect -- https://americandreamautoprotect.com/ -- is the leading provider of extended auto warranties in America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com AMN HEALTHCARE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Gardner FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Crystal Gardner, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMN Healthcare Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-06509-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Oct. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, which Judge Vince Chhabria denied on Dec. 29, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Gardner, et al. v. AMN Healthcare Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-95, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 6, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 12, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 17, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CRYSTAL GARDNER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Eve H. Cervantez, Esq. Jacqlyn Blatteis, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 - and - Yasmin Zainulbhai, Esq. John Austin Moore, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Defendants-Appellants AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al. are represented by: Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. Andrew John Pincus, Esq. Daniel Jones, Esq. Carmen Longoria-Green, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 - and - Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. Anthony Sbardellati, Esq. GROVE LAW, LLP 10000 Washington Boulevard, Sixth Floor Culver City, CA 90232 - and - Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 ANGELINA'S KITCHEN: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Provisions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armando Espinoza Sanchez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. ANGELINA'S KITCHEN, INC. d/b/a ANGELINA'S KITCHEN, and VINCENT MALERBA, individually, and BALDO MANNO, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-00120 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each week, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis at his regular rate for each hour that he worked, and thus Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for the hours that he worked over forty in a week, in violation of the FLSA's and the NYLL's overtime provisions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cook from May 25, 2020, until May 25, 2025. The Defendants are a New York corporation that operates a restaurant located on Staten Island, New York, as well as its owner and day-to day overseer and one of its managers,[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 APPLIED THIN-FILM: Cochran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Applied Thin-Film Products. The case is styled as Rebecca Cochran, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Applied Thin-Film Products, a California corporation; Vishay Dale Electronics, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26CV164255 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Applied Thin-Film Products -- https://www.thinfilm.com/ -- offers inductor coils, microstrip transmission lines, stand-off and isolation pads, packaging and chip trays, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law ASPIRUS INC: Team Schierl Appeals Class Cert. Order to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ TEAM SCHIERL COMPANIES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Team Schierl Companies, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aspirus, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00580, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully fixed prices for outpatient medical services across North-Central Wisconsin. The Plaintiffs allege that the scheme caused them and the proposed class to overpay for healthcare services, and they sought to certify a class of similarly situated payors to pursue claims under the Sherman Act. On Dec. 19, 2025, Judge James D. Peterson denied the class certification after ruling that the Plaintiffs' damages expert's "yardstick" regression, which compared the price-fixing providers' prices to those of other Wisconsin providers while controlling for other variables that might affect price, was inadmissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The appellate case is captioned Team Schierl Companies, et al. v. Aspirus, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-8001, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on January 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners TEAM SCHIERL COMPANIES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel J. Walker, Esq. Robert E. Litan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G Street, NW, Ste. 400E Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 Email: dwalker@bm.net rlitan@bm.net - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. Sarah R. Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: ecramer@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net szimmerman@bm.net - and - Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. Amanda R. Vaughn, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 400 7th Street NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 Email: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com amanda@fairmarklaw.com - and - Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Nathan M. Kuenzi, Esq. BURNS BAIR LLP 10 E. Doty Street, Suite 600 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2808 Email: tburns@burnsbair.com nkuenzi@burnsbair.com Defendants-Respondents ASPIRUS, INC. are represented by: Matthew J. Splitek, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP 33 East Main Street, Suite 900 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 283-2454 Facsimile: (608) 294-4914 Email: Matthew.Splitek@quarles.com - and - Patrick M. Harvey, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 511 North Broadway, Ste. 1100 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 978-5321 Email: patrick.harvey@huschblackwell.com - and - R. Brendan Fee, Esq. 2222 Market Street, Ste. 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5136 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 Email: brendan.fee@morganlewis.com - and - Allison W. Reimann, Esq. Jenna Riddle, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN One East Main Street, Ste. 500 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 284-2277 (608) 284-2632 Facsimile: (608) 257-0609 Email: areimann@gklaw.com jriddle@gklaw.com - and - Kenneth Kliebard, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-1774 Email: kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com - and - Nathan Oesch, Esq. 411 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 277-5120 Email: nathan.oesch@quarles.com - and - Olanike Steen, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5282 Email: nicky.steen@morganlewis.com - and - Rishi Satia, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS One Market Spear Street Tower, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Email: rishi.satia@morganlewis.com - and - Ryan M. Kantor, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-5343 Email: ryan.kantor@morganlewis.com - and - Steven A. Reed, Esq. Zachary M. Johns, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5603 Email: steven.reed@morganlewis.com - and - Vincent Chris Papa, Esq. 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (732) 604-9131 Email: vincent.papa@morganlewis.com ATTAIN INC: Rice Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS RICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Attain Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00080 (E.D. Wis., January 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://katinusa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Rice and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Rice's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Rice browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a hat on the Website. Despite his efforts, however, Rice was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its Website, Rice and Class Members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on the Website. Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, asserts the complaint. Rice seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Rice is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Attain Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase t-shirts, shirts, hoodies, shorts, swim trunks, hats, and small accessories such as keychains and stickers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Partial Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Patricia Goolsby, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00009 (W.D. Va.), Judge Jasmine H. Yoon of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Goolsby brought suit on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, seeking to represent a class to remedy the harm caused by BOA's illegal behavior. She alleged Bank of America violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act of 1978 (Counts I and III), breached their deposit agreement (Count II), and violated the Uniform Commercial Code and its Virginia equivalent (Count IV). The Court granted in part and denied in part Bank of America's motion to dismiss. The motion was denied as to Goolsby's EFTA Excess Liability claim (Count I) and her breach of contract claim (Count II). The motion was granted as to Goolsby's EFTA Notice claim (Count III) and her UCC claim (Count IV). Those claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Court found that Goolsby stated a claim that the Bank violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1693g. The Court stated it is self-evident that an individual falsely posing as a customer service representative with no connection to Bank of America would not have the actual authority to initiate a transfer, as required by Section 1693a(12). Drawing inferences in the light most favorable to Goolsby, the Court found that she sufficiently alleged the caller obtained the codes from her through fraud, and that the transfer was initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority. The Court further found that Goolsby sufficiently alleged that she received no benefit from the transfer. The Court found that Goolsby failed to state a claim that the Bank violated their notice obligations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f. The Court agreed with the Bank that Goolsby's allegations were wholly conclusory as she did not allege what these boilerplate statements say, do not say, or why they could apply to any supposed investigation and are not specifically tailored to her investigation; nor did she allege what information the Bank failed to consider or steps that it failed to take during its investigation. The Court dismissed Goolsby's UCC claim. The U.C.C. and its Virginia equivalent both expressly except transfers governed by the EFTA. Both parties agreed that the transfers at issue are governed by the EFTA. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QmMESC from PacerMonitor.com BANNER HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kelly Suit Due Oct. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v. Banner Health, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00920 (E.D. Cal., Filed March 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order granting the parties' request and modifying the case schedule under the same conditions set forth in the Scheduling Order as follows: Fact discovery re class certification shall be completed by Aug. 7, 2026. Initial experts re class certification shall be disclosed and reports produced by Aug. 21, 2026. Rebuttal experts re class certification shall be disclosed and reports produced by Aug. 28, 2026. All expert discovery re class certification shall be completed by Sept. 4, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification by Oct. 2, 2026. The Defendants shall file their opposition by Dec. 4, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file a reply by Jan. 8, 2027. Fact discovery re merits shall be completed by March 5, 2027. Initial experts re merits shall be disclosed and reports produced by April 9, 2027. Rebuttal experts re merits shall be disclosed and reports produced by April 16, 2027. All expert discovery re merits shall be completed by April 23, 2027. Dispositive motions shall be filed by May 28, 2027. Final Pretrial Conference reset for Oct. 14, 2027. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Banner Health is non-profit U.S. healthcare system headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, operating hospitals and facilities across six states (AZ, CA, CO, NE, NV, WY).[CC] BAREBONES SYSTEMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Battle Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Barebones Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-560 (N.D. Ill., January 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://barebonesliving.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff made an attempt to complete a purchase on Barebonesliving.com. He was looking for grill equipment that would be durable, heat-resistant, and suitable for outdoor cooking. On August 26, 2025, he searched Google for online stores offering outdoor cooking and grilling accessories. He came across Barebonesliving.com, which specializes in outdoor lifestyle products, including grilling and fire accessories, cooking equipment, lighting, and other durable utility gear. He took time to learn more about the company and came across positive reviews from Illinois customers highlighting the product design and functionality. These reviews, written by like-minded Illinois residents who were highly satisfied with their purchases from Barebonesliving.com, influenced his decision to explore the site further. During his navigation through the grill category, he became interested in the Fire and Grill Mat and attempted to purchase the product. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to independently complete the transaction. Barebonesliving.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and equal access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Barebonesliving.com and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Barebonesliving.com in Illinois State and throughout the United States, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Barebones Systems' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Andre Battle is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Barebones Systems, LLC owns and operates the website that provides to the public a website known as Barebonesliving.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range of outdoor and lifestyle products, such as camping and utility lighting, cooking and dining equipment, garden and hand tools, storage and carrying solutions, and other durable outdoor essentials designed for recreation, home, and utility use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BBBB BONDING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Benton Suit Due May 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benton v. BBBB Bonding Corp., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01294 (E.D. Cal., Filed May 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order modifying the Scheduling Order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by Sept. 9, 2026 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by Oct. 9, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by Dec. 8, 2026 -- Expert discovery shall be completed by Jan. 4, 2027 -- A Joint Mid-Litigation Statement shall be filed by May 26, 2026 -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by May 18, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). BBBB is a California-based bail bond company.[CC] BEI FRAMING: Court Tosses Kempf's Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER KEMPF, v. BEI FRAMING, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00527-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Jarbou entered an order denying Kempf's motion for class-action certification. Nothing in the record points to how many people were employed by BEI at a given time. The Court cannot find that joinder of all class members would be impractical based on Kempf's say-so alone. The Court says that Kempf has not established that the numerosity prerequisite for class certification is satisfied. At issue in these consolidated suits are alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and cognate state laws by BEI Framing LLC and BEI's owner, Clayton Nicholson. The class definition posited by Kempf impermissibly references the merits of this action. Kempf seeks certification of a class which comprises: "Current and former employees of BEI Framing LLC and Clayton Nicholson who were not paid the required minimum wage and overtime premium of time and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during their last weeks of employment." The description of the money allegedly not paid to BEI employees during their last weeks of employment as "required" implies that only those with a legal right to receive the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate fall within the class definition. BEI offers customized and specific high-quality end products for commercial and residential building projects. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ru2MVB at no extra charge.[CC] BELVEDERE NRDE: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CAMILLA VALENCIA RIOS, AQUARIUS FILALI, and NADJI FILALI, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, V. BELVEDERE NRDE, LLC, PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL, LLC, and GLENMOOR OAKS NRDE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00474-REP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines: The following deadlines with respect to Plaintiffs, Pegasus, Belvedere, and Glenmoor Oaks are extended as follows: (1) Pegasus's, Belvedere's, and Glenmoor Oak's Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall now be due on or before January 29, 2026; (2) Plaintiffs' Replies in Support of their Motion for Class Certification shall now be due on or before February 12, 2026; (3) Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures shall now be due on or before February 20, 2026; and (4) Pegasus's, Belvedere's, and Glenmoor Oak's Expert Disclosures shall now be due on or before March 20, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sEUMil at no extra charge.[CC] BELVEDERE NRDE: Court Extends Deadline in "Rios" ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Maria Camilla Valencia Rios, Aquarius Filali, and Nadji Filali, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Belvedere NRDE, LLC, Pegasus Residential, LLC, and Glenmoor Oaks NRDE, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-474, pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Payne issued an order on January 14, 2026, extending the following deadlines for all parties: * First, the defendants Pegasus, Belvedere, and Glenmoor Oaks must file their Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by January 29, 2026. * Second, Plaintiffs' Replies in Support of their Motion for Class Certification are due by February 12, 2026. * Third, Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures must be submitted by February 20, 2026. Fourth, the defendants' Expert Disclosures shall be filed by March 20, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 14th is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9e0Yln from PacerMonitor.com BOCA DEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Duran Suit Due June 1, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YADIRA DURAN, et al., v. BOCA DEL RIO AGRICULTURE, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:24-cv-01512-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered a class action scheduling conference order as follows: Mid-Discovery Status Conference: July 29, 2026 at 11:00 AM Non-expert discovery of Lead Jan. 30, 2027 Plaintiff's claims and class certification: Expert disclosure deadline re Class Mar. 1, 2027 certification: Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline Mar. 31, 2027 class certification: Expert discovery deadline re class Apr. 30, 2027 certification: Motion for class certification: June 1, 2027 Boca is an all-natural cannabis farm. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kCqFqv at no extra charge.[CC] BON CHARGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "King" TCPA Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Phyllis King, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bon Charge, an Australian company, Defendant, No. 25-cv-00105-SB (D. Del.), Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and partially granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. King filed this putative class action against Bon Charge under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). She alleged that Bon Charge had violated the statute and its implementing regulations by continuing to text her even though her number was on the Do-Not-Call Registry. She sought certification of a class of plaintiffs whose numbers were listed on the national do-not-call registry, and who received two or more telemarketing calls or text messages within any 12-month period from Bon Charge or its agents to their residential telephone number. After Bon Charge moved to dismiss, King amended her complaint to bolster her allegations of personal jurisdiction and add a claim that Bon Charge had also violated a regulation forbidding advertisers to contact people during "quiet hours" between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. local time. Bon Charge moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that Delaware's long-arm statute did not cover its minimal activities in the state and that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. It also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. King responded that she was not asserting personal jurisdiction under Delaware's long-arm statute and was instead using Rule 4(k)(2). Judge applied the burden-shifting approach to Rule 4(k)(2). The parties did not dispute that King's TCPA claims arise under federal law. Bon Charge conceded that it may be difficult to identify where in the United States it could be subject to any state's courts of general jurisdiction. Given that choice, King had no obligation to show that Bon Charge could not be sued in any state. The Court found that Bon Charge has minimum contacts with the United States. From 2021 until July 2024, it used PostScript iO, an international company that provides e-commerce brands with SMS text messaging platforms, for automating and sending SMS text messages to individuals in the United States. In July 2024, Bon Charge changed its provider for SMS text messaging to Klaviyo, a Boston headquartered company, for SMS text messaging in the United States. Those messages flagged promotions for American holidays and events like Labor Day, the Fourth of July, and Black Friday. By sending those texts, Bon Charge purposefully availed itself of the U.S. market. The Court found that King's claims are sufficiently related to Bon Charge's contacts to support personal jurisdiction. King challenges the legality of Bon Charge's marketing texts, the very communications that constitute purposeful availment. The Court also found that exercising jurisdiction over Bon Charge is fair and reasonable. The United States has a significant interest in adjudicating claims under the Act. King has a significant interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief. The Court concluded that jurisdiction would be constitutional under the more exacting pre-Fuld standard, so it must remain constitutional post-Fuld. The Court denied Bon Charge's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On the claims, the Court found that King states a claim that Bon Charge improperly contacted her after she listed her number on the Do-Not-Call Registry. According to the complaint, King registered her cell phone number on the Do-Not-Call Registry around February 23, 2022. But she got dozens of telemarketing text messages from Bon Charge more than 30 days after her telephone number was registered. The Court found that consent is an affirmative defense, and therefore, it is not the plaintiff's burden to pre-rebut it in order to avoid dismissal. The Court let Count II proceed. The Court dismissed King's standalone treble-damages claim. The possibility of treble damages is not a separate cause of action; it is simply an enhancement of the damages available for a violation in cases where the defendant has acted willfully or knowingly. The Court dismissed Count I without prejudice. The Court dismissed King's quiet-hours claim. The phone records attached to King's complaint reveal that she knowingly released her phone number to Bon Charge by sending it a message to subscribe to marketing texts and get a 15 percent off coupon. That counts as prior express consent to get messages advertising Bon Charge's products. As far as the quiet-hours claim goes, King's prior express invitation or permission is apparent from the face of the amended complaint. The Court dismissed Count III without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NlVtac from PacerMonitor.com BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Caughey Response to Denial Bid Due Feb. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAUGHEY v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00264 (W.D. Pa., Filed Feb. 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge David S. Cercone entered a response/briefing order re motion to deny class certification: -- The Plaintiff's response to motion is due by Feb. 10, 2026, with brief limited to 25 pages. -- The Defendants' reply due March 3, 2026, with brief limited to five pages. The nature of suit states Contract Dispute. Bridgecrest is a third-party loan servicer.[CC] BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMAND BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00155-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Savage entered an order granting the motion to continue stay and amend pre-trial deadlines pending continued mediation efforts. The Court further entered an order as follows: 1. All remaining deadlines are stayed through January 22, 2026. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended to Jan. 29, 2026. 3. The parties shall file a joint report no later than Jan. 22, 2026, apprising the Court of the status of mediation. Brookhaven is a borough in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LkgYaq at no extra charge.[CC] BUTTERBALL LLC: Case Management Order Entered in Marc Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE MARC, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BUTTERBALL, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00391-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Flanagan entered a case management order as follows: The parties shall exchange by Feb. 11, 2026, the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Phase I discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by July 13, 2026. Disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), including reports from retained experts, to the extent intended to be relied upon in connection with any class certification motion, shall be served by the plaintiff by May 13, 2026, and by the defendant by June 10, 2026. Any class certification motion shall be filed by Aug. 27, 2026. Butterball produces and markets turkey products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rF5SMk at no extra charge.[CC] C&H MOTORS: Yates Bid to Issue Notice Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Yates, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, V. C & H Motors, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00151-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge entered an order: -- Denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to issue Notice; and -- Granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for pre-notice discovery. The motion is granted in that the Defendants are ordered to produce to the Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of this Opinion and Order, the payroll records for all of its current and former employees who were paid on an hourly basis between Feb.14, 2022, to the present. The Court encourages the parties to consider implementing a protective order or other mechanism to safeguard sensitive employee information. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs requests to depose Anderson, Fultz, and other unnamed witnesses. Ms. Yates asks the Court to conditionally "certify" a proposed collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and approve notice to the proposed collective. The Plaintiff seeks the Court's approval of notice to the following proposed collective: "All current and former hourly employees of the Defendants who were paid for 40 or more hours of work in one or more workweeks when considering the hours worked for the Defendants in the aggregate, beginning three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through final disposition of this case." The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly, non-exempt employee from May 2018 to December 2024. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DX1p4H at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Settlement Class Provisionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The People of the State of New York, by Letitia James v. Capital One, N.A. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01403-DJN-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Novak entered an order as follows: 1. The Court provisionally certifies a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account at any time during the class period (i.e., from Sept. 18, 2019, through and including June 16, 2025), including joint and co-holders of 360 Savings accounts, as reflected in the class list to be generated by Capital One." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Capital One, any entity in which Capital One has a controlling interest, and Capital One's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over the action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement Class. 3. The Court preliminarily finds and concludes that the Settlement Class meets the requirements for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). 4. The Court conditionally reappoints Chet B. Waldman and his law firm Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel and The Kaplan Law Firm as local counsel, and designates Plaintiffs in the action, i.e., Dr. Scott C. Savett, Jay Sim, Amber Terrell, Angela Uherbelau, Gwendolyn Wright, Elizabeth Zawacki, Sheryl Barnes, Alessandra Bellantoni, Ayal Brenner, Anthony Guest, Samuel Hans, Ronald Hopkins, Michael Krause, Steve Lenhoff, Jerry Magana, Seth Martindale, Jennie Meresak, Gregory Mishkin, Andrew Molloy, Jay Nagdimon, Neelima Panchang, Sailesh Panchang, Patrick Perger Jr., Shantell Pitts, Howard Port and Jane Rossetti, as Settlement Class Representatives for purposes of this settlement. 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on April 20, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The Settlement provides for Capital One to pay $425 million to Settlement Class members and to match interest rates for Settlement Class members who continue to hold 360 Savings Accounts to those rates paid to 360 Performance Savings accountholders. Capital offers financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nGMyaP at no extra charge.[CC] CARVANA OPERATIONS: Erakat Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Saleem Erakat, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. CARVANA OPERATIONS HC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-00263-AGT (N.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought due to the Defendant's unlawful data collection through the www.carvana.com (the "Website"), a website that Defendant owns and/or operates. The Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To accomplish its data-collection and monetization objectives, Defendant intentionally configured the Website to embed and execute third-party tracking technologies that intercept and disclose the contents of users' electronic communications in real time. As users navigate the Website, these technologies transmit to third parties human-readable communication content embedded directly within request payloads, including users' Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses and full, specific page URLs that reveal the precise vehicle listings, searches, and pages viewed by the user. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not expect their communications, online activities, specific IP addresses, or behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or prior disclosure requesting authorization before installing pen register or trap-and-trace technology. General statements in a privacy policy buried behind non-blocking hyperlinks do not constitute the express prior consent, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred on multiple occasions during the class period. CARVANA OPERATIONS HC LLC owns, operates, and/or controls the Website, which is an online platform offering vehicle-related goods and services to consumers, including the ability to browse, finance, and purchase used vehicles through a fully digital interface.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com CASTLERY INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Castlery Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00281-PJS-DLM (D. Minn., January 14, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website, www.castlery.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision, in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content - content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. 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, adds the complaint. 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. Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Castlery Inc. is a California Company that offers furniture for sale including, but not limited to, sofas, couches, tables, chairs, beds, storage, furniture sets, outdoor furniture, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CATALENT INC: $78MM Securities Suit Settlement Has Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as City of Warwick Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Catalent, Inc., John Chiminski, Alessandro Maselli, and Thomas Castellano, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01108-ZNQ-JTQ (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement on December 29, 2025. The Court preliminarily approved a settlement providing for payment of $78,000,000 to resolve claims brought by Lead Plaintiffs SEB Investment Management AB and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class consists of all persons and entities who or which, during the period from August 30, 2021 through May 7, 2023, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock or exchange-traded call options or sold the exchange-traded put options of Catalent, Inc. and were allegedly damaged thereby. The Court preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement only, finding that the prerequisites of class action certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures have been satisfied. Specifically, the Court found that (i) the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class Members is impracticable; (ii) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class Members; (iii) the claims of Lead Plaintiffs are typical of the Settlement Class's claims; (iv) Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of the Settlement Class; (v) the questions of law and fact common to Settlement Class Members predominate over any individual questions; and (vi) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." The Court preliminarily certified SEB Investment Management AB and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The law firms of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C. was preliminarily appointed as Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court scheduled a Settlement Hearing for June 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 4W, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608. The Court ordered that Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions be retained as the Claims Administrator. Settlement Class Members wishing to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class must mail a written request such that it is received no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses must serve their written objection and supporting papers such that they are received on or before twenty-one (21) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing" upon Co-Lead Counsel and Defendant's Counsel. According to the Notice, Co-Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for attorneys' fees from the Settlement Fund of no more than 25% of the Settlement Fund, which includes any accrued interest, i.e., $19,500,000, plus accrued interest. Co-Lead Counsel will also apply for payment of Litigation Expenses incurred in prosecuting the Action in an amount not to exceed $2 million, plus accrued interest, which may include an application pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for the reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) of Lead Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class." The Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle on November 21, 2025, following a full-day, in-person mediation session on November 19, 2025, before David Murphy of Phillips ADR Enterprises. The Parties executed the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on December 22, 2025. A copy of the settlement agreement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tMdCxn from PacerMonitor.com CATHOLIC CHARITIES: Harmon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Harmon, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc., Case No. 26STCV01323 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. -- https://catholiccharitiesla.org/ -- is a social services organization in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com CAVALRY SPV: "Griffin" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Thomas Griffin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and Apothaker Scian P.C., John Does 1-25 and ABC Corp. 1-50, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-16755 (LDW), United States Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement. On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas Griffin filed his putative class action suit on behalf of himself and those similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County alleging that Defendants committed violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. by seeking to collect more money than they were entitled to collect from Plaintiff and members of the putative class. Defendants subsequently removed the State Court Action to this Federal Court. Defendants deny any liability alleged by the Plaintiff with respect to the language contained in the collection letters. The Court found that, for the purpose of this Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied, and that a class action is an appropriate method for resolving the disputes in this litigation. Specifically, the Court found that the Settlement Class satisfies the prerequisites for class certification in that: (a) The 62 members of the above defined Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) There are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class; (c) The claims of the Class Representative are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (d) The Class Representative fairly and adequately represents the interests of the Settlement Class. There are no conflicts of interest between the Class Representative and members of the Settlement Class; (e) Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Settlement Class; and (f) Certification of the Settlement Class is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Court found that the settlement, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members, especially in light of the benefits achieved on behalf of them, the risk and delay inherent in litigation, and the limited amount of any potential recovery that could be shared by the Settlement Class Members. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court found that Plaintiff fairly and adequately represents and protects the interests of the Settlement Class and appointed him as Class Representative. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court appointed Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. as Class Counsel. The Settlement Agreement provides in part for Apothaker to: (1) retain the Settlement Administrator mutually selected by the Parties; (2) establish a settlement fund in the amount set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (3) pay the Class Representative individual statutory damages and a service payment, subject to approval by the Court; and (4) pay Plaintiff's reasonable counsel fees, costs, and expenses, subject to approval by the Court. The Parties selected Angeion Group as the Settlement Administrator. A copy of rhe Court's preliminary settlement order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YlDi5w from PacerMonitor.com CCC GROUP: Wood Appeals Denied Motion to Alter Judgment to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE MOOD is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Wayne Mood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CCC Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-07084-DCN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to aggrieved employees, all of which being Charing Parties and Plaintiffs in this matter. On May 8, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, which Judge David C. Norton granted on Sept. 9, 2025. On Sept. 10, 2025, judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant and the case is dismissed. On Oct. 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment, which Judge Norton denied on Nov. 24, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Wayne Mood v. CCC Group, Inc., Case No. 26-1013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on January 6, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WAYNE MOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph Edward Donohue, IV, Esq. J DONOHUE LAW LLC 431 Saint James Avenue Goose Creek, SC 29445 Telephone: (854) 205-4454 Defendant-Appellee CCC GROUP, INCORPORATED is represented by: William Robert Gignilliat, IV, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 15 South Main Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 672-8516 CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL: Michaud Seeks Class Cert Deadline Revision ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MICHAUD, v. CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL LIVING L.L.C., ANDY TRAN, JEFFREY FARMER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00481-OAW (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order modifying the deadline to file her anticipated motion for class certification from May 09, 2026, until Aug. 28, 2026. The parties are currently scheduled for a settlement conference with Judge Margolis on April 29, 2026. If the case does not settle at that time, the Plaintiff will only have nine days to take depositions, conduct necessary discovery, and move for class certification. This is the Plaintiff's first request for an amendment of the scheduling order. This request is filed at least three business days before the deadline sought to be extended. The Defendants' counsel consents to this Motion. CTL provides home care for the elderly and individuals living with mental illness or brain injuries. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JyRjuL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com CERTEGY PAYMENT: Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN STACHEWICZ, Successor in Interest to Nancy Stachewicz, deceased, v. CERTEGY PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Hawley entered an order denying the Defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge Hanna's Order substituting John Stachewicz as a party and motion to hold the Order in abeyance. The Defendant Certegy's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order is overruled. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied with leave to renew. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied with leave to renew. The Defendant's sealed Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and sealed Memorandum in Support of Certegy Payment Solutions, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment are both moot. The Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Matthew Woodward is moot. The parties are granted leave to file a joint motion requesting the Court re-open discovery. The case is again referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Certegy is a payment processing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cYsPKW at no extra charge.[CC] COMPASS GROUP: Mehlberg Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD L. MEHLBERG, and ANGELA R. DEIBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04179-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Granting certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3); -- Appointing the Plaintiffs Mehlberg and Deibel as Class Representatives; -- Appointing Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and McClelland Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and -- Instructing the parties to meet and confer regarding a notice plan in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). The Plaintiffs move to certify the following Statutory Violation Class with respect to Counts I and II of the Complaint (Doc. 56): Statutory Violation Class (Counts I and II): "All persons within the United States who paid Compass Group's tobacco surcharge from Oct. 9, 2020, through the date of the class certification order." Plan Terms Violation Class (Counts V and VI): "All persons within the United States who paid Compass Group's tobacco surcharge through the date of the class certification order." Individual Fiduciary Duty Class (Count IV): "All persons within the United States who paid Compass Group's tobacco surcharge from Oct. 9, 2018 through the date of the class certification order." Plan Fiduciary Duty Class (Count III): "All persons within the United States who paid Compass Group's tobacco surcharge from Oct. 9, 2018, through the date of the class certification order." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1lzKzY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. Yasmin Zainulbhai, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@steuvesiegel.com zainulbhai@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Broman Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kent Broman, individually and all other California citizens similarly situated v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU065797C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 12, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00155-BTM-MMP. The complaint alleges that Defendants committed statutory, regulatory, and tort violations related to a cybersecurity incident involving Conduent that occurred between October 21, 2024 and January 13, 2025 (the "Incident"). Specifically, plaintiff Kent Broman alleges that his personally identifiable information and personal medical information was compromised during the Incident and asserts various causes of action against Defendants, including, violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"); violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"); violations of the California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"); and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wendy Qiu, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.896.2433 Fax: 213.896.2450 Email: Wendy.Qiu@hklaw.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Kinsey Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent Business Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Kinsey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conduent Business Services, LLC, Conduent Incorporated, Case No. 2:26-cv-00202 (D.N.J., Jan. 11, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Conduent Inc. -- https://www.conduent.com/ -- is an American business services provider company headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: 212-490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com CONNECT HOLDING: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Black Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Black, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Connect Holding II LLC d/b/a Brightspeed, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00027 (W.D.N.C., January 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, the "Private Information") from hackers ("The Data Breach"). The complaint relates that Brightspeed provides high speed internet service to areas previously served by CenturyLink. In the ordinary course of receiving services from Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. According to online sources, Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its computer systems on January 5, 2026. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to implement proper data security practices of its computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had Defendant properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Erica Black is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Defendant Connect Holding II LLC d/b/a Brightspeed, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is an internet provider for rural and suburban communities across 20 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 525 North Tyron Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 533-4616 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com CORPORATE MANAGEMENT: Scheduling Order Entered in Day Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA DAY, v. CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07574-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered a scheduling order as follows: A deadline for motion for class certification¹ has been set in the above captioned case. Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). Corporate is a provider of equity compensation management software solution. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mT4p5B at no extra charge.[CC] COTY DTC HOLDINGS: Crooks Suit Removed to D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Myesha Crooks, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COTY DTC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. C-24-CV-25-008407 was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland, City of Baltimore, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on Jan. 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00078-RDB. The Complaint in this action alleges that Coty has violated Maryland's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("MCEMA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Abraham J. Shanedling, Esq. Christopher Bauer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20006-6801 Phone: (202) 747-1900 Fax: (202) 747-1901 Email: ashanedling@sheppardmullin.com cbauer@sheppardmullin.com - and - Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Phone: (310) 228-3700 Fax: (310) 228-3701 Email: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com - and - Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Phone: (858) 720-8900 Fax: (858) 509-3691 Email: dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com COTY DTC HOLDINGS: Santic Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mallory Santic, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COTY DTC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 25-204019-06 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for the County of Clark, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05024. The Complaint in this action alleges that Coty has violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"). The Complaint also alleges that Coty's purported violation of CEMA constitutes a per se violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel F. De La Cruz, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-3598 Phone: 619.338.6500 Facsimile: 619.234.3815 Email: ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com - and - Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Phone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 Email: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com - and - Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Phone: 858.720.8900 Facsimile: 858.509.3691 Email: dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com D.R. HORTON INC: Williams Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derek Williams, Corey Smith, William Wyatt, and Heather Iwinski, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D.R. Horton, Inc., Alpha & Omega Construction, LLC, Cannady Siding & Gutter, Inc., L&M Electric, Inc., Long Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., and M&L Reyna Construction, LLC, Case No. 2025-CP-04-02216 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00097-DCC. The Complaint contains the following counts: Negligence and Gross Negligence; Breach of Implied Warranties; and Unfair Trade Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John T. Crawford, Jr., Esq. Kimila L. Wooten, Esq. David L. Paavola, Esq. Amelia M. Farmer, Esq. Jonathan Abrams, Esq. KENISON, DUDLEY & CRAWFORD, LLC 325 W McBee Ave, Suite 301 Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 242-4899 Facsimile: (864) 242-4844 Email: crawford@conlaw.com wooten@conlaw.com paavola@conlaw.com farmer@conlaw.com DENNY'S INC: Ramirez Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cristina Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Denny's Inc, Denny's Corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02386 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00081-JVS-DFM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights. Denny's -- https://www.dennys.com/ -- is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Alexander Wallin, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Paul Tish, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Fax: (310) 943-0396 Email: alexander.wallin@capstonelawyers.com roxanna.taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com The Respondents are represented by: Matthew E. Farmer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 18565 Jamboree Road Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 705-3000 Fax: (949) 724-1201 Email: mfarmer@littler.com DENTON COUNTY MHMR: Alphonse Files Suit in Tex. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denton County MHMR Center. The case is styled as Samuel Alphonse, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Denton County MHMR Center, Case No. 26-0305-362 (Tex. Sup. Ct., Denton Cty., Jan. 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Injury/Damages - Not Motor Vehicle." Denton County MHMR Center -- https://www.dentonmhmr.org/ -- is a local Non-Profit Community Center specializing in the treatment of and service delivery to individuals in Denton County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Phone: 800-237-1277 Fax: 405-239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com DIXON: Filing for Class Certification Bids in Wilson Due May 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson, et al., v. Dixon et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-24253 (S.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 31, 2024 ), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered an order that the Parties shall abide by the following deadlines: (1) Any and all motions relating to class certification shall be filed on or before May 25, 2026. (2) Responses to class certification motions shall be filed on or before June 18, 2026. (3) Replies shall be filed on or before June 26, 2026. (4) A hearing on class issues is SET for July 8, 2026. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] DOLGENCORP LLC: Loses Bid to Strike "White" Collective Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Daniel White et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01169 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Collective Allegations from the First Amended Complaint. Dollar General filed a motion to dismiss or strike collective allegations, arguing that the court previously found a lawsuit with 75 named plaintiffs would be unmanageable. The Defendant grabbed onto this language to argue that it is now the law of the case and precludes the plaintiffs from pursuing this lawsuit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act through 10 named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and 46 opt-in plaintiffs. The court rejected this argument, finding that the FLSA expressly authorizes any one or more employees to bring suit for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. The court clarified that its language regarding the unmanageability of a lawsuit with 75 individually named plaintiffs has little bearing on the plaintiffs' ability to bring this lawsuit as a collective action in accordance with the FLSA itself. The court did not find that the plaintiffs' claims are not suitable for collective treatment because determining whether each individual plaintiff could establish a claim would require a fact-intensive and individualized inquiry. Instead, the court found that a lawsuit with 75 individually named plaintiffs would be unmanageable. The court noted that plaintiffs are similarly situated when they suffer from a single, FLSA-violating policy, and when proof of that policy or of conduct in conformity with that policy proves a violation as to all plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are also similarly situated when their claims are unified by common theories of defendants' statutory violations, even if the proofs of these theories are inevitably individualized and distinct. Accordingly, Dollar General's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Collective Allegations from the First Amended Complaint was denied. The portion of the court's December 20, 2024 Order provisorily granting Dollar General's Motion to Sever and Transfer was vacated. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t5jF4O from PacerMonitor.com DOLLAR TREE: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.S.W., a Minor Child By and Through His Mother and Natural Guardian KATHLEEN BLANCO and KATHLEEN BLANCO, Individually, A.R., a Minor Child By and Through His Mother and Natural Guardian REBECCA SCHUSTER and REBECCA SCHUSTER Individually, S.R.A., a Minor Child By and Through Her Mother and Natural Guardian LASHELLE ROBINSON and LASHELLE ROBINSON Individually and all other Children and Parents Common to this Class Action, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04663-HG (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the action as a Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of a class consisting of: "All persons in the United States who purchased WanaBana Apple Cinnamon Fruit Puree pouches from Dollar Tree stores and whose minor children ingested said product and/or were exposed to lead as a result"; 2. Appointing the named Plaintiffs—T.S.W., A.R., and S.R.A.—as Class Representatives 3. Appointing Manuel Moses, Esq., and Alvin Gordon, Esq. and Ava Gordon, Esq. as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); and 4. Compelling the Immediate Production of all Point-of-Sale (POS) and rewards program data currently withheld by Defendant, which is necessary to identify and provide notice to the unrepresented minor class members. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nSKVt4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manuel Moses, Esq. MOSES LAW OFFICE OF NEW YORK PLLC The Gordon Law Office of New York LLP 236 West 26th Street, Suite 303 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 736-2624 The Defendant is represented by: Lori B. Leskin, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 DUCK CAMP: Hippe Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Duck Camp LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00081 (E.D. Wis., January 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://duckcamp.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hippe and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Hippe's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Hippe browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a shirt on the Website. Despite her efforts, however, Hippe was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. On several separate occasions, Hippe has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on Defendant's Website in Milwaukee County. These access barriers that Hippe encountered have caused a denial of Hippe's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Hippe on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Website in the future, says the suit. Hippe seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Xinyue Hippe is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Duck Camp LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of outdoor apparel and gear for men and women, including tops, pants, shorts, outerwear, headwear, bags, totes, gear, lifestyle essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law E-DISTRIBUTORS INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. E-distributors Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00235 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://rockvilleaudio.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using their computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase view a variety of car audio amplifiers and subwoofers, marine-audio speakers, home-theater speaker systems, PA/DJ speakers and powered systems, multi-zone receivers and amplifiers for distributed audio, and studio-/recording-equipment like preamps and microphone/mixer kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law EIGHT ORANGES: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Mangahas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ EIGHT ORANGES INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Jessy Mangahas, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eight Oranges Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-4150, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Oct. 30, 2025, Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court approves the Settlement Agreement and its terms except the reversion provision as specified in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2025, and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and not a product of collusion. The Court finds reasonable and approves the service awards requested for the Plaintiffs. The Court grants Class Counsels request for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $583,333.33, which is 33.3 percent of the settlement. The award is justified by the work that Class Counsel did negotiating the settlement and conducting the litigation, the ultimate recovery, and the risk that Class Counsel undertook in bringing the claims. The Court approves $35,000 in administrative costs to Rust Consulting as outlined in the Settlement Agreement. On Oct. 31, 2025, judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court Order and Judgment, which Judge Liman denied on Dec. 10, 2025. The Court finds that the Defendants have failed to meet their high burden of establishing grounds for reconsideration. The appellate case is entitled Mangahas v. Eight Oranges Inc., Case No. 26-64, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JESSY MANGAHAS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Defendants-Appellants EIGHT ORANGES INC., et al. are represented by: Jonathan Ng, Esq. WHITE & NG LLC 190 Moore Street, Suite 204 Hackensack, NJ 07601 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Pitts Must File Redacted Class Cert Copy ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Copeland, et al., v. Energizer Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to file a redacted copy of their motion for class certification to the public docket and to notice the motion for hearing on May 21, 2026. The Plaintiffs have filed an interim administrative motion for sealing procedures in connection with their motion for class certification. But plaintiffs have not noticed the motion for class certification for a hearing on the Court's motion calendar, as required by Civil Local Rule 7-2(a), nor filed a redacted version of the motion for class certification on the Court's public docket, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Energizer is a manufacturer of batteries.[CC] EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT: Marzo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Matthew Marzo and Nicholas Dicarlo, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2025-CH-12416 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00262. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts a single cause of action under Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act ("PTFA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant "listed" Plaintiffs' and other Colorado residents' cell phone numbers in a "directory for commercial purposes," purportedly in violation of PFTA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. Donald S. Cuba, II, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com dcuba@mcgpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Niewoehner, Esq. Holly Harrison, Esq. Katherine Sobiech, Esq. CROKE FAIRCHILD DUARTE & BERES 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-641-0881 Email: rniewoehner@crokefairchild.com hharrison@crokefairchild.com ksobiech@crokefairchild.com EXAMWORKS LLC: Smith Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. EXAMWORKS, LLC, and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02746-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting interim motion for leave to file materials under seal Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 104.13(c) and 105.11, the Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal certain portions of his motion for Class Certification, as well as Exhibits 1-9. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification both references and attaches certain materials that Defendant GEICO and EXAMWORKS, LLC have designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the Confidentiality Order. The Plaintiff has redacted these materials from his public filing and provisionally filed the unredacted versions under seal. Examworks offers a range of services such as independent medical examination, peer review, case management, document management, and more. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hp32gf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Keith James Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com tsostrin@keoghlaw.com - and - Peter A. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 914 Bay Ridge Road, Ste. 230 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com - and - Christopher P. Martineau, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER P. MARTINEAU Rosedale Towers 1700 Highway 36 West, Suite 620 Roseville, MN 55113 Telephone: (612) 767-7790 Facsimile: (612) 379-0480 E-mail: cmartineau@jmlegal.com EXP REALTY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hollis Suit Due Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HOLLIS, v. EXP REALTY LLC, et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-00822-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Expert discovery (opening/initial report): July 15, 2026 Expert discovery (rebuttal report): Aug. 12, 2026 Discovery cut-off for discovery related Sept. 2, 2026 to class certification: Class certification motion deadline: Sept. 30, 2026 Class certification opposition deadline: Oct. 28, 2026 Class certification reply deadline: Nov. 18, 2026 eXp Realty is a dynamic real estate company based in Seattle, WA, specializing in residential and commercial properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tUQ0DE at no extra charge.[CC] EXPERIAN INFO: Initial Phase Fact Discovery in Adams Due Nov. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK ADAMS, ET AL., v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-01773-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: All parties appearing shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than Jan. 23, 2026. Initial phase fact discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 18, 2026. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than April 7, 2028. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before Dec. 16, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than July 8, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Oct. 13, 2028 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Feb. 15, 2029 at 1:30 p.m. The final pretrial conference is set for June 14, 2029 at 1:30 p.m. A jury trial is set for Aug. 13, 2029, at 8:30 a.m. Experian is a global data and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yyc2Bj at no extra charge.[CC] FITNESS VENTURES: Vidotte Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ANA VIDOTTE, individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS VENTURES, LLC, FITNESS VENTURES – WHITE STATION, LLC and FITNESS VENTURES - CORDOVA, LLC, Case No. 26-cv-02058 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 20, 2026) seeks to recover damages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former commissioned personal trainers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges she and those similarly situated were not paid for all their work hours at the applicable FLSA minimum wage rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this cause of action. Accordingly, the Defendants either failed to record all of the work hours of Plaintiff and others similarly situated into their time keeping system or "edited-out" such hours from their time keeping system during all times material to this Complaint. Plaintiff Vidotte was employed by the Defendants as a commissioned personal trainer. The Defendants own and operate 60 "crunch gyms" in 28 states, including in the State of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com FLOWERS BAKERIES: Walls Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Markis Walls, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF NORCAL, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV129067 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-00081. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed at Termination; Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements and Maintain Accurate Records; and Violations of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com - and - Frank L. Tobin Esq. Elizabeth A. Marshall Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: frank.tobin@ogletree.com elizabeth.marshall@ogletree.com FRED LOYA: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Mendez Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- FRED LOYA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Edna Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fred Loya Insurance Agency, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07549-JLS-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code. On Oct. 3, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Josephine L. Staton denied on Dec. 3, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Mendez v. Fred Loya Insurance Agency, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-103, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 6, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 12, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 17, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee EDNA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Mara, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 3160 Camino Del Rio, S. Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92108 Defendants-Appellants FRED LOYA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., et al. are represented by: Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq. GBG, LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Leach Suit Due May 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA LEACH, v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01776-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on class April 27, 2026 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion May 27, 2026 for class certification (to be noted for the reply deadline): Deadline for the Defendants to file response: June 26, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply: July 13, 2026 Fred Meyer is a US hypermarket chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Zj7dv at no extra charge.[CC] FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Broomes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Amanda Broomes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03558-RFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court for Alameda County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for contract violation. On July 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On Aug. 21, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, which Judge Rita F. Lin granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 11, 2025. The Court finds that FullBeauty has only shown that it formed an agreement to arbitrate with one of the New Plaintiffs, Christina Thiele-Yancy. Therefore, FullBeauty's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action is granted as to Thiele-Yancy's claims, and is denied in all other respects. The case is stayed as to Thiele-Yancy's claims only, pending the results of arbitration. The appellate case is captioned Broomes, et al. v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, Case No. 26-180, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 8, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on February 17, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AMANDA BROOMES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 - and - Charles R. Toomajian, III, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 80 South 8th Street 1100 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 - and - Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 - and - Christopher Duran Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY, PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 247-6267 Defendant-Appellant FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC is represented by: James Sigel, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Jacob Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Daniel Leigh, Esq. Joseph Elie-Meyers, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 GIORGIO ARMANI: More Time for Class Cert Briefing Date Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1) continuing the deadline for the Defendant to file its opposition to April 7, 2026; and (2) continuing the deadline for Plaintiff to file her reply to April 14, 2026. The Parties agree that they will each be severely prejudiced, and their respective due process rights will be compromised, if they are not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses and properly respond to critical evidence that the other party relies on in support of or in opposition to the Motion, as well as having their disputes related to these depositions and the document requests addressed at an informal discovery conference and/or through motion practice. As a separate scheduling issue, the Defendant's lead Counsel Nicky Jatana will be out of the country from Febr. 6 to 20, 2026 due to a preplanned vacation. On Nov. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff Jacqueline Ahumada filed her motion for class certification. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ha76xO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Paul J. Cohen, Esq. Maia Mdinaradze, Esq. Daniella J. Lee, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Paul.Cohen@jacksonlewis.com Maia.Mdinaradze@jacksonlewis.com Daniella.Lee@jacksonlewis.com GIORGIO ARMANI: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Ahumada by April 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting joint motion to extend briefing deadlines on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to April 7, 2026. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of her motion for class certification is continued to April 14, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQdgzu at no extra charge.[CC] GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Wyman Seeks Conditional Cert for Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD WYMAN, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), et al., v. GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS, LLC, a Florida For-Profit Corporation, et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-81205-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Matthewman entered an order conditionally certifying Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. Pursuant to the Motion [DE 19], the parties' Joint Stipulation, and the Court having reviewed the record herein, this collective action is conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), as a class of: "All current and former Installers and Helpers employed by Glassfronts Systems, LLC during any work weeks between Jan. 15, 2023 and the present who have worked in excess of 40 hours during any week(s) within the applicable three (3) year statute of limitations periods without receiving compensation at time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all of their overtime hours worked." 2. The parties proposed Class Notice and Consent to Join Form is approved for dissemination to those individuals named by the Defendants in their Jan. 7, 2026, disclosure of potential opt-in plaintiffs. 3. The Plaintiffs shall take all necessary steps to have the now-approved Notice and Consent to Join Form translated from English to Spanish through a certified Spanish translator. The Plaintiffs shall complete this translation within 10 days of this Order. 4. By March 27, 2026, the parties shall file a joint motion for a status conference to discuss the status of this case with the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fEKwk7 at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL PRODUCT: Scheduling Order Entered in Williams Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL WILLIAMS, et al. v. GLOBAL PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02264-FMO-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered a scheduling order as follows: A deadline for motion for class certification¹ has been set in the above captioned case. Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). Global in engaged in the retail sale of fresh fruits and vegetables. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L20bTh at no extra charge.[CC] GMO-Z.COM TRUST: Class Settlement in Donovan Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH DONOVAN, HUSSIEN KASSFY, and JOHN BRAMBL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GMO-Z.COM TRUST COMPANY, INC., Case No. (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Aaron entered an amended order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for class notice. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mH0MEZ at no extra charge.[CC] GOOSE CREEK: Scheduling Order Entered in McCaskill Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGIANNE MCCASKILL, v. GOOSE CREEK CANDLES LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01924-FMO-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered a scheduling order as follows: A deadline for motion for class certification¹ has been set in the above captioned case. Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). Goose is engaged in the wholesale distribution of non-durable goods. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xqjYTm at no extra charge.[CC] GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Private Info, Deberry Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERICA DEBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00244 (S.D. Tex., January 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant, either directly or indirectly, with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. As a result of collecting and storing the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members for its own financial benefit, Defendant had a continuous duty to adopt and employ reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Private Information from disclosure to third parties. On September 27, 2025, Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third party had gained access to its information systems. In response, Defendant launched an investigation which determined that the unauthorized access came from a successful phishing attack on September 17, 2025. The unauthorized third party was able to access servers that hosted personal data and deploy malicious software that encrypted portions of Defendant's network. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, contact information, social security numbers, and drivers' license numbers. On January 5, 2026, Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach. Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by an unauthorized actor, though it has provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; uncompensated lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself 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 Defendant's inadequate data security practices Plaintiff Erica Deberry is a citizen and resident of Houston, Texas. Defendant Gulshan Management Services, Inc. is a gas station and convenience store management company based in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214/744-3000 Facsimile: 214/744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com GURU NANAK: Singh Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANJIT SINGH AND CHARANJIT KAUR, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. GURU NANAK DARBAR OF LONG ISLAND, INC., Case No. 9:26-cv-00345 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs' overtime pay in violation of the New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs assert, on their behalf and other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants, that Defendant failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay overtime, failed to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday. The Defendant employed the Plaintiffs from August 2013 to September 20, 2024. GURU NANAK DARBAR OF LONG ISLAND, INC. serves as a center for religious, social, and community activities based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vivek Suri, Esq. 267 Fifth Avenue. Suite 1000 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 537-6936 E-mail: lawyer@surilawoffice.com HASBRO INC: Appeals Court Order in Milito Suit ---------------------------------------------- HASBRO, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit styled John Milito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hasbro, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-1111, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case type is stated as Original Proceeding, Petition, Private. The appellate case is captioned as Milito v. Hasbro, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-182, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JOHN MILITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Defendants-Petitioners HASBRO, INC., et al., are represented by: Masha Godina Hansford, Esq. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP 2001 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 HEALTHCARE HD: Lewis Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Lewis Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Healthcare HD LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02756-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend deadline to move for class certification. The Parties request that the Court extend Plaintiff's class certification deadline from Jan. 16, 2026, to April 16, 2026, with all other deadlines and provisions of the Scheduling Order remaining in effect unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Extending the class certification deadline by 90 days will not prejudice the Defendant and will promote judicial economy by ensuring that class certification briefing is based on a complete evidentiary record, rather than on incomplete information resulting from unresolved production issues. Healthcare HD provides health care services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q6v2ZU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 75 14th Street NE, Ste. 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 E-mail: ryan@wtlaw.com mkeilson@wtlaw.com HEALTHEC LLC: Class Settlement in Lempinen Suit Gets final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEMPINEN v. HEALTHEC, LLC (re HealthEC LLC Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 2:24-cv-00026-SDA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Adams entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and awarding attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards to class representatives.s\ 1. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement and all of the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Court grants final approval and appointment of Plaintiffs Allan Bishop, Caroline Cappas, Jessica Fenn, Keith Fielder, Joni Fielder, Gregory Leeb, and Mindy Markowitz as Representatives of the Settlement Class, and of the law firms of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C. and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. 3. The Court awards attorneys' fees of $1,864,050.00 (representing 34% of Common Fund), together with a proportionate share of the interest thereon from the date the funds are deposited in the Escrow Account until payment of such attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, at the rate earned by the Common Fund and to be paid solely from the Common Fund, and costs and expenses totaling $29,340.53. 4. The Court certifies the following Settlement Class "The approximately 1.67 million individuals reflected on the Class List that were patients of Community Health, Corewell, MD Valuecare, and Beaumont whose personal information and/or protected health information was compromised in the Incident announced by HealthEC in December 2023." The following entities and individuals are excluded from the definitions of "Settlement Class Members" or "Class Members": a. Each of the Defendants and their respective officers and directors; b. All Settlement Class Members who timely and validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class; c. The Judge and/or Magistrate Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and d. any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. HealthEC LLC is a health management solutions company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xZBBBO at no extra charge.[CC] HENRY ROSE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hippe Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Henry Rose, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00082 (E.D. Wis., January 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://henryrose.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hippe and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Hippe's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Hippe browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a perfume discovery set on the Defendant's Website. Despite her efforts, however, Hippe was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. These access barriers that Hippe encountered have caused a denial of Hippe's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Hippe on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Website in the future, says the suit. Hippe seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Xinyue Hippe is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Henry Rose, Inc. controls and operates the Website which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of fragrances and scented items, including perfumes, discovery sets, body creams, candles, diffusers, and hand sanitizers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law HERTZ CORPORATION: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Hearing Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maharaj v. The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting stipulation to continue class certification hearing. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Hertz is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida.[CC] HOMER DELOACH: Williams Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSHEA WILLIAMS, v. SHERIFF HOMER DELOACH, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01021-JEP-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Pratt entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment; and -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that an unnamed employee at the jail prevented him from receiving, and therefore complying with, this Court's Order granting him time to file an amended complaint before dismissing the case. The Plaintiff provides no evidence—such as a mail log—showing that a PCJ employee prevented him from receiving and complying with this Court's Order. Additionally, any purported fraud or misconduct by a PCJ employee did not prevent Plaintiff "from fully presenting his case" because it appears he remains intent on representing the rights of other inmates. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=toot9z at no extra charge.[CC] HTLC VENTURES: Zachman Allowed Leave to File SAC ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY ZACHMAN and ALISON ALLEN, v. HTLC VENTURES, INC., CHRISTINA M. HOLLERBACH, LINDA M. HOLLERBACH, and THEODOR R. HOLLERBACH, Case No. 6:25-cv-00275-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted. As immediately as practicable, the Plaintiffs shall file their proposed second amended complaint as a separate docket entry. 2. The Defendants' requests are denied without prejudice. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for class certification on or before April 1, 2026. Accordingly, the Defendants' factual disputes would not provide a reason to grant a motion to dismiss and thus do not provide a reason to deny the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. HTLC operates in the business support services industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Bt26t at no extra charge.[CC] IDAHO: Ramon Appeals TRO and Class Certification Order to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAMON, by and through next friend, G.C., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Ramon, by and through next friend, G.C., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JULIET CHARRON, in her official capacity as Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00676-AKB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The Plaintiffs filed this action on November 26, 2025, alleging two claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. On Nov. 28, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), which Judge Amanda K. Brailsford denied without prejudice. On Dec. 13, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed renewed motion for temporary restraining order. On Dec. 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Jan. 5, 2026, Judge Brailsford entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for TRO and preliminary injunction. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to make a clear showing they are entitled to injunctive relief. Further, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not appear to represent all the regions at issue, thus their motion to certify class is also denied without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Ramon, et al. v. Charron, et al., Case No. 26-231, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 13, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 20, 2026; -- Appellant's Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief is due on February 10, 2026; and -- Appellee's Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief is due on March 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RAMON, by and through next friend, G.C., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey S. Beelaert, Esq. Preston Carter, Esq. GIVENS PURSLEY, LLP 601 W. Bannock Street Boise, ID 83702 Defendants-Appellees JULIET CHARRON, in her official capacity as Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, et al. are represented by: Brian Vernon Church, Esq. James E. M. Craig, Esq. IDAHO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 700 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 210 Boise, ID 83720 JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Must Pay $6.6M Atty Fees in Turbocharger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Loretta Flynn-Murphy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-14464 (D.N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted as modified Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and class representative service awards. This is a consumer class action lawsuit related to defective turbochargers in certain vehicles sold, designed, marketed, and manufactured by Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Jaguar Land Rover Automotive plc, and Jaguar Land Rover Limited. The defective turbochargers can cause damage to the Class Vehicles' turbochargers and engines, requiring expensive repairs. The Class Vehicles include 41,543 of Defendants' vehicles falling within three models: (1) the 2013-2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoques; (2) the 2015-2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport; and (3) the 2013-2015 Land Rover LR2, each of which were originally equipped with a brazed scroll turbocharger. After more than four years of litigation, the underlying case settled in September 2024. The Settlement Agreement provides retrospective and prospective relief for Class Members through four general components: (1) reimbursements to class members for out-of-pocket costs incurred for turbocharger repairs; (2) reimbursements to class members for out-of-pocket costs incurred for engine repairs; (3) an extended warranty covering future turbocharger repairs; and (4) an extended warranty covering future engine repairs. The agreement caps reimbursements for out-of-pocket costs incurred for turbocharger repairs at $3,750 and reimbursements for out-of-pocket costs incurred for engine repairs at $12,000. Class Counsel spent more than 3,600 hours of attorney, professional, and paraprofessional time shepherding this case to its resolution. Their work included: (1) investigating claims related to the turbocharger defect; (2) filing five complaints; (3) engaging in three full rounds of motion to dismiss proceedings; (4) engaging in preliminary discovery; and (5) participating in extensive mediation and settlement discussions. The Court determined it is appropriate to primarily analyze the requested Fee Award under the lodestar method. The Court stated, Without a readily available method for calculating a definite monetary value of the settlement as a whole, it is more appropriate to primarily use the lodestar method to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Award, and then cross-check the Fee Award under the percentage-of-recovery method. The Court rejected Defendants' objections to Class Counsel's lodestar calculation. Regarding allegations of excessive time spent, the Court found that "the hours Class Counsel spent preparing oppositions to Defendants' motions to dismiss were reasonable. The Court noted that Class Counsel claims in this litigation were based on the same common core of facts across all complaints and that success in opposing these later motions permitted the initiation of discovery and ultimately jumpstarted settlement negotiations. The Court also rejected Defendants' arguments concerning discovery-related billing. The Court stated, Class Counsel cannot be faulted for taking steps early in this case to comply with their legal obligations under Rule 26. Regarding document discovery, the Court found the total time spent on these myriad discovery activities over the course of eight months was entirely reasonable. On the issue of senior attorney billing, the Court held that legal research and writing were particularly decisive here, where the bulk of the research conducted by Class Counsel was related to efforts to oppose motions to dismiss that would have terminated the case. The Court declined Defendants' offer to instruct Class Counsel about how it should have staffed this case. The Court reduced the lodestar calculation by $13,512.50 to account for unaddressed discrepancies or recognized errors in Class Counsel's records. The Court increased the lodestar calculation by $120,433.50 to account for time Class Counsel spent preparing and defending its fee application. Class Counsel's original lodestar calculation was $2,962,178.25. With these adjustments, the new lodestar calculation is $3,069,099.25. The Court found that a multiplier of 2.15 is warranted and reasonable. The Court explained, Class Counsel took this case on a contingency basis. This has required them to incur case-related expenses and devote valuable attorney time to this matter notwithstanding the risk that no recovery would be obtained. The Court noted that this multiplier falls within the range of multipliers used by courts within this Circuit. For the percentage-of-recovery cross-check, the Court determined it is more appropriate to consider the total value the settlement makes available to the class. The Court estimated the settlement's value at $11.1 million. Combined with requested attorneys' fees of $6.6 million, expenses of $0.17 million, and class representative service awards of $0.04 million, the total fund is $17.91 million. The requested attorneys' fees award represents 36.85 percent of the total fund value, which the Court found is within the range regularly approved by courts in this Circuit. The Court found that other factors support the reasonableness of the requested Fee Award. In a class totaling 127,386 persons, Class Counsel only received three minor objections related to the settlement; no objections were submitted related to the request for attorneys' fees. The Court held that the dearth of objections strongly supports approval of the requested fee. Accordingly, the Court granted Class Counsel's motion as modified. Defendants are ordered to pay Class Counsel $6.6 million in attorneys' fees, $171,502.81 for reimbursement of expenses, and $40,000 for class representative service awards ($2,500 for each of the sixteen Settlement Class Representatives). A copy of the settlement order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FRwH1M from PacerMonitor.com JOHN MUIR: Class Settlement in Nado Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONAN NADO, v. JOHN MUIR HEALTH, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01632-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class settlement, as well as the motion for attorney's fees and costs, administrative expenses, and case contribution award. The action and all released claims asserted therein, whether asserted by Nado on his own behalf or on behalf of the class members, or derivatively to secure relief for the Plan, are dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any of the settling parties other than as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. Further, payment is ordered as follows: -- Attorney's fees to class counsel in the amount of $237,500 (25% of the $950,000 gross settlement amount); -- Reimbursement of $22,968.88 in litigation costs; -- $31,986.00 in settlement administration expenses; -- $15,000 for independent fiduciary fees; and -- Case contribution award in the amount of $5,000 for named Plaintiff, Nado. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants will pay $950,000 to a common settlement fund. The Court affirms the Settlement Class, defined as, "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health Retirement Committee during the Class Period. John Muir is a hospital network headquartered in Walnut Creek, California A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WTegtG at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Lewandowski Appeals Court Judgment to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANN LEWANDOWSKI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Ann Lewandowski, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Johnson and Johnson, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00671-ZNQ-RLS, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and failure to provide plan documents under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On Mar. 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Apr. 22, 2025. On Nov. 26, 2025, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Counts One and Two will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing. It is further ordered that the case be terminated pending submission of a third amended complaint. On Jan. 12, 2026, the Court dismissed Counts One and Two of the second amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judgment is entered accordingly in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs without costs or fees. The appellate case is entitled Ann Lewandowski, et al. v. Johnson and Johnson, et al., Case No. 26-1107, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANN LEWANDOWSKI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michelle Yau, Esq. Daniel Sutter, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com - and - Kai Richter, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 400 South 4th Street, #401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 807-1575 Email: krichter@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 400 7th Street NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 Email: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com - and - Michael Casper, Esq. WHEELER, DIULIO & BARNABEI, P.C 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 971-1000 Email: mcasper@wdblegal.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CULBERT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF COLORADO, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, and COLORADO PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01231-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the joint motion to amend previously set scheduling dates by an extension of 91 Days. The scheduling order is amended to extend the following deadlines: -- Discovery Cut-off: May 15, 2026. -- Dispositive Motion Deadline: June 16, 2026, on plaintiff's theory. -- Motion for Class Certification: June 16, 2026. -- Disclosure of Affirmative Experts: April 10, 2026. -- Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts: May 15, 2026. Kaiser is a mental health organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XgsZrF at no extra charge.[CC] KPC PROMISE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lebrun Due April 30 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY LEBRUN OBOT-AKATA, et al., v. KPC PROMISE HEALTHCARE, LLC, et al., Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge Murillo entered an order granting stipulation to modify dates re class certification as follows: Event New Deadline Last Day to Conduct Class Certification Feb. 10, 2026 Discovery: Last Day to File a Class Certification April 30, 2026 Motion: Last Day to File Opposition to Any May 29, 2026 Class Certification Motion Last Day to File Reply in Support of June 30, 2026 Class Certification Motion: Class Certification Motion Hearing Date: July 15, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 23, 2026 The Defendant is a specialty hospital post-acute care health system. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SyJ7Dt at no extra charge.[CC] LASALLE MANAGEMENT: Court Adjourns Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILSON BARAHONA, NIKOLAS GAZETAS, and OMAR ISAIAS TAVIRA GARCIA, v. LASALLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a LASALLE CORRECTIONS, LASALLE SOUTHEAST, LLC, CGL IRWIN PROPERTIES LLC, and CGL/LASALLE IRWIN PROPERTIES LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00024-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge W. Louis Sands entered an order granting the joint motion to adjourn deadline for motion for class certifications. New deadlines will be determined, if necessary, with input from counsel. The Parties request the Court adjourn the February 13, 2026, deadline for filing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as set in the May 22, 2025, Discovery/Scheduling Order. The Court stayed discovery in this case pending resolution of CGL Irwin's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and further order of the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=12JKX8 at no extra charge.[CC] LENS.COM INC: Martin May File Exhibits 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 Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an order as follows: 1. The Motion for leave to file Exhibit in support of reply to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under seal is granted in part. 2. The Plaintiff may file the exhibits in support of his reply memorandum under seal as previously ordered by the Court. 3. The Plaintiff may not file Mr. Heffner's entire expert report under seal. Instead, the Plaintiff may redact from the report filed publicly on the docket only "highly-confidential" information. 4. The Plaintiff must provide an unredacted hard copy of Mr. Heffner's expert report to Chambers no later than Monday, Jan. 19, 2026. Contact Sarah Montgomery at Sarah Montgomery@flsd.uscourts.gov to arrange for delivery of the document for in camera review. Lens.com is an online retailer for prescription contact lenses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v9usf5 at no extra charge.[CC] LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 30 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aderohunmu v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731 (N.D.N.Y.), Filed May 31, 2024, the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting letter motion insofar as and to the extent that the deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification is extended to Jan. 30, 2026. All other deadlines and schedules as set forth in Text Order 48 remain in effect and will not be extended any further. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant offers short-term rehab and long-term care.[CC] LSG1 TRAIL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Saenz Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS SAENZ, Plaintiff v. LSG1 TRAIL PLAZA LLC D/B/A TRAIL PLAZA and SUNSHINE RETAIL INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A FRESCO Y MAS No. 286., Case No. 1:26-cv-20360 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 20, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff found the commercial plaza and commercial grocery store business to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza and commercial grocery store business within the subject business in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, the suit says. The Defendant owns and operates a commercial grocery store.[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 jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com LYFT INC: Faces Zigler Suit Over Failed "Priority Pickup Service" ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY ZIGLER individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00575 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2026) alleges that Lyft failed to provide its Priority Pickup service as advertised in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other customers enter the address of their destination and then choose their desired ride on the Defendant's mobile app. Lyft prioritizes their customer's ability to customize the features of a ride. At different prices, customers can order a car with "Extra Comfort", a "Black SUV" with "more room, more luxury, " or a pet friendly vehicle. Customers can also pay more for the promise of a predictable and faster pick up. Unfortunately, with this last feature, Lyft fails to deliver, the suit says. Founded in 2012, Lyft provides on demand rideshare services through its mobile app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law MACY'S RETAIL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Nelson Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Latrice Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05541-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California Labor Code. On Oct. 13, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied on Dec. 9, 2025. The Court found that the Plaintiff is a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce and thus exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under 9 U.S.C. Section 1. On Dec. 16, 2025, the Defendant filed a supplemental brief regarding the Dec. 9 Order. On Jan. 7, 2026, after considering the parties' original and supplemental submissions, Judge Corley denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration for the reasons stated in the Court's original order. The appellate case is captioned Nelson v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC, Case No. 26-240, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 13, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 20, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on January 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on February 23, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 2, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 4, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LATRICE NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Roger Markham, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 - and - Isam Charles Khoury, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C. Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Appellant MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC is represented by: Steven K. Luther, Esq. Michael C. Christman, Esq. MACY'S, INC. Law Department 11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63141 MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Court OKs $247K Atty Fees in "Beck" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Czigeny Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Manhattan College, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03229-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Louis L. Stanton of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, and service award to the class representative. Accordingly, Plaintiff's attorneys are entitled to $247,399 in fees and $33,243 in costs. Class representative Beck is entitled to the $10,000 service award. On September 4, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. The Settlement Agreement resolved all claims related to Plaintiff's breach of contract action arising out of Manhattan College's transition to remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic and entitled class plaintiffs to a settlement amount of $742,940, inclusive of all administrative expenses, attorneys' fees, and awards. The Settlement Agreement provides for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed $247,399, and Plaintiff moved for the full amount. Neither any class member nor Manhattan College objected to the requested award. The Court found the fees reasonable, noting that the attorneys' fee request of $247,399 represents one-third of the total settlement amount. Courts in this Circuit routinely find that requests for attorney's fees totaling one-third of the settlement fund are well within the range of reasonableness. The requested amount is proportionate to the size and complexity of the case, and the request amounts to only a 30% recovery of the attorneys' hours if billed at their typical rate. The Court also found the attorneys' costs and expenses reasonable. As itemized in the declaration of attorney Paul Doolittle, Plaintiff's attorneys incurred $33,243 in expenses. The Court found these fees reasonable since they represent ordinary and necessary costs of representation, and because counsel working on a contingent basis had a strong incentive to keep expenses at a reasonable level. The class representative's service award was also deemed reasonable and uncontested. The Settlement Agreement designates a service award of up to $10,000, which is meant to compensate Beck for the significant investment of time and assumption of risk. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qsxmo2 from PacerMonitor.com MCDONALD'S CORP: Fairley Appeals Class Cert. Order to 7th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMELIA FAIRLEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jamelia Fairley, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McDonald's Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02273, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a civil rights and employment discrimination class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated female employees of restaurants owned and operated in Florida by the Chicago-based McDonald's corporation, for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA"). On Dec. 31, 2025, Judge Franklin U. Valderrama entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification because they did not satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) commonality. The appellate case is captioned Jamelia Fairley, et al. v. McDonald's Corporation, et al., Case No. 26-8003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on January 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JAMELIA FAIRLEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS PC 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 - and - Eve H. Cervantez, Esq. Marisa C. Lowe, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 MD BUILDING: Anchahua Seeks Class Cert. Notice Approval ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDISON ANCHAHUA and FRANKLIN ANCHAHUA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. MD BUILDING SERVICES, INC., and MICHAEL K CARLIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00035-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting notice of motion for class certification pursuant to fed. r. civ. p. 23. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ro761J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MDL 2951 : Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 5, 2026, will move the Court for an order certifying the following classes: Corrective Advertising Class "All persons residing in the United States who purchased tickets on StubHub to events that were canceled, postponed, and/or rescheduled within the applicable statute of limitations period." Refund Class "All persons residing in the United States who purchased tickets on StubHub to events that were canceled within the applicable statute of limitations period, who (a) did not receive a refund for the tickets to the canceled event, and (b) did not subsequently make a purchase on StubHub using a coupon issued in lieu of a refund for the canceled tickets." Interest Class "All persons residing in the United States who purchased tickets on StubHub to events that were canceled within the applicable statute of limitations period, who (a) did not receive a refund for the tickets to the canceled event within 30 days of the event's cancellation, and (b) did not subsequently make a purchase on StubHub using a coupon issued in lieu of a refund for the canceled tickets." MDL 2951 refers to the federal multidistrict litigation centralized in 2020, In re: StubHub Refund Litigation, 4:20-md-02951 (N.D. Cal.), concerning consumers' claims that StubHub violated its FanProtect Guarantee by offering 120% credit instead of cash refunds for events canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic. StubHub is a major online ticket marketplace w A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FYmeiS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tiasha Palikovic, Esq. Jessica L. Hunter, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 Facsimile: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com jlh@wittelslaw.com MDL 2951: Class Cert Briefing Stayed in Refund Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-md-02951 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order staying all briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until otherwise ordered, pending the Court's forthcoming order on the pending motion for summary judgment. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. The MDL 2951 focuses on class action lawsuits over ticket refunds during the pandemic. StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company.[CC] MDL 3035: Alexander Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order reconsidering the limited portions of the Class Certification Order. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider: 1. Whether the damages model offered by the Plaintiffs' experts, Martin Dirks and Harris Devor, satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and Comcast's "fit" requirement as to three specific, discrete breaches of fiduciary duty by the Defendants Dr. Jerome V. Harris and Robert Eaton; and 2. Whether classwide damages for certain of the non-civil-conspiracy claims may be measured through common, transaction-specific, non-expert methodologies independent of the Dirks/Devor model, such that those claims likewise satisfy predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration of the Court's rulings concerning commonality, nor of the Court’s determination that common questions predominate with respect to Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim. Reconsideration is appropriate to correct clear error and to prevent manifest injustice and granting this limited relief will not delay trial or prejudice any party. Any additional class notice necessitated by reconsideration can be accomplished efficiently through a supplemental notice process well in advance of trial. The Alexander suit is consolidated in AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation (MDL 3035). The MDL 3035 concerns the mismanagement of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church's pension funds, with court documents like transfer orders, opinions, and orders available as PDFs on government sites like GovInfo and court portals for case details. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=32APkN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Ewing Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order reconsidering the limited portions of the Class Certification Order. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider: 1. Whether the damages model offered by the Plaintiffs' experts, Martin Dirks and Harris Devor, satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and Comcast's "fit" requirement as to three specific, discrete breaches of fiduciary duty by the Defendants Dr. Jerome V. Harris and Robert Eaton; and 2. Whether classwide damages for certain of the non-civil-conspiracy claims may be measured through common, transaction-specific, non-expert methodologies independent of the Dirks/Devor model, such that those claims likewise satisfy predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration of the Court's rulings concerning commonality, nor of the Court’s determination that common questions predominate with respect to Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim. Reconsideration is appropriate to correct clear error and to prevent manifest injustice and granting this limited relief will not delay trial or prejudice any party. Any additional class notice necessitated by reconsideration can be accomplished efficiently through a supplemental notice process well in advance of trial. The Ewing suit is consolidated in MDL 3035 AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation. The MDL concerns the mismanagement of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church's pension funds, with court documents like transfer orders, opinions, and orders available as PDFs on government sites like GovInfo and court portals for case details. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TnXfW9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MERCK SHARP: Seeks to Maintain Sealing of Class Cert & Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order maintaining sealing on certain portions of Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification and Exhibits. Specifically, Merck moves the Court to maintain the sealing on these materials as follows: Description Requested Sealing Treatment Memorandum of Law in Support Permit redactions to of the Plaintiff's certification document. motion for Class Exhibit 3 to Silverman Maintain seal over full Declaration, Bates No. document. MRKROTA_00228261 Exhibit 4 to Silverman Permit redactions to Declaration, Deposition of document. Joanne McMahon Good cause exists for maintaining the sealing of these documents due to the presence of sensitive business information. Merck is an American multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xCgpLs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Lazerow, Esq. Ashley Bass, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: abass@cov.com alazerow@cov.com - and - Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: lisa.dykstra@morganlewis.com META PLATFORMS: Appeals Court Order in Calise Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- META PLATFORMS, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Calise, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-06186, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks to put an end to the Defendant's policy of actively soliciting, encouraging, and assisting scammers it knows, or should know, are using its platform to defraud Facebook users with deceptive ads, and compel Facebook to either compensate Facebook users for their losses or disgorge the billions of dollars in profits it has unjustly earned from such misconduct. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Feb. 18, 2025. On Sept. 22, 2025, Judge Jeffrey S. White granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. On Nov. 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal, which Judge White granted on Jan. 8, 2026. The appellate case is captioned Calise, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 26-383, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents CHRISTOPHER CALISE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER, LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209g Monsey, NY 10952 - and - Mark Reich, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Defendant-Petitioner META PLATFORMS, INC. is represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. Samuel Eckman, Esq. Jeremy Allen Weese, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 5300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 MHR FUND: IsZo Appeals Final Judgment Order to the Sup. Ct. of Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ISZO CAPITAL LP is taking an appeal from the final judgment in the lawsuit entitled Stephen Brandenburg, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy Rothwell, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2021-0025, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. On Dec. 8, 2025, the court entered final judgment in this case. The appellate case is entitled IsZo Capital LP, Objector, v. Stephen Brandenburg, et al., Plaintiffs, and Timothy Rothwell, et al., Defendants, Case No. 12,2026, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on January 6, 2026. [BN] Objector-Appellant ISZO CAPITAL LP is represented by: Anthony A. Rickey, Esq. 3411 Silverside Road Baynard Building, Suite 104 Wilmington, DE 19810 Telephone: (302) 604-5190 - and - Brant D. Kuehn, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2200 New York, NY 10105 Telephone: (212) 524-5000 Plaintiffs-Appellees STEPHEN BRANDENBURG, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. Tayler D. Bolton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 1980 - and - Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. Christopher M. Foulds, Esq. David Hahn, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, PA 1201 N. Market St., Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Defendants-Appellees TIMOTHY ROTHWELL, et al., are represented by: Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Andrew L. Milam, Esq. Sandy Xu, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Megan Ward Cascio, Esq. Matthew R. Clark, Esq. Rachel R. Tunney, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 MONROE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Baboolal Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NELLIE BABOOLAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONROE UNIVERSITY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-281 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its students and employees as part of its business. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach") between December 9, 2024 and December 23, 2024. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its students' and employees' PII/PHI. According to the complaint, because of Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII/PHI were compromised: Name; date of birth; Social Security number; driver's license number; passport number; government identification number; medical information; health insurance information; electronic account and password; email username and password; financial account information; and student data. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. The size of the putative class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody and control. And yet, Defendant waited until January 2, 2026 before it began notifying the class--a full 13 months after the Data Breach began. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails, text messages and phone calls. The Plaintiff has suffered--and will continue to suffer from--anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Such injuries go far beyond allegations of mere worry or inconvenience, says the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law. Plaintiff Nellie Baboolal is a former student of Monroe and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Monroe University, LTD. is a is a private for-profit university in New York City with campuses in the Bronx, New Rochelle and Saint Lucia, and degree programs through Monroe Online. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRÖDER, JOSEPH & ASSOCS. LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4900 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Cellphone: (716) 861-1398 E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Pynes Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Pynes, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-242 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Robledo Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joann Robledo, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-241 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Schell Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Schell, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-237 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Stangle Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kym Stangle, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-238 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tran Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dung Tran, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-249 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com OPEN HOUSE: Class Cert Discovery Closes on May 8 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER WINN, LAWANA LUDD, KAHRON COLEMAN, SHIMIRA ROSSER, and SURITA BEDFORD individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OPEN HOUSE GROUP CO., LTD, OPEN HOUSE ATLANTA REALTY & INVESTMENTS LLC, and OPEN HOUSE ATLANTA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02713-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge entered a joint preliminary report and discovery plan and order. Discovery regarding class certification closes on May 8, 2026. Plaintiffs will file their motion for collective action certification no later than May 22, 2026. The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for alleged violations of federal overtime law under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. (FLSA). A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ed4EGy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rhonda H. Wills, Esq. Patrick J. Raspino, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 750 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 E-mail: rwills@willslawfirm.com praspino@rwillslawfirm.com - and - Rian E. Banks, Esq. TRIALBANKS CONSULTING 2959 Chapel Hill, Suite D-130 Douglasville, GA 30135 E-mail: rian@triabanks.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric S. Mueller, Esq. Luke Zavoli, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 818-0000 E-mail: eric.mueller@fmglaw.com lbzavoli@fmglaw.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Private Info, Hilferty Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE HILFERTY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00118 (W.D. Tex., January 16, 2026) arises from the Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), from being stolen by cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach ("Data Breach"). The complaint relates that in its ordinary course of business operations, Defendants store a substantial amount of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of current and former employees and/or students. By collecting, storing, and transmitting a substantial amount of Private Information, Defendants had - and continue to have - a resulting duty to ensure such Private Information remains confidential and is safeguarded from unauthorized access. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the PII that they collected and maintained as part of their regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, physical address, employment related information, financial account numbers, identification documents such as passports, driver's licenses, national ID numbers, signatures, and other sensitive information. The notorious cybergang, Clop, has already claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer other forms of injuries and/or harm, including, but not limited to, anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy, and other economic and non-economic losses. For this reason, the Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to damages, including compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, says the suit. Marie Hilferty is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas, providing database software and cloud computing software. The University of Pennsylvania is a private university with roughly 30,000 students enrolled.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-44-3000 Facsimile: 214-744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 858-209-6941 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com PORSCHE CARS: Turner Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM M. TURNER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled William M. Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06465-MWF-MAA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for fraud claims. On Oct. 2, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all pending claims with prejudice, which Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted on Dec. 4, 2025. The Plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Turner v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-65, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 5, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 12, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on January 14, 2026; -- Appellant's Transcript Order is due on February 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on March 25, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on April 24, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM M. TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Yuk K. Law, Esq. Zachary Schwake, Esq. LAW BRANDMEYER, LLP 385 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101 Defendants-Appellees PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al. are represented by: Jahmy S. Graham, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Gallo Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Gallo, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. PRIME THERAPEUTICS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU058596C was removed from the Superior Court of California for San Diego County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00125-AGS-BLM. The Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of action against Prime Therapeutics: failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal period premiums; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide paid sick leave; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to keep requite payroll records; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joel Andersen, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-305-7500 Facsimile: 612-305-7501 Email: jandersen@nilanjohnson.com PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Horowitz Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Custom Solar, LLC. The case is styled as Eli Horowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pro Custom Solar, LLC doing business as Momentum Solar, Case No. 3:26-cv-00317 (D.N.J., Jan. 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pro Custom Solar, LLC doing business as Momentum Solar -- https://www.momentumsolar.com/ -- is the largest privately held solar company in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01086-SKC-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to extend class certification briefing deadlines: The Defendant Progressive Preferred Insurance Company and Plaintiff Andrew Rodriguez respectfully request that the Defendant's deadline to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be extended by 14 days to Feb. 6, 2026, and Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply be extended by 14 days to April 7, 2026. The Plaintiff filed their Motion for Class Certification on November 7, 2025. The Defendant's deadline to respond is Jan. 23, 2026, and Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply is March 24, 2026. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pb3cWY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Lowther, Esq CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501)-312-8500 Facsimile: (501)-312-8505 E-mail: llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliot, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 North East 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305)-479-2299 Facsimile: (786)-623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com Randall K. Fuicelli, Esq. FUICELLI & LEE PC 1731 Gilpin Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303)-355-7202 Facsimile: (303)-355-720 E-mail: keith@coloradoinjurylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. Daniel S. Sanders III, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5140 E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com dsanders@kslaw.com QUAKER OATS: Barquero Appeals Denied Notice of Appeal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ENOCH BARQUERO is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Kessler, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350. On July 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted on Aug. 7, 2025. The Court awarded $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel. The Court found the requested amount of attorneys' fees to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The Court also found that Class Counsel have incurred $72,003.41 in litigation costs. All of these costs were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary given the complex nature and scope of this case. The Court ruled that the Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement for these costs. On Dec. 8, 2025, Enoch Barquero filed a motion to file his notice of appeal timely as of the date received by the Court of Appeals (September 8, 2025) and to docket his notice of appeal, which Judge Karas denied because the Court finds his notice of appeal untimely and therefore procedurally defective. The appellate case is entitled Kessler v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 26-81, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Defendant-Appellee THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY is represented by: Benjamin Fleming, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Objector-Appellant ENOCH BARQUERO appears pro se. RESIDEO LLC: Straub Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resideo LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sarah Straub, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resideo LLC, Ademco Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV000735 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Resideo -- https://www.resideo.com/us/en/ -- offers top-of-the-line home automation solutions to set up your best smart home system, including smart thermostats, security cameras and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com ROYAL UNITED: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended in Wilson Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN WILSON, et al., v. ROYAL UNITED MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06150-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order that the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended until a date to be set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order following a Rule 26(f) conference and submission of a joint proposed schedule by the parties. The Defendant is a privately held National Mortgage Lender. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ivnF9W at no extra charge.[CC] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Digiacinto Sues Over Unlawful User Tracking ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Digiacinto, Danielle Tillery, Tyler Baker, Bobbyjo Andoh, and Alicia Rood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00196 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought against the Defendant's tracking of Samsung TV users in violation of numerous state and federal laws, including the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); violations of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); violations of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act; and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which was passed specifically to prevent the disclosure and aggregation of data relating to an individual's video consumption. Smart TVs sold by Samsung (referred to herein as "Samsung TVs") include both Samsung-specific ACR technology, as well as the "Samba TV" software program, a leading ACR software tool present on over twenty TV brands and which collects data from over 11-million U.S. households. Unbeknownst to Samsung's customers, these ACR Tools record the image and audio played by the Samsung TV screen every 500 milliseconds. Then, the ACR Tools use sophisticated machine learning algorithms to identify the content being played on the television, regardless of its source. This data includes the specific programs being watched by the viewer, information relating to content streamed through third-party apps, information relating to content accessed through video game systems or other connected devices, and even information displayed when the Samsung TV is used as a computer monitor (collectively, the "Sensitive Information"). Each of the Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased a Samsung TV and had their personal Sensitive Information tracked by Defendant using the ACR Tools. However, Defendant never obtained informed consent from Plaintiffs or Class Members to collect their Sensitive Information or to share it with third parties, some of which constitute the largest advertisers and data compilers in the world, says the complaint. The Plaintiff DiGiacinto purchased a Samsung TV in or about July of 2024 and used his Smart TV to watch television programs and streaming application content. Samsung is the largest television retailer in the world, having maintained the number one position in global TV sales every year since 2006.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com SCOTT SEMPLE: Dinham Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dinham v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00749 (D. Conn., Filed May 9, 2025), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order that Fernandez's Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied without prejudice. The court is aware that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If a motion for class certification is not filed or denied, Fernandez may file a second motion to appoint counsel at that time. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] SCOTT SEMPLE: Fernandez Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fernandez v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00487 (D. Conn., Filed March 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order that Fernandez's Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied without prejudice. The court is aware that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If a motion for class certification is not filed or denied, Fernandez may file a second motion to appoint counsel at that time. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sherwin-Williams Company. The case is styled as Christipher Sanchez, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Sherwin-Williams Company Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000137 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Sherwin-Williams -- https://www.sherwin-williams.com/ -- is an American paints and coatings company based in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas James De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com SRG GLOBAL: Peeler Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE PEELER, individually and TERRY AND ANGELA HAMILTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated And MAURI AND BARBARA HAYS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SRG GLOBAL COATINGS, LLC, 3M COMPANY, and ATOTECH USA, LLC Case No. 1:23-cv-00023-CMS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Accordingly, the Hays and Hamilton Plaintiffs -- like the putative class -- have exceedingly toxic levels of PFAS in their homes and drinking water, requiring remediation. Here, the Plaintiffs have all been exposed to PFAS levels above EPA thresholds, placing them at increased risk for a host of diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, ulcerative colitis, and immune system dysfunction. Representative Plaintiffs Mauri and Barbara Hays and Terry and Angela Hamilton own properties and reside on County Road 204 within the Class Area. Those properties are contaminated, exposing Plaintiffs to drinking water PFAS and airborne deposit PFAS. The Hays' Plaintiffs also own a home in Portageville that is served by municipal water contaminated with PFAS. The Hays' Portageville home also has airborne deposits of PFAS contamination in the attic. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mHg6ni at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Madden, Esq. Alison L. Bangert, Esq. Sam A. Moore, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: bmadden@wcllp.com abangert@wcllp.com smoore@wcllp.com - and - Scott S. Bethune, Esq. Wes Shumate, Esq. DAVIS, BETHUNE & JONES, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2930 Kansas City, MO 64196 Telephone: (816) 421-1600 Facsimile: (816) 472-5972 E-mail: sbethune@dbjlaw.net wshumate@dbjlaw.net - and - John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: jackg@bsjfirm.com colleeng@bsjfirm.com STEM INC: Lawale Appeals Petersen Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL LAWALE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Scott Petersen, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Stem, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02329-MMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On Nov. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed first amended consolidated complaint (FACC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 20, 2024. On Dec. 17, 2025, Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the FACC without further leave to amend. The appellate case is entitled Petersen, et al. v. Stem, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-392, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 20, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 26, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on March 2, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on March 31, 2026. [BN] Movants-Appellants VISHAL LAWALE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Willow Radcliffe, Esq. Taeva Shefler, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - Harini P. Raghupathi, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 - and - David Jaynes, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 515 S. Flower Street, 18th and 19th Floors Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Defendants-Appellees STEM, INC., et al. are represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Doru Gavril, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US, LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 - and - Stefan Atkinson, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 STOCKX LLC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Ashworth TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- STOCKX LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Beth Ashworth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. StockX LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01470-JSS-LHP, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Oct. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. On Nov. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery. On Dec. 31, 2025, Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and denying as moot its motion to stay discovery. The Court finds that the Defendant fails to carry its burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The appellate case is captioned Beth Ashworth v. StockX LLC, Case No. 26-10073, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on January 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BETH SARVER ASHWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN, PA 237 S. Dixie Hwy., Fl. 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Defendant-Appellant STOCKX LLC is represented by: John M. Brennan, Jr., Esq. GRAYROBINSON, PA 301 E. Pine St., Ste. 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 843-8880 - and - David Mitchell Poell, Esq. Kari M. Rollins, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 321 N. Clark St., Fl. 32 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 499-4745 SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Strickland Due July 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC. Case No. 4:23-cv-05034-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Discovery cut-off: March 13, 2026 Last day to file dispositive motions: April 13, 2026 Deadline to conduct private mediation: April 28, 2026 Dispositive motion hearing: July 9, 2026 at 2:00 pm Last day to file motion for class July 28, 2026 certification: Last day to file opposition to class Aug. 18, 2026 certification: Last day to file reply in further support Sept. 8, 2026 of class certification: Sunrun is a home solar panel and battery storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NChZ7b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: ted@brodericklaw.com - and - Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street, #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. Emily E. Clark, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com eclark@kelleydrye.com SURESITE CONSULTING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 25, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGELIO RODRIGUEZ, v. SURESITE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01442-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an initial pretrial scheduling order: All discovery shall be completed by Feb. 12, 2027. Motions to compel discovery shall be noticed on the undersigned’s law and motion calendar in accordance with the local rules and shall be heard not later than Jan. 21, 2027. The parties shall serve Rule 26(a) disclosures by no later than Jan. 22, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by March 25, 2027, and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Peterson by no later than May 13, 2027. All dispositive motions shall be completed—that is, fully heard—by October 21, 2027. A final pretrial conference is set before the undersigned on February 3, 2028 A jury trial is set to commence before the undersigned on April 4, 2028, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SqV54W at no extra charge.[CC] SYNGENTA CROP: Rehkopf Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela R. Rehkopf, on behalf of the estate of Kevin Rehkopf, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-01-255 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Pamela R. Rehkopf is a natural person and is the Representative of Kevin Rehkopf, deceased, who developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 6 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mott v. TDS Telecommunications, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00185 (D. Colo, Filed Jan. 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting joint motion for extension of deadlines: Deadline to serve written discovery is extended to Feb. 6, 2026. Motion for class certification and Motion for FLSA decertification are due Feb. 6, 2026. Discovery cut-off is extended to March 23, 2026. Dispositive Motion Notice deadline is extended to April 1, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). TDS Telecom is an American telecommunications company with headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin.[CC] TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadlines OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARLEY LABOY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. TECHNICAL RESPONSE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00368-KAC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine A Crytzer entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's dispositive and Daubert motions. The Plaintiff Harley Laboy and Defendant Technical Response, Inc., by counsel, jointly moved this Court for an extension of time to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Dispositive and Daubert Motions pursuant to the Court's Agreed Case Management Order entered on November 21, 2024. Accordingly, the deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, currently set for Jan. 12, 2026, is extended to January 19, 2026. The Court further entered an order that the deadline for Dispositive and Daubert Motions, currently set for Jan. 23, 2026, is extended to Jan. 30, 2026. Technical is an engineering and manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s8iyly at no extra charge.[CC] TOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Cabrera Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnulfo Cabrera and Elmer Callejas, residents of Baltimore City, and Yovani Gutierrez, a resident of Montgomery County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., DC CONSTRUCTION, INC. and CAM CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00072-JMC (D. Md., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"); the Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute ("MPWS"); and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL") (together with the MWHL and MPWS, the "Maryland Wage Laws"). Nearly all the work Plaintiffs did was properly considered carpenter work. Under the applicable wage determination issued by the State of Maryland, the carpenter rate was $33.21 per hour plus hourly fringe benefits of $14.03, totaling $47.24 per hour. Subcontractor Defendants were legally required to pay this rate to Plaintiffs for all or nearly all their hours of straight-time work. Instead, Subcontractor Defendants sought to increase their profits by paying Plaintiffs the "common laborer" rate of $20.81 per hour plus $6.39 in hourly fringe benefits (a total of $27.20 per hour) for nearly all their hours—a difference of $20.04 per hour. Further, for most of Plaintiffs' hours worked over 40 per workweek, Subcontractor Defendants paid Plaintiffs 1.5 times the unlawfully low "common laborer" rate rather than 1.5 times the required carpenter rate, further robbing Plaintiffs of the wages required for their work, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Subcontractor Defendants on the Project. Tobar Construction, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business located in Beltsville, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. David Rodwin, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON, PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 223-2620 Fax: (202) 296-9600 Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com drodwin@murphypllc.com TOWN & COUNTRY: Marino Suit Asserts ADA Breach ---------------------------------------------- JOSE MARINO, Plaintiff v. TOWN & COUNTRY PLAZA INC. and GOODLUCK INVESTMENTS 2 LLC D/B/A RINCONCITO MIAMI 2, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20265-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the subject commercial property and restaurant within it are each open to the public and is located in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff visits the commercial plaza and restaurant, to include a visit to the commercial property and business located within the commercial property on September 29, 2025 and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. He often visits the commercial property and restaurant in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is a little over five miles (or about 13 minutes) and is near other business and friends' homes that he frequents as a patron. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza and restaurant have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza and restaurant and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, adds the complaint. Plaintiff JOSE MARINO is an individual over eighteen years of age with disabilities, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant TOWN & COUNTRY PLAZA INC. owned and continues to own a commercial property at 15800 SW 137th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33177 which conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami, Florida and holds itself out to the public as "COUNTRY MALL PLAZA." Defendant GOODLUCK INVESTMENTS 2 LLC D/B/A RINCONCITO MIAMI 2 owned and operated a restaurant located at 15956 SW 137th Avenue, Miami, Florida 331771 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com, mds@ajperezlawgroup.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Greiwe Says ------------------------------------------------------------ NANCY GREIWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00568 (N.D. Ill., January 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard her and Class Members' sensitive Private Information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. The complaint relates that as a regular part of its business, Defendant obtains and maintains the sensitive Private Information, including financial information, of tens of millions of Americans. Defendant requires its customers to provide it with a broad range of sensitive Private Information, including Social Security Numbers. The Defendant understands the need to protect the privacy of consumers and use security measures to protect Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure. However, the Defendant disregarded Plaintiff's and Class Members' rights by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised by being accessed and exfiltrated by an unknown and unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the suit. By this action, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages together with injunctive relief to remediate Defendant's failure to secure her and Class Members' Private Information, and to provide damages, among other things, for Plaintiff and Class Members to secure identity theft insurance, and credit repair services for Class Members' respective lifetimes to protect the Class of Data Breach victims from identity theft and fraud. Plaintiff Nancy Greiwe is a citizen and resident of Ohio. Defendant TransUnion LLC is one of the three major credit reporting agencies in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Amends Class Cert Order ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to amend class certification order and approve notice plan. The Court further entered an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), that the Court's March 11, 2021, Order Granting Motion for Class Certification, is amended as follows: The Order Granting Motion for Class Certification is vacated to the extent that it certified the Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Class continues to be certified under Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2). The definition of the Class is amended as follows: "Any participant or beneficiary in a health benefit plan governed by ERISA whose request for coverage of residential treatment services for a mental illness or substance use disorder was denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after June 2, 2017, based upon UBH's 2017 Level of Care Guidelines ("LOCGs") or upon a Coverage Determination Guideline that incorporates the 2017 LOCGs, and whose request was not subsequently approved, in full, following an administrative appeal." The Class excludes any member of a fully-insured plan governed by both ERISA and the state law of Connecticut, Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for coverage of residential treatment was related to a substance use disorder, except that the Class includes members of plans governed by the state law of Texas who were denied coverage of substance use disorder services sought or provided outside of Texas. The Class seeks appropriate equitable remedies, including declaratory and injunctive relief. Only members of the Reprocessing Subclass seek a reprocessing remedy. The Class and Reprocessing Subclass do not seek an award of direct payment of monetary relief, including in the form of a surcharge. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court’s April 26, 2025, Amended Order Denying Motion to Decertify and Granting Motion to Modify, ECF No. 150, remains in effect. The Reprocessing Subclass, which the Court certified under Rule 23(b)(3), is defined as follows: "Any member of the Class who incurred expenses for residential treatment for which benefits were not paid, except that the Reprocessing Subclass shall not include Class members whose written notification of denial, as reflected in UBH's records, (a) identifies a reason for denying the request for coverage other than the Class member’s failure to satisfy UBH's 2017 LOCGs or a Coverage Determination Guideline that incorporates the 2017 LOCGs, and/or (b) specifies that the member’s failure to satisfy the applicable Guideline was based, even in part, on a portion of the applicable Guideline that was unchallenged in this action." The Defendant provides management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MhJPMP at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO Order in Tincher Suit to 8th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Susan Tincher, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-04669-KMM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Defendants for alleged violations of their civil rights under the First and Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On Dec. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), which Judge Katherine M. Menendez granted in part and denied in part on Jan. 16, 2026. The appellate case is captioned Susan Tincher, et al. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), et al., Case No. 26-1105, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 20, 2026. [BN] UNITED STATES: Briefing & Hearing Schedule Modified --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO GOMEZ RUIZ; FERNANDO VIERA REYES; JOSE RUIZ CANIZALES; YURI ALEXANDER ROQUE CAMPOS; SOKHEAN KEO; GUSTAVO GUEVARA ALARCON; and ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA ESCUTIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Acting Director of San Francisco Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 3:25-cv-09757-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order modifying briefing and hearing schedule. Accordingly, with the exception that Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief in support of the Motion for Class Certification on Jan. 16, 2026, no later than 3:00 p.m., and the Defendants shall file their reply brief in support of the Motion to Transfer on Jan. 26, 2026, no later than 3:00 p.m. In order to align the hearing schedule for the three pending motions, the parties request that the Court continue the hearing date on the Motion for Class Certification from Jan. 30, 2026, until Feb. 6, 2026. The parties also request the following modifications to the briefing schedule on the Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Transfer Venue, contingent upon the Court's ability to retain the hearing date for all three motions on Feb. 6, 2026, despite these changes: a. The Plaintiffs' deadline to submit their reply brief in support of the Motion for Class Certification will be continued from Jan. 14 to Jan. 16, 2026; and b. The Defendants' deadline to submit their reply brief in support of the Motion to Transfer will be continued from Jan. 23 to Jan. 26, 2026. The Immigration enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ZzGpG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven P. Ragland, Esq. Cody S. Harris, Esq. Carlos C. Martinez, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: sragland@keker.com charris@keker.com cmartinez@keker.com - and - Priya Arvind Patel, Esq. Mariel Villarreal, Esq. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 1999 Harrison Street #1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (650) 762-8990 E-mail: priya@ccijustice.org mariel@ccijustice.org - and - Margot Mendelson, Esq. Tess Borden, Esq. Patrick Booth, Esq. Alison Hardy, Esq. Rana Anabtawi, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 E-mail: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com tess@prisonlaw.com patrick@prisonlaw.com ahardy@prisonlaw.com rana@prisonlaw.com - and - Kyle Virgien, Esq. Felipe Hernandez, Esq. Marisol Dominguez-Ruiz, Esq. Carmen Iguina Gonzalez, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: kvirgien@aclu.org npp_fhernandez@aclu.org mdominguez-ruiz@aclu.org ciguinagonzalez@aclu.org The Defendants are represented by: Savith Iyengar, Esq. 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7200 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 E-mail: savith.iyengar@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WITHROW v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04073 (D.D.C., Filed Nov. 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jia M. Cobb entered an order that the briefing of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is stayed pending further order of the Court. The nature of suit states Job Discrimination (Employment).[CC] UNITED STATES: Gallardo Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.D.C. -------------------------------------------------------- GARRY DAVID GALLARDO is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Garry David Gallardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Donald Trump, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02886-UNA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of prisoner's civil rights. On Dec. 9, 2025, Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an Order dismissing the case without prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Garry Gallardo v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 26-5001, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on January 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GARRY DAVID GALLARDO appears pro se. Plaintiffs-Appellees DALLAS WEBER, JR., et al. appear pro se. UNITED STATES: Jordan Appeals Court Order to the Federal Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL JORDAN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Michael Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01028-ZNS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. This lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned Jordan v. US, Case No. 26-1362, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on January 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph Whitcomb, Esq. WHITCOMB, SELINSKY, PC 300 Union Boulevard Lakewood, CO 80228 Telephone: (303) 534-1958 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by: Matthew Jude Carhart, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 307-0313 VERA BRADLEY SALES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vera Bradley Sales, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-00194 (D. Minn., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.verabradley.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers handbags and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, purses, tote bags, crossbody bags, backpacks, travel bags, duffel bags, home decor, apparel, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com VETERANS GUARDIAN: Appeals Class Certification Order in Ford Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Jennifer Ford, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Plaintiffs Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard, and Brian Otters are disabled military veterans who retained the Defendant, Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting LLC, to assist them in obtaining or increasing their disability compensation. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant violates federal law by offering these services without accreditation and that it charges illegal fees in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA). On May 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Catherine C. Eagles granted on Dec. 30, 2025. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have met the threshold requirements. All three classes are sufficiently numerous, and there are common questions likely to be dispositive. The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the class members, and they and their counsel are adequate representatives. In all three classes, common questions predominate, and a class action is the superior method of adjudication. Eric Beard will be appointed class representative of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) initial claim class, Jennifer Ford and Brian Otters will be appointed class representatives of the UDTPA non-initial claim class, and all three Plaintiffs will be appointed representatives of the NCDCA class. The Plaintiffs' interim lead class counsel will be appointed as class counsel for all three classes. The appellate case is entitled Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC v. Jennifer Ford, Case No. 26-108, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on January 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JENNIFER FORD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher James Brochu, Esq. BROCHU LAW, LLC 841 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: (904) 201-1771 - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 - and - Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Defendant-Petitioner VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC is represented by: Madeline M. Bardi, Esq. Martine Elizabeth Cicconi, Esq. Anthony Tobias Pierce, Esq. Caroline Lewis Wolverton, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 2001 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 (202) 887-4411 - and - Dustin Timothy Greene, Esq. Whitney Ruth Pakalka, Esq. Elizabeth L. Winters, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP 1001 West 4th Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 607-7300 (336) 607-7397 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Chaney Sues Over Failure to Compensate ------------------------------------------------------------- Faith Chaney, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00065 (E.D. Va., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought challenging the Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff for all wages that they actually earned, including overtime pay. Beginning in October 2025, the Defendant changed the pay structure for Plaintiffs in Housing Placement positions from salary to hourly. At all relevant times until the pay structure change in October 2025, the Defendant misclassified and employed Plaintiffs in Housing Placement positions as exempt salaried employees (with no overtime eligibility). Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees and entitled to the protections of the FLSA. At all relevant times until the pay structure change in October 2025, Plaintiffs in Housing Placement positions were routinely required to work more than 40 hours per workweek. When Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, they were not paid an overtime premium in an amount equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. The Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime premium when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a Housing Locator from February 2024 to the present. The Defendant is a human services organization that services individuals across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Lubow, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave, Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: alubow@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Mohamed Seifeldein, Esq. DOUMAR MARTIN PLLC 1530 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1060 Arlington, VA 22209 Phone: 703-243-3737 Email: mseifeldein@doumarmattin.com VONS COMPANIES: Sandoval Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO SANDOVAL CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.; ONE SOURCE TECHNOLOGY LLC d/b/a ASURINT, and DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:25-cv-00191-SRM-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on April 15, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move for an order granting certification under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the following classes: Megan's Law Class: "All persons in California who applied for employment with Vons and were denied employment as a result of Vons' use of information disclosed in the Megan's Law Website, during the relevant statute of limitations period." Fair Chance Class: "All persons in California who applied for employment with Vons and were denied employment as a result of their conviction history." FCRA Class: "All persons in California who applied for employment with Vons and on whom Asurint conducted a background search and furnished a consumer report containing sex offender registry information from the Megan's Law Website that was used by Vons and/or Asurint for employment decisions, during the relevant statute of limitations period." The Megan’s Law Class should be certified because Vons has already identified the Megan’s Law Class members, and the predominant, common issue is whether Vons violated the Megan’s Law by considering SOR information in violation of the Megan’s Law with respect to these prospective employees. The Fair Chance Class should be certified because Vons has identified all 901 Fair Chance Class members and the predominant, common issue is whether Vons failed to conduct an individualized assessment with respect to these class members’ applications and conviction backgrounds. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pwn3D9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 E. Amerige Avenue, Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 92832 Telephone: (833) 729-5529 Facsimile: (833) 972-9546 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com W.C. SMITH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Chichester Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KELLEY CHICHESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.C. SMITH & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00139 (D.C., January 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are current or former employees or residents of Defendant, who provided their Private Information to Defendant. To obtain employment or housing services from Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members, were required to provide sensitive and confidential Private Information, including but not limited to their names, driver's license or state identification numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and health insurance information. On May 18, 2025, W.C. Smith became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network and launched an investigation. On October 21, 2025, Defendant completed its investigation and determined that an unknown actor gained access to certain systems and files within Defendant's network between May 5, 2025 and May 18, 2025. On January 12, 2026, Defendant began providing Notice of Security Incident letters to individuals whose information was affected by the breach. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, 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 Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Kelley Chichester is a resident and citizen of Temple Hills, Maryland. Defendant W.C. Smith & Company, Inc. is a Washington D.C. based real estate management company that provides employment to more than 500 employees and housing through over 9,000 rental properties within Washington D.C. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com WESTERN ASSET: Western Pa Electrical Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as The Western Pa Electrical Employees Insurance Trust Fund, Abilene Firemens Relief And Retirement Fund, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., and STEPHEN KENNETH LEECH, II, Case No. 2:25-cv-00937 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00246-GW-ADS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities. Western Asset -- https://www.westernasset.com/ -- is a globally integrated fixed-income manager, sourcing ideas and investment solutions worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-233-6444 Facsimile: 212-233-6334 Email: dbroggi@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com - and - Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 405-7190 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - John J. Richardson, Esq. GOEHRING RUTTER & BOEHM Frick Building 437 Grant Street 14th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-0587 Fax: (412) 281-2971 Email: jrichardson@grblaw.com - and - Christopher P. T. Tourek, Esq. Genc Arifi, Esq. Omar Jafri, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 881-4845 Fax: (312) 377-1184 Email: ctourek@pomlaw.com garifi@pomlaw.com ojafri@pomlaw.com - and - J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G YATES JR PC 429 Forbes Avenue Suite 519 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-5164 Fax: (412) 471-1033 Email: yateslaw@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: Eben Colby, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 573-4800 Fax: (617) 573-4822 Email: eben.colby@skadden.com - and - Lance A Etcheverry, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP 525 University Avenue Suite 1400 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 470-4500 Fax: (650) 470-4570 Email: lance.etcheverry@probonolaw.com - and - Michael W. McTigue, Jr., Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 735-3529 Fax: (917) 777-3529 Email: michael.mctigue@skadden.com - and - Virginia F. Milstead, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200 N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 687-5000 Fax: (213) 687-5600 Email: virginia.milstead@skadden.com ZINOFF & COMPANY: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zinoff & Company, LLC. The case is styled as Noe De Jesus Gomez Sarmiento, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zinoff & Company, LLC, Case No. 26STCV01326 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Zinoff & Company LLC is a company that operates in the Freight & Logistics Services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC 26565 Agoura Rd., Ste. 200 Calabasas, CA 91302-1990 Phone: 888-416-6654 Email: chamner@hamnerlaw.com ZUFFA LLC: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- ZUFFA LLC, et al., filed on January 21, 2026, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 26-415, in connection with a court order in the lawsuit entitled Kajan Johnson et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Zuffa, LLC dba Ultimate Fighting Championship, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The Defendants respectfully request that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its January 6, 2026 oral order (1) requiring the Defendants to produce, for in camera review, privileged materials covering Zuffa executives Dana White's and Tracy Long's past and future communications with counsel relating to the above-listed topics, and contemplating disclosure of those privileged materials to the Plaintiffs; (2) requiring the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs and the district court a privilege log covering those materials; and (3) compelling Mr. White and Ms. Long to testify regarding the substance of their past and future privileged and confidential communications with counsel relating to the above-listed topics. The appellate case is captioned Zuffa LLC, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas, Case No. 26-415 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 21, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners ZUFFA LLC, et al. are represented by: Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. Nicolas Luongo, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP 401 Ninth Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Jon Colby Williams, Esq. CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 710 S. 7th Street, Suite A Las Vegas, NV 89101 - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Aaron Tuen Fai Chiu, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Joseph D. Axelrad, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ********* 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 ***