260128.mbx

260128.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 28, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 20 Headlines 28830 S: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation ABG HUNTER: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ABRI CREDIT: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Shields Says ACOSTA INC: Faces Thomas Class Suit Over ERISA Plan Forfeitures AIRLINE REPORTING: Adam Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Cal. AKKAYA LLC: Rice Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AKRON BUILDING: Custalow-Hall Suit Seeks Laborers' Proper Wages ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces Chernova Suit Over Breaches of TCPA ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Cross Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Violations AMAZON.COM INC: $2.5BB Settlement Claim Filing Period Due July 27 AQUACORE RENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges ARDENT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors ARTIS SENIOR: Wilcoxon Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ASZ SUPPLY: Court OKs Email Service to Individual Defendants ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Saunders Alleges AVIS RENT: Embray Sues Over Employment Violation in Cal. State Ct. BATH & BODY: Faces Lingam Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price BETTERMENT LLC: Fails to Protect Private Information, Weiscope Says BETTERMENT LLC: Tsou Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Private Info BLUE OWL: Muniz Files Shareholder Derivative Complaint in S.D.N.Y. BOATS GROUP: Deadline Extension for Expert Disclosure Sought BP PRODUCTS: Removes Ibarra Suit From State Court to S.D. Calif. BUTTERBALL LLC: Court Sets Discovery Schedule in "Marc" CABINET TO GO: Court Issues Practice Order in "Bland" CAPITAL ONE: Ingraham Seeks to Seal Class Cert Materials CAPITAL ONE: Ingraham Suit Seeks Class Certification CATALENT INC: $78MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 10 CATWIG LLC: Long Files Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Pa. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hitch Due March 31 CEMEX INC: Removes Vasquez Suit From State Court to E.D. Calif. CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Sensitive Information, Park Says CHEMOURS COMPANY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Davis Due May 13 CHS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Decker Suit Due Sept. 24 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Trimble Personal Injury Suit in D.N.J. COMPASS GROUP: Court Awards $2.3MM Attorneys' Fees in "Jilek" D.M.G. WAREHOUSES: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation DISCOVER FINANCIAL: $12-Bil. Deal Claim Filing Period Due May 18 DOLLAR GENERAL: Agrees to Settle Deceptive Pricing Suit for $15MM EMPIRE GROUP: Faces Estrada Labor Suit in California State Court EVERQUOTE INC: Weingrad Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls EVOLUTIVE LABS: Calcano Sues Over Website Inaccessibility FARMERS NEW: Court Stays Discovery in "Marino" FLASHDOT LIMITED: Court Narrows Claims in "Reca" Crypto Theft Suit FOXUNDERGROUND INC: Payton Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA GEISINGER HEALTH: $5MM Breach Deal Final OK Hearing Set March 16 GENERAL MOTORS: Spadaro Appeals Reconsideration Order to 6th Cir. GOLDEN HEAVEN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit GOLDEN HEAVEN: Discovery in Securities Suit Ongoing GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Martinez Says GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sanchez Says HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Snyder Sues Over Punitive Insurance Surcharges HAND & STONE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit Over Refusal to Redeem Gift Cards HOMETOWN AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Bartok Suit HUMBL LLC: Pasquinelli Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit INDIAN HARBOR: Loses Bid to Revisit Summary Judgment in "Morrison" J.M. SMUCKER: Pet Food PFAS Class Action Nears Certification JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Sup. Ct. JUMPP LOGISTICS: Court Rejects Collective Tolling in "Cervenka" JVF CONTSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dubon Alleges KAISER FOUNDATION: $47.5MM Settlement Claim Filing Due March 12 KNOXVILLE TVA: Faces Etter Suit Over Unprotected Private Data KRISTI NOEM: Chavez Second Bid for TRO OK'd KRISTI NOEM: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid KRISTI NOEM: Rodriguez's Petition for Writ Of Habeas Corpus OK'd LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint LVMH MOET: Doan Sues Over Handbag's Deceptive Ads MDL 2951: March 5 Class Cert hearing Vacated in Refund Litigation MDL 3035: Russ Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order METALSA-ROANOKE INC: Eissens Sues Over Illegal Pay Practices MILIANS A/C PARTS: Arencibia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MISSOURI: State Allowed to File Amicus Brief in Suit vs. MOHELA MITSUI OSK: CAT OKs GBP92.75MM Final Settlement in Cartel Suit MODERNIZE INC: Wilson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing MONROE UNIVERSITY: Rochet Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MONSANTO COMPANY: Carey Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Eilts Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution NATERA PRENATAL: Agrees to Settle Prenatal Testing Suit for $8.25MM NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $303M Deal Final Court Hearing Set May 11 NEBRASKA: Wins Bid to Dismiss Inmates' Law Library Access Suit NORTHEAST REHABILITATION: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $1.5MM ONESTA IP: Appeals TRO Extension Order in BMW Suit to Federal Cir. OREGON HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Discrimination Class Action Suit PAMELA BONDI: Plaintiff Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply PARTICLE FOR MEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Rice Alleges PEAK NDT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rains Alleges PENUMBRA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Boston Scientific PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Class Cert. Bid Continued to April 2 QUANOVATE TECH: Doe Sues Over Personal Injury Claims in N.D. Cal. RUNNING SUPPLY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims SADLER HEALTHCARE: Faces Fletcher Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION: Ravenell Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SKY 26: Hippe Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SNAP INC: $65MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 23 ST. MORITZ SECURITY: Hall Seeks Proper Wages for Security Employees STORR OFFICE: "Allen" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Pardo Sues Over ADA Violation TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Bid to Block Doc Production in "Burge" TEXANA BANK: Faces Ameer Suit Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages TEXAS: Shull Appeals Court Order in FLSA Suit to 5th Circuit THAVMA ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over ADA Breach TINDER INC: $60.5-Mil. Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set May 20 TNL 202 LLC: Cheli Sues Over Facilities' Non-Compliance With ADA TRUIST BANK: Faces Ochar Class Action Suit Over Overdraft Fees TWITTER INC: Elon Musk Wins Bid to Junk "Woodfield" Layoff Suit UNDER ARMOUR: Fourth Circuit Reverses Class Action Judgement UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court OKs Bid to Amend Class Certification Order UNITED STATES: Bowers and Youmans Sue Over Denied Insurance Payouts UNITED STATES: Faces Walsh Class Suit Over False Credit Reports VENUS FASHION: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VGW HOLDINGS: Anderson and Davis Allege Gambling Law Breaches VGW HOLDINGS: Sornberger Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ala. VICTORIA: Residents Sue Over Melbourne Water's Negligent Conduct VIRGINIA: Faces Welch Suit Over Illegal Over-Detention WAYFAIR LLC: Removes White Suit From State Court to N.D. Calif. WEALTHFRONT CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims WORKEASY SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Suit for $1.685MM WORLD OF WONDER: RuPaul's Drag Race Winner Sues Over Defamation XIAO'S HIBACHI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Copeland Suit Alleges ZA & D SERVICE: Court Partially OKs Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Class Suit as Agents Steer Clients Into Lending [] Class Action & Mass Tort Litigation: Outlook for 2026 & Beyond [] New ERISA Class Action Lawsuits Name Brokers as Defendants ********* 28830 S: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. 28830 S DIXIE HWY LLC, LA PARRILLA LATINA CORP. D/B/A LA PARRILLA LATINA and ELOTE LOVERS CO. D/B/A ELOTE LOVERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20261-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 (ADA). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. The subject commercial property and the commercial businesses located therein are open to the public, and Defendant, 28830 S DIXIE HWY LLC's commercial plaza itself contains a myriad of different businesses including the restaurants respectively owned and operated by Co-Defendants LA PARRILLA LATINA CORP. D/B/A LA PARRILLA LATINA, and ELOTE LOVERS CO. D/B/A ELOTE LOVERS, that pay Defendant, 28830 S DIXIE HWY LLC rent and are all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida). The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA, at the commercial property, and restaurant businesses. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza property, and restaurants have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and listed restaurant businesses therein and likewise endangered his safety. The barriers to access have accordingly posed a risk of injuries, embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, it adds. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendants 8830 S DIXIE HWY LLC, LA PARRILLA LATINA CORP. D/B/A LA PARRILLA LATINA, and ELOTE LOVERS CO. D/B/A ELOTE LOVERS own and operate the places of public accommodation all of which are located together in the same commercial plaza property located in Miami, Florida that are the subject of this Action.[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 ABG HUNTER: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABG HUNTER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00508 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in New York, NY, ABG Hunter LLC owns and operates the website, https://hunterboots.com, which offers footwear for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ABRI CREDIT: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Shields Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE ROY SHIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABRI CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00515 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and similarly situated Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), which was stolen by cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who received financial services from Defendant prior to the Data Breach. As a condition of obtaining Defendant's services, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust their sensitive, confidential Private Information to Defendant, who stored and used Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information to provide and receive payment for its services. In early May 2024, cybercriminals hacked into Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive PII stored therein, including their full names, driver's license/government ID numbers, Social Security numbers, credit and debit card numbers, financial account information, and other confidential data (collectively, "Private Information"), causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to (a) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) actual identity theft and fraud; (d) financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; (f) deprivation of value of their Private Information; (g) loss of privacy; (h) emotional distress including anxiety and stress in with dealing with the Data Breach; and (i) the continued risk to their sensitive Private Information, which remains in Defendant's possession and subject to further breaches, so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect it, adds the complaint. To recover for these harms, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Plaintiff Leslie Roy Shields is a citizen and resident of Cobb County, Georgia. Defendant Abri Credit Union is a financial institution and one of the largest credit unions in Illinois, offering consumer banking, lending, and investment products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com ACOSTA INC: Faces Thomas Class Suit Over ERISA Plan Forfeitures --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDI THOMAS and CAROL A. NIELSON, individually and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of Acosta, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs v. ACOSTA, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ACOSTA, INC., and INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE ACOSTA, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN, Case No. 3:26-cv-00110 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2026) is an The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 fiduciary-breach case challenging Defendants' administration of Plan forfeitures in a manner that overwhelmingly benefited the employer by reducing employer contribution obligations, while allocating only a de minimis portion of forfeitures to defray Plan administrative expenses. According to the complaint, the Plan contains express forfeiture provisions recognizing that forfeitures may be used to reduce employer contributions and to pay Plan expenses. Notwithstanding these provisions and ERISA's fiduciary standards requiring loyalty to participants and prudent process, Defendants maintained a longstanding practice in which forfeitures were used almost entirely to reduce employer contributions, leaving Plan expenses otherwise payable by participants and the Plan. Plaintiff Thomas is, and at all relevant times was, a participant in the Plan under ERISA. Acosta operates as an outsourced sales and marketing agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM, PLLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 592 Boca Raton, FL 33498 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com AIRLINE REPORTING: Adam Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airline Reporting Corporation. The case is captioned as JANICE ADAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIRLINE REPORTING CORPORATION, Case No. 4:25-cv-10921-KAW (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2025). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Airline Reporting Corporation is a travel data and financial services provider, headquartered in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. Claire Cylkowski, Esq. Isabel Rose O. Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (619) 933-3598 (858) 375-7385 (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: jtreglio@tregliolaw.com mark@potterhandy.com clairec@potterhandy.com isabelm@potterhandy.com AKKAYA LLC: Rice Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- LUCAS RICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Akkaya LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00079 (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://justrug.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 beige rug 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. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Rice and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, says 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 Akkaya 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 handmade and artisanal rugs available in many sizes and colors.[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 AKRON BUILDING: Custalow-Hall Suit Seeks Laborers' Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN CUSTALOW-HALL, Plaintiff v. AKRON BUILDING AND OUTDOOR MAINTENANCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00148 (N.D. Ohio, January 20, 2026) is a class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Defendants hired Custalow-Hall as a manual laborer and machine operator on or about September 21, 2022. Allegedly, the Defendants operated an illegal compensation scheme designed to evade federal and state overtime laws by paying their manual laborers "straight time for overtime," manipulating payroll records through a "time banking" system, and disguising wage payments as non-taxable expenses. Furthermore, when Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by objecting to these illegal pay practices, Defendants retaliated against him by removing him from the schedule and ultimately terminating his employment, in flagrant violation of the FLSA's anti-retaliation provisions, says the suit. Based in Barberton, OH, Akron Building and Outdoor Maintenance Inc. provides construction and environmental services. The company also operates under the trade name "River Reach Construction." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Ste 200 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces Chernova Suit Over Breaches of TCPA --------------------------------------------------------- NATALI CHERNOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALICE + OLIVIA, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20356-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Despite Plaintiff's opt-out requests, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's opt-out request and continued to bombard Plaintiff with more unwanted telemarketing text messages. Moreover, the Defendant failed to place Plaintiff on an internal do-not-call list after Plaintiff's "No more messages" opt-out instructions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Alice + Olivia, LLC is a fashion design company based in Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Christopher E. Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Cross Suit Over Wage and Hour Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAUREEN CROSS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-10195-SKD-EAS (E.D. Mich., January 20, 2026) arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former deposit operation specialists, customer solutions representatives, or similar customer service oriented positions, who were compensated on an hourly basis. Throughout the relevant period, the Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its Representatives for all pre- and post-shift off-the-clock work, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law, says the suit. Ally Financial Inc. is a digital financial services company headquartered in Detroit, MI. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 AMAZON.COM INC: $2.5BB Settlement Claim Filing Period Due July 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Amazon agreed to a $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to resolve claims that it violated the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act in connection with its Prime membership. The Amazon settlement benefits consumers who signed up for Amazon Prime between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025, and who either enrolled through a challenged enrollment flow and used no more than three Prime benefits in any 12-month period during that time or unintentionally enrolled through a challenged enrollment method or attempted to cancel their Prime membership through the online cancellation process but were unable to do so. Eligible consumers must have used fewer than 10 Prime benefits during any 12-month period of unintentional Prime enrollment and must not have already received an automatic payment under the settlement. Retail giant Amazon offers a Prime membership that provides benefits, such as free shipping, access to Prime Video and other perks. According to the FTC, Amazon violated the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act by failing to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures of the material terms for its Prime membership before obtaining consumers' billing information. The company allegedly failed to obtain consumers' express informed consent for Prime and failed to provide simple mechanisms for consumers to cancel their Prime memberships. Amazon has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.5 billion settlement with the FTC to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Amazon settlement, consumers can receive a refund of their Amazon Prime subscription fees, up to $51. Automatic payments were to be distributed within 90 days of the court order, by Dec. 24, 2025. The window for filing outstanding claims for compensation under the Amazon Prime subscription settlement reached by the FTC opened on Jan. 5, 2026. Eligible consumers are expected to receive a notice by email and/or postcard by early February. Consumers eligible for a claims process payment will have 180 days to submit a claim. The deadline to submit the claim form will be specifically stated in the notice received by eligible consumers. Who's Eligible The Amazon settlement benefits consumers who signed up for Amazon Prime between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025, and who either enrolled through a challenged enrollment flow and used no more than three Prime benefits in any 12-month period during that time or unintentionally enrolled through a challenged enrollment method or attempted to cancel their Prime membership through the online cancellation process but were unable to do so. Eligible consumers must have used fewer than 10 Prime benefits during any 12-month period of unintentional Prime enrollment and must not have already received an automatic payment under the settlement. Potential Award $51 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/27/2026 Case Name Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00932-JHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Settlement Website SubscriptionMembershipSettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator admin@SubscriptionMembershipSettlement.com Class Counsel N/A Defense Counsel Moez M. Kaba HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP [GN] AQUACORE RENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUACORE RENTAL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00010 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 12, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendant as a tester. Aquacore Rental Company, LLC provides water solutions and other rental equipment for a wide range of heavy-duty jobs, including oil and gas drilling, construction or municipal projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net ARDENT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit for Misleading Investors -------------------------------------------------------- National shareholder rights firm Hagens Berman is notifying Ardent Health, Inc. (NYSE: ARDT) investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against the company and certain of its executives following the company's disastrous Q3 2025 financial results. Hagens Berman is investigating the alleged claims that Ardent misled investors about its revenue recognition systems and the adequacy of its professional liability reserves. The firm urges investors who purchased Ardent securities between July 18, 2024 and November 12, 2025 and suffered substantial losses to contact the firm now. View our latest video summary of the allegations: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucqsF9PZIEA Class Period: July 18, 2024 - Nov. 12, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 9, 2026 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ardt Contact the Firm Now: ARDT@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 The ARDT Securities Class Action & Its Allegations: The complaint alleges that for over a year Ardent assured investors that it engaged in an active monitoring process that included "detailed reviews of historical collections" and that "[o]ur collection procedures are followed until such time that management determines the account is uncollectible, at which time the account is written off." The complaint alleges that these- and other- statements were misleading because Ardent did not primarily rely on detailed reviews of historical collections in determining accounts receivable collectability, but instead utilized a 180-day cliff at which time an account became fully reserved. The truth allegedly emerged on November 12, 2025, when Ardent revealed that it transitioned to a new accounting method in Q3 2025 for estimating the collectability of accounts receivable, which forced it to slash revenue by $42.6 million to account for hindsight evaluations. During the earnings call the next day, Ardent's CFO revealed that, in apparent contrast to earlier assurances about the hindsight analysis, the company's collectability framework "had utilized a 180-day cliff at which time an account became fully reserved" and that its new revenue accounting system "recognizes reserves earlier in an account's life cycle[.]" In addition to the revenue decrease, Ardent revealed that "[t]he increase in total operating expenses as a percentage of total revenue was [. . .] driven by an increase in professional liability reserves of $47.2 million[.]" The market reacted swiftly to this news and sent the price of Ardent shares tumbling $4.75 (-33%) lower the next day. "We are looking into whether Ardent knew of problems with its revenue accounting system that masked payor denials," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation of the pending alleged claims. If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked questions about the Ardent Health case and our investigation, click https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ardent-health-ardt-securities-class-action Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Ardent Health should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ARDT@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] ARTIS SENIOR: Wilcoxon Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA WILCOXON, individually and for others similarly situated v. ARTIS SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00190 (E.D. Va., Jan. 21, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Artis Senior Living, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Defendant Artis employed Plaintiff Wilcoxon as one of its Hourly Employees in Illinois. Wilcoxon and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Artis does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, Artis deducts 30 minutes a day from Wilcoxon's and its other Hourly Employees' recorded hours for so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break (Artis's "auto-deduct policy"), says the suit. The Defendant is a developer-owner-operator of memory care and assisted living communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ASZ SUPPLY: Court OKs Email Service to Individual Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Xin "Kelly" Yang and Ting "Susan" Chen on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. A Fei, Shuyun Chen, Yu "Rita" Chen, Yuezhu Du, Yurong "Mary" Hu, Yuxia Hu, Xue "Linda" Lin, Qilong "Lucy" Liu, Lijun Ouyang, Jingyi Shen, Wenling "Abby" Wang, Yun Ye, Nan "Lucas" Zheng, Xiaona "Lina" Zhou, Lei "Andy" Zhu, ASZ Supply Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05055-RA-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for alternative service on Defendants Jingyi Shen and Lei "Andy" Zhu. Plaintiffs claim that Shen and Zhu, a married couple, were the alleged Ponzi scheme's administrators, who solicited deposits from victims and received funds through ASZ Supply LLC, an internet-based company organized under the laws of New Jersey that they jointly owned and managed. On January 7, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Alternative Service on Defendant Shen and Defendant Zhu, who they have not been able to serve. Plaintiffs requested an order permitting service by (1) email to the addresses Defendant Shen and Defendant Zhu voluntarily registered with Georgia's electronic service system, and (2) publication. The Court found that Plaintiffs attempted personal service on Defendant Shen and Defendant Zhu at the properties they own in California and Georgia. However, neither defendant was at either address when personal service was attempted. Thus, Plaintiffs could not practicably serve Defendant to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served, because they learned these Defendant do not reside at either known address because other individuals reside there and their current dwelling is unknown. The Court explained that it is clear from the record that service under 308(1) was attempted and that all other methods of service pursuant to the N.Y. C.P.L.R. such as service by delivery at Defendant Shen and Defendant Zhu's place of business or by nail and mail would be impracticable because Plaintiffs have not been able to locate any additional physical addresses where service could be effectuated on these individuals. Regarding electronic service, the Court stated there can be no doubt that because Defendant Shen and Defendant Zhu registered these specific email addresses with the Georgia court's electronic filing system for the explicit purpose of receiving official legal documents, these are their email addresses and they have consented to service by electronic means in accordance with Georgia law. Regarding publication service, Plaintiffs requested to supplement electronic service by effectuating service via publication in the Forsyth County News once per week for four consecutive weeks. Nevertheless, the Court found that service by publication in a Georgia newspaper is not reasonably calculated to provide notice in the instant action. Based on the record, Plaintiffs have not been able to explain how publication in the Forsyth County News has been an effective method of notice for these Defendant in the past. In the Georgia actions, publications in the Forsyth County news were made, yet default was the ultimate result of those cases. Further, based on the statement made to the process server in California, Defendant Shen and Defendant Zhu are abroad. It would do little good to effectuate service by publication in a state where Plaintiffs cannot affirmatively say the Defendant are located; in other words, publication will not maximize the likelihood of actual notice. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Alternative Service on Defendant Shen and Defendant Zhu was granted as to electronic service, but denied without prejudice as to publication in the Forsyth County News. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3aZRtV from PacerMonitor.com Counter Claimant Xiaona Zhou, Nan Zheng, Wenling Wang, Qilong Liu and Yurong Hu are Represented By: Aleksander Boleslaw Milch The Kasen And Liu Law Firm, PLLC 718-337-8012 aleksander@kasenlawfirm.com Counter Defendant Xin Yang, Ting Chen, Wenling Wang, Lei Zhu are Represented By: Times Wang Farra & Wang PLLC 202-505-6227 twang@farrawang.com Alexander Heckscher 609-731-9785 alex@heckscherlaw.com Plaintiff Ting Chen is Represented By: Times Wang Farra & Wang PLLC 202-505-6227 twang@farrawang.com Alexander Heckscher 609-731-9785 alex@heckscherlaw.com ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Saunders Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a ATIRA SENIOR LIVING, Defendant, Case No. 26CV14 (Mass. Sup., Jan. 12, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Saunders was employed by the Defendant as a maintenance technician. Atria Management Company, LLC manages independent living, assisted living, and memory care communities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 AVIS RENT: Embray Sues Over Employment Violation in Cal. State Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Rent A Car System, LLC. The case is captioned as ALEXANDER EMBRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Case No. 25STCV38034 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 23, 2025). The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC is a car rental company headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com BATH & BODY: Faces Lingam Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- MURALIDHAR REDDY LINGAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BATH & BODY WORKS, INC.; GINA BOSWELL; DANIEL HEAP; and EVA C. BORATTO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00039-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 12, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bath & Body Works securities between June 4, 2024 and November 19, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's strategy of pursuing "adjacencies, collaborations and promotions" was not growing the customer base and/or delivering the level of growth in net sales touted; (2) as the Company's strategy of "adjacencies, collaborations and promotions" faltered, the Company relied on brand collaborations "to carry quarters" and obfuscate otherwise weak underlying financial results; (3) as a result, the Company was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Bath & Body Works' stock price fell $5.22, or 24.8%, to close at $15.82 per share on November 20, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, alleges the suit. Bath & Body Works, Inc. manufactures personal care products. The Company offers fragrance, gifts, body care, and bath products. Bath & Body Works serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. Robert S. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 East Fourth Street, 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 Facsimile: (513)629-9426 Email: rswavnef5),strausstroY_com rrsparks@strausstroy.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 BETTERMENT LLC: Fails to Protect Private Information, Weiscope Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT WEISCOPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. BETTERMENT LLC, and BETTERMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00448 (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving Betterment, a New York based company that provides financial advisory services, including securities brokerage, cash management and retirement planning. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendants. In order to obtain services from Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide Defendants with their sensitive and confidential Private Information, including their names, and birth dates. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information from disclosure. On January 9, 2026, Betterment became aware that an unauthorized individual gained access to certain Betterment systems through social engineering. After an unspecified amount of time, between the date they became aware and sent the Notice, the investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed the Betterment network and exfiltrated the data. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself 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 Betterment's inadequate data security practices. Defendant Betterment LLC provides automated investing, retirement, and cash management solutions to retail investors, small businesses, and financial advisors. Defendant Betterment Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Betterment LLC and other related entities and subsidiaries which provide various services in support of Betterment's suite of product and service offerings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com BETTERMENT LLC: Tsou Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Private Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL TSOU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. BETTERMENT LLC, and BETTERMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00444 (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' full name, email addresses, physical addresses, phone numbers, and full date of birth information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendants. In order to obtain services from Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide Defendants with their sensitive and confidential Private Information, including their names, and birth dates. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information from disclosure. On January 9, 2026, Betterment became aware that an unauthorized individual gained access to certain Betterment systems through social engineering. After an unspecified amount of time, between the date they became aware and sent the Notice, the investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed the Betterment network and exfiltrated the data. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself 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 Betterment's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Samuel Tsou is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant Betterment LLC provides automated investing, retirement, and cash management solutions to retail investors, small businesses, and financial advisors. Defendant Betterment Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Betterment LLC and other related entities and subsidiaries which provide various services in support of Betterment's suite of product and service offerings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brook E. Garberding, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 916-823-6955 Facsimile: 206-441-9711 E-mail: gregory@emeryreddy.com anderson@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com BLUE OWL: Muniz Files Shareholder Derivative Complaint in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A verified shareholder derivative complaint has been filed against Douglas I. Ostrover, et al. The case is captioned as EDWIN MUNIZ, derivatively on behalf of BLUE OWL CAPITAL INC., v. DOUGLAS I. OSTROVER, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00477 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2026). The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case is related to the lawsuit entitled Alexander Goldman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Blue Owl Capital Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10047 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2025). Blue Owl Capital Inc. is an asset management firm, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON 260 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com BOATS GROUP: Deadline Extension for Expert Disclosure Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRILL MARITIME, INC. d/b/a EXPORT YACHT SALES, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. BOATS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-23663-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines for disclosure of expert witness summaries or reports relating to class certification. The Parties request that the Court grant the Motion and extend the deadline for expert disclosures related to class certification from Jan. 19, 2026, to March 16, 2026, and extend the rebuttal deadline from Feb. 2, 2026, to March 30, 2026. The Court should grant the requested extension because the Parties will be unable to meet the Expert Deadlines despite their efforts, and modification of the deadline will not prejudice either of the Parties. The requested extension of the Expert Deadlines will not prejudice either of the Parties and will not impact any other deadlines within the Trial Order. The additional time will allow the Parties to complete additional discovery and prepare more substantive expert disclosures. Although the Parties have exchanged discovery requests and productively met and conferred for nearly two months, party and third-party discovery are ongoing and have not been completed to the stage necessary for their respective experts to provide opinions related to class certification. Boats provides technology based marketing solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3yMN0n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq. Matthew DellaBetta, Esq. STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 614-1400 Facsimile: (305) 614-1425 E-mail: tkolaya@sknlaw.com mdellabetta@sknlaw.com -and- - and - Kerry J. Miller, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. MILLER, THIBODEAUX, DYSART, VEITH & PASCHAL, LL 643 Magazine Street, Suite 405 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 977-9150 E-mail: kmiller@mtdvp.com hpaschal@mtdvp.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean A. Burstyn, Esq. BURSTYN LAW PLLC 1101 Brickell Avenue Ste S-700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305)-204-9808 E-mail: sean.burstyn@burstynlaw.com - and - Lawrence Buterman, Esq. Anna M. Rathbun, Esq. Christopher J. Brown, Esq. Graham Haviland, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1264 E-mail: Lawrence.buterman@lw.com anna.rathbun@lw.com chris.brown@lw.com graham.haviland@lw.com BP PRODUCTS: Removes Ibarra Suit From State Court to S.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case PEDRO IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BP PRODUCTS LLC D/B/A WWW.BONDIPURE.COM, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 25CU064393C) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00183-CAB-MSB. The case is assigned to Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo and referred to Magistrate Michael S Berg. BP Products LLC d/b/a www.bondipure.com is a health and wellness brand offering daily detox and fasting drink. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph E. Addiego III, Esq. Kendal C. Mitchell, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 Email: joeaddiego@dwt.com kendalmitchell@dwt.com BUTTERBALL LLC: Court Sets Discovery Schedule in "Marc" ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Marie Marc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Butterball, LLC, Defendant, No. 5:25-CV-391-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise Woods Flanagan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a Case Management Order on January 12, 2026. The Court ordered that the parties shall exchange by February 11, 2026, the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Discovery in this case will be bifurcated, with an initial phase ("Phase I") discovery taking place prior to the Court's ruling on a class certification motion. Phase I discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be completed by July 13, 2026. A second phase ("Phase II") of discovery will take place after the Court's ruling on a class certification motion. 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 Plaintiff by May 13, 2026, and by Defendant by June 10, 2026. Any class certification motion shall be filed by August 27, 2026. The Court ordered that this case has been automatically selected for mediation. class certification motion pending with deadline of August 27, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ydd3s from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Butterball, LLC, is represented by: Theresa Marie Sprain Baker Donelson 984-844-7941 tsprain@bakerdonelson.com Zachary B. Busey Baker Donelson 901-577-8164 zbusey@bakerdonelson.com Plaintiff Marie Marc is represented by: Matthew S. Marlowe The Law Offices Of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC 919-741-8693 mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com Hannah B. Simmons The Law Offices Of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC 704-906-7569 hsimmons@hallboothsmith.com Briahna B. Koegel The Law Offices Of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC 919-741-8693 bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com Gilda A. Hernandez The Law Offices Of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC 919-741-8693 ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com CABINET TO GO: Court Issues Practice Order in "Bland" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kelly Bland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cabinet To Go, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-1775 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Keli M. Neary of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a Civil Practice Order on January 16, 2026. The Court encouraged the parties to consent to the disposition of the case by a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c)(1). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VuS5H3 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Cabinets to Go, LLC, is represented by: Robert M. Linn Dentons Cohen & Grigsby P.C. 412-297-4877 robert.linn@dentons.com Jonathan P. Sion Dentons Cohen & Grigsby 412-297-4885 jon.sion@dentons.com Charles E Dorkey, III Dentons Us LLP 212-905-8330 charles.dorkey@dentons.com Plaintiff Kelly Bland is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong Perrong Law LLC 215-225-5529 a@perronglaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Ingraham Seeks to Seal Class Cert Materials -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY INGRAHAM and DEIA WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, N.A., d/b/a CAPITAL ONE SHOPPING, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting interim motion to seal to indicate that the reasons for sealing will be discussed in a forthcoming omnibus sealing motion. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0OPPmS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. Emily D. Herrin, Esq. Mallory Schiller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 E-mail: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com ltoops@cohenmalad.com llafornara@cohenmalad.com eherrin@cohenmalad.com mschiller@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com lweaver@stranchlaw.com adavis@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Brittany N. Resch, Esq. Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com bresch@straussborrelli.com agunem@straussborrelli.com CAPITAL ONE: Ingraham Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY INGRAHAM and DEIA WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, d/b/a CAPITAL ONE, N.A., d/b/a CAPITAL ONE SHOPPING, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 21, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to certify the following proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2): Server-to-Server Technology Class: "All Capital One website users who submitted a credit card application on http://www.applynow.capitalone.comfrom Sept. 1, 2022 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via any server-to-server technology, including Meta Conversions API, Google User Provided Data Matching, Google Ads Data Hub, or SkaiFTP." Server-to-Server Technology California Subclass: "All citizens of California who submitted a credit card application on http://www.applynow.capitalone.comfrom Sept. 1, 2022 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via any server-to-server technology, including Meta Conversions API, Google User-Provided Data Matching, Google Ads Data Hub, or Skai FTP." Tracking Tags Classes: "All Capital One website users who submitted an application on or http://www.applynow.capitalone.com, http://www.capitalone.com/creditcards/preapprove, http://www.capitalone.com/apply/credit-cards/preapprovefrom Aug. 26, 2020 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via Adobe Analytics, Google Analytics, Google marketing tags, or the Meta Pixel." Tracking Tags California Subclass: "All citizens of California who submitted an application on http://www.applynow.capitalone.com,http://www.capitalone.com/ creditcards/preapprove, or http://www.capitalone.com/apply/credit-cards/preapprovefrom Aug. 26, 2020 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via Adobe Analytics, Google Analytics, Google marketing tags, or the Meta Pixel." The Plaintiffs seek appointment as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs also seek appointments of the law firms of CohenMalad, LLP, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, and Strauss Borrelli, PLLC, as Class Counsel. Capital is an American bank holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ggVfCs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. Emily D. Herrin, Esq. Mallory Schiller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 E-mail: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com ltoops@cohenmalad.com llafornara@cohenmalad.com eherrin@cohenmalad.com mschiller@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Kyle M. Mallinak, Esq. Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com kmallinak@stranchlaw.com lweaver@stranchlaw.com adavis@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Brittany N. Resch, Esq. Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com bresch@straussborrelli.com agunem@straussborrelli.com CATALENT INC: $78MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 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 Hon. Zahid N. Quraishi, U.S.D.J. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES To: all persons and entities who or which, during the period from August 30, 2021 through May 7, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), 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 "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs SEB Investment Management AB and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Defendants Catalent, Inc. ("Catalent"), John Chiminski, Alessandro Maselli, and Thomas Castellano (collectively with Catalent, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $78,000,000 (the "Settlement"). Defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on June 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (ET) 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 "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 22, 2025; (iii) for purposes of the Settlement only, finally certify the Settlement Class, finally certify Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and finally appoint the law firms of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (v) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, long-form Notice, and Claim Form by visiting the website, www.CatalentSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Catalent Securities Settlement P.O. Box 2683 Portland, OR 97208-2683 (877) 239-4873 www.CatalentSecuritiesSettlement.com info@CatalentSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices or about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Christine M. Fox, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 www.ktmc.com info@ktmc.com (610) 667-7706 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 26, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the long-form Notice, available at www.CatalentSecuritiesSettlement.com, and such request must be received no later than May 20, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice, available at www.CatalentSecuritiesSettlement.com, such that they are received no later than May 20, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: January 20, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY URL: www.CatalentSecuritiesSettlement.com CATWIG LLC: Long Files Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Catwig, LLC d/b/a Victory Disability. The case is captioned as JOHN LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CATWIG, LLC D/B/A VICTORY DISABILITY, Case No. 5:25-cv-07304-GAM (E.D. Pa., December 23, 2025). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Catwig, LLC, doing business as Victory Disability, is a law firm in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: LVerderame@edelson-law.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hitch Due March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN HITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, a foreign general partnership doing business as VERIZON WIRELESS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01469-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pre-trial deadlines: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Mar. 31, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Mar. 31, 2026 certification due: Response in opposition to class Apr. 30, 2026 certification due: Reply in support of motion for class May 15, 2026 certification due: Discovery completed by: July 20, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zIQ2V7 at no extra charge.[CC] CEMEX INC: Removes Vasquez Suit From State Court to E.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JESUS JOSEPH VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEMEX INC.; CEMEX TRUCKING INC.; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 25CV029803) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00059 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge William B Shubb and referred to Magistrate Allison Claire. Cemex Inc. manufactures cement and ready-mixed concrete. The Company operates portland cement manufacturing plants and has a network of cement distribution terminals in the United States. Southdown also mines, processes, and sells construction aggregates and specialty mineral products, as well as installs highway safety systems such as guardrails and traffic signals. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dorothy S. Liu, Esq. Emily J. Leahy, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 Email: dliu@hansonbridgett.com ELeahy@hansonbridgett.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Sensitive Information, Park Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE PARK AND MICHELE PAPADOPOULOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC., and ASCENSION HEALTH., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00073 (E.D. Mo., January 16, 2026) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants. According to the complaint, Ascension chose to allow Cerner access and control over its patients' highly sensitive personal and health information. The Data Breach occurred as early as January 22, 2025. Following an internal investigation, on information and belief, Defendants learned the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, Social Security numbers as well as personal health information, ("PHI"), including patient medical records, medical record numbers, doctors, diagnosis, medicines, test results, images, care, and treatment. The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information, asserts the complaint. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendants violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former patients and prospective patients, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendants' possession. Plaintiffs Kyle Park and Michele Papadopoulos are patients of Defendant Ascension and Data Breach victims, having received a breach notice. Defendant Cerner Corporation is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations. Defendant Ascencion Health is a healthcare company that provides hospital care and medical care services to approximately 35,000 affiliated providers and 140 hospitals, serving communities in 19 states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com CHEMOURS COMPANY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Davis Due May 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terrence Davis v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01485-BJD-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Davis entered a case management and scheduling order and referral to mediation: Mandatory initial disclosures: Jan. 27, 2026 Move for class certification: May 13, 2026 Motions to add Parties or to amend pleadings: Apr. 13, 2026 Discovery deadline: Sept. 8, 2026 Motions in limine: Feb. 3, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 16, 2027 A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qzAnCT at no extra charge.[CC] CHS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Decker Suit Due Sept. 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVIN DECKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHS INC., a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-05811-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pre-trial deadlines: Event Date The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 24, 2026 certification The Defendant's opposition to the Oct. 29, 2026 Plaintiff's motion The Plaintiff's reply Nov. 12, 2026 Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion: TBD A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FgjmlE at no extra charge.[CC] COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Trimble Personal Injury Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as MELISSA TRIMBLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-18969-MCA-AME (D.N.J., December 23, 2025). The Plaintiffs bring this personal injury suit against the Defendants. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company, headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South Lasalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com COMPASS GROUP: Court Awards $2.3MM Attorneys' Fees in "Jilek" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as James Jilek, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Compass Group USA, Inc., d/b/a Canteen, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-JAG-DCK, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Award. Plaintiff's Fee Application requested an award of attorney's fees of one-third of the total Settlement Amount of $6,940,000, equaling $2,313,333.33; an award of $147,660.04 for litigation costs and expenses; and a Service Award to Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, all to be paid out of the common settlement fund established by Compass. The Court found that these requests are authorized by the parties' Settlement Agreement and that the Settlement Agreement sets forth reasonable procedures and deadlines for payment. The Court awarded attorney's fees to Class Counsel based on the percentage-of-the-fund approach. The requested attorney's fees are fair and reasonable, considering the result obtained for the class; the presence or absence of substantial objections by members of the class to the fees requested by counsel; the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved; the complexity and duration of the litigation; the risk of nonpayment; the amount of time devoted to the case by the plaintiffs' counsel; and awards in similar cases. The Court noted the substantial monetary amount secured for Settlement Class Members under the Settlement; the skill and experience of the attorneys involved in this action; the complexity and duration of this litigation; the substantial risk of non-payment Class Counsel endured in litigating this matter entirely on a contingent basis with no guarantee of recovery; the over 1,852 total hours Class Counsel have invested in prosecuting this action over more than six-and-a-half years; and awards in similar cases in this Circuit, which regularly find that an attorney's fee award of one-third of a Settlement Fund is reasonable. A lodestar cross-check also confirms the reasonableness of Class Counsel's requested fee award. The total lodestar amount equals $1,188,827. That constitutes a multiplier of approximately 1.95, well within the range found reasonable by courts within this Circuit. The Court found that an award of costs of $147,660.04 will reimburse Class Counsel for costs and expenses that they reasonably bore during the course of the case. The requested $10,000 service award to Plaintiff Jilek is also fair and reasonable in light of the time and effort that Plaintiff Jilek devoted to this case in serving as Class Representative. No objections to the Fee Application have been filed with the Court and no party to this litigation has opposed the Fee Application. Accordingly, the Fee Application was granted. The Settlement Administrator shall pay from the Settlement Escrow Class Counsel's reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,313,333.33; litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $147,660.04; and Plaintiff Jilek's Service Award in the amount of $10,000. A copy of the Court's decision dated 9th January 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vFTVfF from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Compass Group USA, Inc., is represented by Paul W. Sweeney, Jr. -- paul.sweeney@klgates.com -- Marla Tun Reschly -- marla.reschly@klgates.com -- Joseph C. Wylie, II -- joseph.wylie@klgates.com -- Kathryn G Hummel, Daniel Drew McClurg -- daniel.mcclurg@klgates.com -- Kenn Brotman -- kenn.brotman@klgates.com -- Nicole C Mueller --nicole.mueller@klgates.com -- and Christina N Goodrich at K&l Gates LLP. Plaintiffs James Jilek and George Moore are represented by Joel R. Rhine -- jrr@rhinelawfirm.com -- at Rhine Law Firm, PC; Mickel M. Arias -- mike@asstlawyers.com -- at Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos, LLP; Martin A. Ramey -- mjr@rhinelawfirm.com -- at Rhine Law Firm, PC; Michel M. Arias at Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team LLP; Richard S. Cornfeld -- rick@ghalaw.com -- and Daniel Scott Levy at Goldenberg Heller PC; and Michael Anthony Jenkins -- anthony@aswtlawyers.com D.M.G. WAREHOUSES: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. D.M.G. WAREHOUSES, LLC and LOS PARADOS RESTAURANT, INC. D/B/A LOS PARADOS RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20237-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. The subject commercial property and restaurant are open to the public and is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and restaurant business located within the commercial property: there are accessible parking spaces and access aisles with faded striping that makes it impossible to differentiate the boundaries; he could not traverse through areas of the facility, as the required 36" path is not provided; he had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and accessible; he had difficulty traversing the path of travel due to abrupt changes in level; he could not enter the restaurant without assistance, as the required level landing is not provided; and he had difficulty entering the restaurant without assistance, as the entrance threshold is too high, relates the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against 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 restaurant business within the commercial property. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injuries, embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant, D.M.G. WAREHOUSES, LLC owned and managed a commercial property at 5390 NW 72nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33166 (hereinafter the "commercial property") and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant LOS PARADOS RESTAURANT, INC. D/B/A LOS PARADOS RESTAURANT is a tenant and owner of the commercial restaurant business within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com DISCOVER FINANCIAL: $12-Bil. Deal Claim Filing Period Due May 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Reynolds, writing for KY3, reports that if you own a business or franchise, you'll want to know about this $1.2 billion class action lawsuit. It's legit, and it's about Discover credit cards, but know this: It's merchant only. The lawsuit reads from 2007 to 2023. Discover misclassified certain consumer credit cards as commercial credit cards, which in turn caused merchants to incur excessive fees. Discover denies it, but agreed to settle. Head to the website, https://www.discovermerchantsettlement.com/, to file a claim. The deadline is on May 18, 2026. [GN] DOLLAR GENERAL: Agrees to Settle Deceptive Pricing Suit for $15MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDEPOT reports that Consumers who purchased merchandise at a Dollar General store in the United States and paid more or less than the price advertised on the shelf between Oct. 10, 2016, and Nov. 19, 2025, may qualify to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. Dollar General agreed to pay at least $15 million to settle a lawsuit alleging it charged customers prices at checkout that differed from those displayed on store shelves. The settlement provides cash back, a one-time in-store discount benefit and injunctive relief to consumers. Who can file a Dollar General claim? Class members are consumers in the United States who paid more or less than the advertised price on the shelf at a Dollar General between Oct. 10, 2016, and Nov. 19, 2025. How much is the deceptive pricing settlement payout? -- In-store benefit: All class members can submit a claim to receive a $3 discount on the first $10 or more, pretax, during a designated two-day window at any Dollar General store nationwide. The company will announce the two-day period at a later date. The in-store discount is limited to one per class member and cannot be combined with any other DG store coupons. The settlement excludes certain products from the benefit, such as gift cards, propane, tobacco, alcohol and milk. -- Cash payment: Class members who submit qualifying proof can receive a cash payment of $10 or the actual amount of the overcharge, whichever is higher, for each separate documented pricing error. The settlement allows up to two claims per household with a maximum household payment of $20 or the actual overcharges, whichever is higher. -- Class members who submitted a complaint about a price overcharge to a government agency or Dollar General during the class period and class members with purchase proof qualify for the cash payment. -- Injunctive relief: For two years, beginning on June 1, 2025, Dollar General will provide dedicated support for stores to help prevent price discrepancies. This includes third-party pricing audits, employees whose responsibilities include tracking pricing matters and errors, and reports every two months to Dollar General's corporate office. How to claim a class action rebate -- In-store benefit: Class members can receive the in-store discount through an existing myDG account or by signing up for a new myDG account no later than seven days before the in-store benefit period begins. Class members who do not want to utilize a myDG account to redeem the discount can register for the in-store benefit online or download the in-store benefit registration PDF form to print and mail to the settlement administrator. -- Cash payment: To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Braun v Dolgencorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 The deadline to submit a claim or register for the in-store benefit is April 13, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Cash payment claims require product purchase information, which includes item(s) purchased, price paid, shelf price, store location and date of purchase. -- They also require supporting documentation, which includes either proof of a pricing error complaint submitted to a government agency or Dollar General during the class period for which no refund was issued or photos or receipts of each pricing overcharge incident. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Direct deposit -- Prepaid Mastercard -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $15 million Dollar General settlement fund The $15,000,000 settlement fund includes an $8,500,000 cash fund and $6,500,000 in injunctive relief. The breakdown is as follows: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $2,830,500 -- Service awards to class representatives: $7,500 for each deposed class representative and $5,000 for each who was not -- Payments to approved claimants: Remainder of the $8,500,000 cash fund after fees, awards and costs -- Injunctive relief: $6,500,000 The in-store benefit discount is in addition to the $6,500,000 injunctive relief fund and the $8,500,000 cash fund. Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: March 2, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: March 19, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: April 13, 2026 When is the Dollar General shelf price class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants and announce the in-store benefit two-day window after it completes claim processing and the court grants final approval to the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Dollar General charged customers different at checkout than those displayed on shelf labels. The plaintiffs claimed this practice violated consumer protection laws. Dollar General denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: April 13, 2026 [GN] EMPIRE GROUP: Faces Estrada Labor Suit in California State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Group Fine Construction. The case is captioned as ADONI MORALES ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMPIRE GROUP FINE CONSTRUCTION, Case No. 25STCV38043 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 23, 2025). The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. Empire Group Fine Construction is a residential architectural firm based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (213) 213-0000 Facsimile: (213) 213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com EVERQUOTE INC: Weingrad Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- LEON WEINGRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERQUOTE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10197-PGL (D. Mass., January 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their written consent as well as calling people who had previously asked to no longer receive calls. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff has never been a customer of Defendant. Despite that fact, the Plaintiff received at least three telemarketing calls from the Defendant. The Plaintiff never provided his consent or requested the calls. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. In addition, the calls occupied their telephone lines, storage space, and bandwidth, rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving, working, and performing other critical tasks. The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that Defendant violated the TCPA. Plaintiff Leon Weingrad uses the telephone number (267) XXX-XXXX that has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since April 3, 2019. Defendant EverQuote, Inc. is a Massachusetts based company which sells and quotes insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich 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 EVOLUTIVE LABS: Calcano Sues Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLUTIVE LABS U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00509 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://rhinoshield.io, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords non-disabled individuals, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in East Brunswick, NJ, Evolutive Labs U.S., Inc. owns and operates the RhinoShield online interactive website which offers protective cases and phone accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FARMERS NEW: Court Stays Discovery in "Marino" ---------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sheila Marino, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02200-JNW (W.D. Wash.), Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the parties' stipulated motion to stay discovery on January 12, 2026. The parties jointly requested a stay of discovery and initial deadlines pending the court's resolution of the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ordered that discovery and the initial deadlines contained within the Initial Scheduling Order be stayed pending the outcome of the court's order on the defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BTP35f from PacerMonitor.com FLASHDOT LIMITED: Court Narrows Claims in "Reca" Crypto Theft Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Sofia Reca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Flashdot Limited f/k/a PhoenixFin Limited, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-6316-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motions to dismiss on January 12, 2026. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' RICO claims with prejudice and without leave to amend, while granting Plaintiff Supples leave to amend state law claims against KuCoin. The Plaintiffs alleged that unknown hackers collectively stole millions of dollars' worth of cryptocurrency from their digital wallets. Following an extensive investigation,Plaintiffs determined that their stolen cryptocurrency was transferred in a series of transactions and ultimately deposited in accounts at KuCoin, a cryptocurrency exchange. Rather than suing the alleged thieves, whose identities remain a mystery, Plaintiffs filed this action against entities and individuals that operated KuCoin and Chainalysis, Inc., a software company retained by KuCoin to assist with identifying and purportedly blocking bad actors using KuCoin to launder cryptocurrency and engage in fraudulent transactions. On November 13, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motions to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs leave to amend their claims under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and 1962(d). Judge Cave concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish either proximate or but-for causation and failed to allege a RICO enterprise. She found that Plaintiffs' theory of proximate cause was implausible for three reasons: (1) because implicit in Plaintiffs' two-phase formulation is the obvious, indisputable fact that the supposed Phase 2 inability-to-track injury would not exist without the theft injury in Phase 1; (2) because Plaintiffs' theory of proximate causation involved an indeterminate number of intervening events and circumstances; and (3) because Plaintiffs' alleged inability-to-track injury does not necessarily follow from Defendants' alleged predicate acts. Judge Cave concluded that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a RICO enterprise because the FAC fails to satisfy the distinctiveness requirement and fails to allege that KuCoin was united by a common purpose. With respect to Chainalysis specifically, Judge Cave concluded that Plaintiffs failed to plead that it engaged in two predicate acts, partly because when pressed at oral argument to identify Chainalysis's two predicate acts, Plaintiffs' counsel identified just one and conceded that Plaintiffs' stronger claim against Chainalysis was RICO conspiracy rather than a direct RICO violation. The Court reviewed for clear error those portions of the R&R to which neither party objected and reviewed de novo the portions to which Plaintiffs objected. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' objections and adopted the R&R's recommendations, except for the recommendation that the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. The Court concluded that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (CAFA). The Court found that Judge Cave correctly recommended dismissal because Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege proximate causation. The Court held that Plaintiffs' two-phase formulation of their injury and proximate causation is implausible because it would require the Court to look beyond the first step in the causal chain and because Plaintiffs' injury would have occurred regardless of any acts by Defendants. The Court explained that Plaintiffs' alleged inability to track would not have had any impact on them had the theft not occurred, and courts in this Circuit have held that concealment of the underlying illegal activity cannot be the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury because the plaintiff would have suffered the same injury from the underlying illegal activity regardless of whether the concealment occurred. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Defendants were the but-for cause of their alleged injury. The Court held that absent the bad actors' theft, Plaintiffs would not have been in the position of needing to track and recover their cryptocurrency. The Court explained that there is no value to Plaintiffs to trace cryptocurrency already in their possession. Accordingly, the but-for cause of Plaintiffs' alleged loss of the ability to track their cryptocurrency is the bad actors' theft in the first instance. The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a RICO enterprise because the FAC fails to satisfy the "distinctiveness" requirement. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs' alleged enterprise has no organizational pattern or system of authority other than that embedded in the organization of KuCoin itself. The purpose of the alleged enterprise is the pursuit of maximizing revenue, which is indistinguishable from the business of KuCoin on a regular basis. The Court held that simply alleging that a corporation has violated RICO by conducting an enterprise that consists of itself plus all or some of its officers or employees does not satisfy the requirement of distinctiveness. State Law Claims The Court concluded that Plaintiff Reca is judicially estopped from arguing that Florida law applies to her state law claims because she previously represented to the Court that New York law controls her claims. The Court held that Plaintiff Reca's state law claims are time-barred under the applicable three-year New York statute of limitations because her cryptocurrency was stolen between May 21, 2021 and July 26, 2021, and Plaintiffs filed this action on August 21, 2024. The Court adopted Judge Cave's conclusion that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for conversion because they did not plausibly allege that KuCoin had actual knowledge that Plaintiffs' cryptocurrency was stolen. The Court held that Plaintiffs' generalized allegations that KuCoin had procedures in place to identify potentially fraudulent transactions generally does not support an inference that KuCoin had actual knowledge that any transfers involving Plaintiffs' cryptocurrency were fraudulent. The Court declined to adopt the portion of the R&R recommending that Plaintiffs' RICO claims should be dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend. However, the Court denied leave to amend because any amendment would be futile. The Court explained that because Plaintiffs' two-phase theory of injury is implausible, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs could cure the deficiencies with respect to but-for or proximate causation by repleading. Accordingly, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted. Plaintiffs' RICO claims are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiff Reca's state law claims are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiff Supples's state law claims against Chainalysis are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiff Supples's state law claims against KuCoin are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend to correct the deficiencies identified. Any amended complaint must be filed no later than fourteen days after the entry of this order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l83HCY from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Flashdot Limited f/k/a PhoenixFin Limited, Chun Gan, Mek Global Limited and PhoenixFin Private Limited are represented by: Joseph Samuels -- joseph.samuels@aoshearman.com Sean Boren -- sean.boren@aoshearman.com Gregory Taylor -- gregory.taylor@aoshearman.com Matthew L. Craner -- matthew.craner@aoshearman.com Allen Overy Shearman Sterling Us LLP Plaintiff Sofia Reca is represented by: Jonathan Anthony Ohlmann -- johlmann@rgrdlaw.com Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com Eric I. Niehaus -- ericn@rgrdlaw.com Evan Jay Kaufman -- ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- and -- David C. Silver -- dsilver@silvermillerlaw.com Silver Miller FOXUNDERGROUND INC: Payton Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER PAYTON, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FOXUNDERGROUND,INC. and GUYFOX, Individually, Case No. 3:26-cv-00015-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., Jan. 21, 2026) is a collective action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act brought against the Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated current and former hourly paid non-exempt labor employees who were not paid all the overtime compensation due them within weekly pay periods in which they worked more than 40 hours per week during the three years preceding the filing of this collective action lawsuit. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid labor employee for Defendants during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. The Defendants provide underground services related to sewers, storm drains, and other utilities with headquarters located in Fargo, North Dakota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Norris, Esq. NICK NORRIS, P.A. 272 Calhoun Station Parkway Suite C No. 13 Gluckstadt, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 641-4897 E-mail: nick@nicknorris.law GEISINGER HEALTH: $5MM Breach Deal Final OK Hearing Set March 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Geisinger Health and Nuance Communications have agreed to a $5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims surrounding a 2023 data breach. The Geisinger Health settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was compromised in the Geisinger Health and Nuance Communications data breach that occurred on or around Nov. 29, 2023. The Geisinger Health data breach reportedly compromised sensitive patient information, including Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates, health insurance information and more. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Geisinger Health and Nuance Communications should have prevented the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Geisinger Health is a Pennsylvania-based health system that serves more than 1.5 million patients each year. Nuance Communications is a technology company that provides clinical documentation and artificial intelligence solutions to healthcare providers. Geisinger Health and Nuance have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $5 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Geisinger Health settlement, class members can receive either loss reimbursement payments or an alternative cash payment. Claimants can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed fraud, communication charges, credit expenses, bank fees and more. Class members can also claim up to two hours of lost time at a rate of $20 per hour for a total of $40 in lost time payments. Class members who did not experience out-of-pocket losses can still receive a payment from the settlement in the form of a pro rata cash payment. The amount of these payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed and the amount of the settlement fund after deductions. Claimants cannot receive both an alternative cash payment and expense reimbursement. All class members are eligible for one year of free credit, medical monitoring and identity theft protection services. These services include three-bureau credit monitoring, $1 million in identity theft insurance, dark web monitoring, medical record monitoring and more. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 17, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Geisinger Health data breach settlement is scheduled for March 16, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 18, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was compromised in the Geisinger Health data breach on Nov. 29, 2023, or who received a data breach notification from Geisinger Health. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses or a pro-rata cash payment from the settlement fund. Proof of Purchase Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/18/2026 Case Name In re: Geisinger Health Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 4:24-cv-01071-MWB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Final Hearing 03/16/2026 Settlement Website GeisingerDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator – 83320 c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 (833) 420-3818 Class Counsel Ben Barnow BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES P.C. Benjamin F. Johns SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Defense Counsel Max E. Kaplan COZEN O'CONNOR Ezra D. Church Su Jin Kim MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Spadaro Appeals Reconsideration Order to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN NINA SPADARO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part Movants' motions for reconsideration of order regarding validity of opt out requests in the lawsuit entitled Robin Altobelli, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General Motors, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-13256, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose a uniform and widespread defect in the lithium-ion battery of the Chevrolet Bolt vehicles. On Aug. 16, 2024, Individual Class Members filed a motion to allow electronic opt outs. On July 10, 2025, Movants Susan Nina Spadaro, et al. filed a motion to treat opt-out requests as valid or, alternatively, to extend opt-out deadline. On Oct. 31, 2025, Movants filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the motion to treat opt-out requests as valid or, alternatively, to extend opt-out deadline. On same day, Manookian Individual Class Members also filed a motion for reconsideration. On Dec. 22, 2025, Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Manookian Individual Class Members' motion for reconsideration and denying Movants' motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and their motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards are granted. The appellate case is captioned Robin Altobelli, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-1077, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on January 22, 2026. [BN] Movants-Appellants SUSAN NINA SPADARO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Laura J. Garlinghouse Genovich, Esq. FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH 1700 E. Beltline Avenue, N.E., Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 Telephone: (616) 726-2200 Defendant-Appellant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC is represented by: Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. MAYER BROWN 1999 K. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 - and - Andrew S. Rosenman, Esq. MAYER BROWN 71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 44-42 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Defendants-Appellees LG CHEM LTD., et al. are represented by: Mark S. Mester, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 - and - A. Michael Palizzi, Esq. MILLER CANFIELD 150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 963-6420 GOLDEN HEAVEN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd. Disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. A putative class action lawsuit wa filed on January 17, 2024 by certain shareholders against the Company, its then Chief Executive Officer, Qiong Jin, its Chief Financial Officer, Jinguang Gong and its independent directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Case No. 161978/2023). The complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company during the class period asserts claims that the plaintiffs were economically damaged, and generally alleges that the defendants violated sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly inaccurate, untrue and misleading statements regarding, among other matters, the Company's business operations, management, financial condition and prospects. Plaintiff amended the Supreme Court of the State of New York complaint on February 14, 2024. The Company strongly denies any wrongdoing, and intends to continue to vigorously defend all of the matters. Discovery is in its early stages in both matters. Since the lawsuit is still in the preliminary stage, the Company is currently unable to estimate the potential outcome, if any, associated with the resolution of the lawsuits. Golden Heaven manages and operates amusement parks, water parks, and complementary recreational facilities.[BN] GOLDEN HEAVEN: Discovery in Securities Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd. Disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 21, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Two putative class action lawsuits were filed on December 8, 2023, December 19, 2023 and January 17, 2024 by certain shareholders against the Company, its then Chief Executive Officer, Qiong Jin, its Chief Financial Officer, Jinguang Gong and its independent directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:23-cv-10619-HDV-SK and Case No. 2:24-cv-00423-SVW-AJR). The above two complaints filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company during the class period assert claims that plaintiffs were economically damaged, and generally allege that the referenced defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding, among other matters, the Company’s business operations, management, financial condition and prospects. Plaintiffs in the matter filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California filed motion to consolidate the two matters and appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Court held a hearing on the motions on April 11, 2024, consolidated the actions, appointed Rahul Patange ("Patange") as Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action, and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. The consolidated action will now proceed under the Case No. 2:23-cv-10619-HDV-SK. The parties have agreed on a briefing schedule for the Lead Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and for defendants to respond to the newly amended complaint. ‘ The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated Class Action (Case No. 2:23cv10619-HDV-SK) pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California was denied and the Company filed its answer on March 18, 2025. The Plaintiff in the consolidated Class Action filed an unopposed motion to amended to also add additional Company related individuals. The Court granted the motion on December 18, 2025. The Company strongly denies any wrongdoing, and intends to continue to vigorously defend all of the matters. Discovery is in its early stages in both matters. Golden Heaven manages and operates amusement parks, water parks, and complementary recreational facilities.[BN] GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Martinez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00221 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 12, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the 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, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the suit. Gulshan Management Services, Inc. is a Human Resources & Staffing, and Business Services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Freeman, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12TH Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: mtf@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sanchez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PAULA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00217 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 12, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. 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; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Gulshan Management Services, Inc. is a Human Resources & Staffing, and Business Services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Snyder Sues Over Punitive Insurance Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH SNYDER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00557 (D.N.J., January 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for imposing discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products. The lawsuit challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" without complying with the regulatory requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the implementing regulations. The lawsuit further challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the Hackensack Meridian Health and Welfare Plan (the "Plan") in a manner that violates ERISA and the implementing regulations. Defendant Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. sponsored, maintained, and managed the Plan. Plaintiff Keith Snyder, Sr. is an employee of Defendant who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiff and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated. According to the complaint, the Defendant cannot qualify for the statutory safe harbor because, while it imposes a health-based surcharge, it does not make available to participants (or notify them of) a compliant wellness program. The Plan fails to satisfy the essential regulatory criteria, which "must be satisfied," for a wellness program to be lawful under ERISA. The core deficiency of Defendant's wellness program is that it does not offer a reasonable alternative standard that makes available the "full reward" to all participants who complete it. While the Plan offers a smoking cessation program, there is no mention of reimbursement or even avoiding the surcharge on a prospective basis. To that extent, Defendant fails to make available a clearly defined, reasonable alternative standard that ensures employees who satisfy that standard receive a full refund of the $30 monthly surcharges that are deducted from their paychecks. Instead, Defendant uses these unlawfully obtained funds to offset its own contributions to the Plan, which allows additional money to remain in Defendant's accounts on which the company earns interest. By increasing participant contributions through this surcharge, Defendant reduces its own contributions to the Plan that would otherwise be required to fund the same coverage, depriving the Plan of employer funds it should have received. Hackensack's wellness program is also unreasonable and unlawful because it conditions an employee's premiums not only on the employee's own tobacco use, but also on the spouse's willingness to participate in and complete the cessation program. Under the Plan, an employee who has a spouse that smokes cannot avoid or remove the surcharge unless the spouse completes Defendant's program. This structure violates ERISA's anti-discrimination rules because it conditions a participant's premiums on a dependent's health factor. Further, Defendant failed to provide proper notice, which is a standalone violation of the ERISA, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to recover these unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Defendant from continuing to profit from its violations under the ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Spitz, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. Willian H. Payne, Esq. 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105 PMB#161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: jspitz@sirillp.com E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com HAND & STONE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Lauren Wolf is suing Hand & Stone Franchise LLC. Why: Wolf claims Hand & Stone shared confidential health information with Google, Meta and TikTok. Where: The Hand & Stone class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Hand & Stone violated the privacy rights of its customers by sending confidential health information taken from the company's website to Google, Meta and TikTok. Plaintiff Lauren Wolf's complaint claims Hand & Stone violated multiple federal and state laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Wolf claims Hand & Stone designed and maintained its website in a way that required users to submit private information to research treatment options, schedule consultations and book appointments. The class action lawsuit alleges that despite numerous warnings and several enforcement actions from federal regulators, Hand & Stone ignored the data privacy risks of using third-party tracking technologies. Wolf wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who visited the Hand & Stone website and had their private information disclosed to unauthorized third parties. Plaintiff claims seeing targeted ads after visiting Hand & Stone chain's website Wolf, a Texas resident, claims she visited the Hand & Stone website from May to June 2025, searching for pregnancy-oriented massages as well as facials and injectable, toning and hair removal treatments. She argues her searches were recorded by tracking tools embedded on the website without her consent and that she began seeing targeted ads for skincare, healthcare, other medical spas, Botox and GLP-1 medications. The plaintiff claims the disclosure of her private information to third parties via the tracking tools and the subsequent unsolicited ads she received caused her significant emotional distress. She demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief to prevent Hand & Stone from continuing to gather and misuse information, as well as an award of unspecified monetary damages for herself and all class members. Recently, a California federal judge denied a motion filed by Adidas to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act by installing and using tracking pixels on its website. Wolf is represented by Steven A. Schwartz, Beena M. McDonald and Alex M. Kashurba of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP. The Hand & Stone class action lawsuit is Wolf v. Hand & Stone Franchise LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05964, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit Over Refusal to Redeem Gift Cards -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Home Depot has refused to issue to consumers the equivalent cash value of gift cards with a balance of less than $10, in violation of California law. The 14-page complaint contends that Home Depot has run afoul of a California law that gives consumers in the state the right to redeem gift cards issued after January 1997 with a value of less than $10 their equal cash value. The plaintiff, a California resident, received a Home Depot gift card in January 2025 and initiated an in-store transaction with the belief that any small balance remaining on the gift card could be redeemed as cash, the case shares. The total of the consumer's purchase did not exhaust the entirety of the gift card, which had a balance of less than $10, yet the Home Depot refused to issue the plaintiff the cash they were legally entitled to, the suit alleges. According to the complaint, the California gift card law was designed to prevent consumer losses from unused gift cards with a small balance. Per the class action lawsuit, consumers have two choices in the event they have a remaining balance of less than $10 after a transaction: "They can use the remaining balance to engage in a further transaction partly funded by the gift card and partly funded by money out of their pockets. Alternatively, they leave the store with a gift card they cannot redeem, leaving the unredeemed balance in Defendant's possession." Per the lawsuit, Home Depot does not regularly make its employees aware of or enforce the California gift card law, as "[t]he pay-more-or-forfeit strategy inures to Defendant's benefit." The plaintiff did not want to purchase any items from Home Depot in addition to those she had already bought, and in retrospect, the consumer says in the lawsuit, she "would not have visited the store and purchased items there in the absence of such promise." The Home Depot class action lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in California who have or have had a Home Depot gift card with a balance of less than $10. [GN] HOMETOWN AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Bartok Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motions for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Edwin Bartok, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hometown America, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-10790, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this putative class action arising under the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Act section 32L(2) challenging the rent structures implemented by the Defendants in two manufactured communities. On Apr. 7, 2025 and May 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second motions to certify class. On May 7, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike certain expert opinions of Andrew Danforth concerning economic injury. On Jan. 8, 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin granted in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motions for class certification. The Defendants' motion to strike is denied. Plaintiffs Barbara Lee and the Manufactured Housing Federation of Massachusetts, Inc. have satisfied Rule 23. The Court allows the renewed motion to certify the injunction class. The Court has explained why neither fair-market rent nor home purchase price is a relevant consideration to establishing a Chapter 93A injury in this case. Hometown's injury arguments thus are not a basis on which to strike the expert's report, and the motion is denied. The appellate case is captioned Edwin Bartok, et al. v. Hometown America, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-8006, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 22, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al. are represented by: Lisa C. Goodheart, Esq. Srish Khakurel, Esq. FITCH LAW PARTNERS LLP 84 State Street, 11th Floor Boston, MA 02109 HUMBL LLC: Pasquinelli Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATT PASQUINELLI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Matt Pasquinelli, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Humbl LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00743, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, 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 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. On Apr. 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on May 15, 2025. On Dec. 19, 2025, Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss because of the Plaintiffs' failure to cure the defects in the first amended complaint. The appellate case is entitled Matt Pasquinelli, et al. v. Humbl LLC, et al., Case No. 26-1102, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MATT PASQUINELLI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paige J. Alderson, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1050 Wilmington, DE 19801 Defendants-Appellees HUMBL LLC, et al. are represented by: Mette H. Kurth, Esq. PIERSON FERDINAND 112 S. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 907-9262 - and - Ross A. Wilson, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL 255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8237 - and - William J. Burton, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 300-3451 INDIAN HARBOR: Loses Bid to Revisit Summary Judgment in "Morrison" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Gary Morrison, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, Plaintiff, v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company and Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:23-0451 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge Robert C. Chambers of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted Plaintiff's motion and struck and denied as moot Defendants' Rule 54(b) Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. The underlying dispute involved whether Defendants wrongfully paid Plaintiff Actual Cash Value rather than full Replacement Cost Value under a flood insurance policy. On September 4, 2024, the Court entered a Scheduling Order directing that discovery be completed by April 14, 2025, and that all dispositive motions be filed by May 5, 2025. On the May 5 deadline, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On April 30, 2025, Defendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to file a response to its Interrogatory No. 1, which asked Plaintiff to state how much he spent to repair and replace the damage caused by the flood if such amount exceeded the Actual Cash Value of $32,921.06. Following briefing, Magistrate Judge Joseph K. Reeder issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on June 5, 2025, directing Plaintiff to supplement his prior response within seven days. On June 12, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Certificate of Service stating that he emailed defense counsel a copy of his Second Amended and Supplemental Answers to Defendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admission to Plaintiff. In his Second Amended and Supplemental Answers, Plaintiff stated he expended $37,110.15 in repairing his property when considering the value of his time, resources, and cash spent. At the hearing on September 8, 2025, the Court directly asked defense counsel whether either the insurance company or the plaintiff ever determined the amount actually necessarily expended to replace the property. Despite Plaintiff's Second Amended and Supplemental Answer, defense counsel agreed that the amount was not determined. After supplemental briefing was complete, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on September 22, 2025, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to the coverage issue and Plaintiff is entitled to full replacement cost under the clear and unambiguous language in the Endorsement and Policy issued to him by Defendant Indian Harbor, which was a difference of $4,548.12. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion and denied Defendants' motion. After business hours on Friday, January 9, 2026, Defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. In these motions, Defendants argued the Court should reconsider its decision on summary judgment and permit them to file a second Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment based upon Plaintiff's June 12, 2025 Second Amended and Supplemental Answers in which he said he expended $37,110.15. Despite having his information for nearly seven months, Defendants asserted they did not understand the materiality of Plaintiff's statement until they began preparing for trial. The Court found that although Plaintiff's calculation was disclosed after the summary judgment motions were filed, it was provided to Defendants nearly three months before the Court heard arguments on the motions, and Defendants never requested to supplement their briefs during that time period to include Plaintiff's calculation. In addition, Defendants admittedly never mentioned it during oral argument on the motion, nor did they mention it in the supplemental briefing the Court granted following oral argument. The Court stated that the fact Defendants did not believe the evidence was important until now does not make such evidence new, and it is not a basis for reconsidering the Court's earlier decision. The Court found Defendants have not shown a failure to reconsider its earlier decision will result in clear error or manifest injustice. Defendants possessed the evidence they now seek to interject prior to argument, supplemental briefing, and the Court ruling on summary judgment. They could have presented that evidence, but did not. The Court stated that giving Defendants new bites at the same apple, to make new arguments based on previously disclosed evidence, is not the purpose of Rule 54(b). Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and struck and denied as moot Defendants' motion A copy of the Court's decision dated January 16th is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PN4v6h from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company is represented by Daniel J. Millea -- dmillea@zellelaw.com -- James V. Chin -- jchin@zellelaw.com -- and Mallory Ball -- mball@zellelaw.com -- at Zelle; and William R. Slicer -- wslicer@shumanlaw.com -- at Shuman Mccuskey & Slicer Defendant Neptune Flood Incorporated is represented by: Kimberly E. Williams Thomas Combs & Spann 304-414-1800 kwilliams@tcspllc.com Andrew B. Cooke Thomas Combs & Spann 304-414-1800 acooke@tcspllc.com Defendant Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc., is represented by: Daniel J. Millea Zelle 612-336-9170 dmillea@zellelaw.com William R. Slicer Shuman Mccuskey & Slicer wslicer@shumanlaw.com James V. Chin Zelle 470-867-3041 jchin@zellelaw.com Mallory Ball Zelle 470-867-3044 mball@zellelaw.com Defendant Sherri Wynter Represented By William R. Slicer Shuman Mccuskey & Slicer wslicer@shumanlaw.com Plaintiff Gary Morrison is represented by: Ernest G. Hentschel, II Kesner Kesner & Bramble ehentschel@kkblaw.net Brent K. Kesner Kesner & Kesner bkesner@kesnerlaw.com Anthony E. Nortz Kesner & Kesner 304-345-5200 anortz@kesnerlaw.com J.M. SMUCKER: Pet Food PFAS Class Action Nears Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that a class action lawsuit against J.M. Smucker Co. filed in California federal court is nearing certification. Plaintiffs allege Smucker failed to warn consumers of potential risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in its pet food packaging and that plaintiffs relied on the packaging, which asserted the food was healthy. Hon. William H. Orrick, upon hearing plaintiffs' motion for class certification, stated that the alleged injury, overpayment for the pet food, is sufficient to satisfy standing for class certification. Plaintiffs relied on Orrick's 2021 decision in Zeiger v. WellPet LLC that in order to establish reliance, consumers need not point to a specific statement by defendant; rather, they need only establish that they would have behaved differently. Counsel for Smucker argued there must be class-wide evidence to establish an unreasonable risk of harm for class certification,6 referencing an expert who testified at the class certification stage, "I don't know what the risk is." Smucker highlighted this was the only person putting on evidence of an unreasonable risk. Smucker emphasized its pet food packaging is "fundamentally different" from food packaging studies relied on by plaintiffs. The PFAS component of Smucker's packaging consists of three layers, ink, and a clear coating. Smucker further argued pet food storage methods affect the risk of alleged PFAS exposure, reasoning that storage in a container instead of original packaging, temperature, and climate affect the alleged PFAS migration. Because of this, some consumers within the class face a lower risk profile than others. Smucker argued plaintiffs cannot causally connect the alleged failure to warn to whether consumers would have either paid less or not purchased the pet food had PFAS warnings been made. However, Orrick reasoned that the issues raised by Smucker are better addressed on the merits rather than at class certification, noting the issue of whether PFAS can even migrate from packaging to pet food. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. filed on January 22, 2026, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-874, seeking a review of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned Narguess Noohi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 23-55190. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. is represented by: Hannah Y. S. Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Email: hchanoine@omm.com JUMPP LOGISTICS: Court Rejects Collective Tolling in "Cervenka" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kevin Cervenka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jumpp Logistics, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 4:21-CV-813-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), Judge Sean D. Jordan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied the Plaintiff's motion to toll the statute of limitations for putative collective members. Named Plaintiff Kevin Cervenka worked for Defendants Jumpp Logistics, LLC and Couch Goat Quandary, LLC as a delivery driver for one year. Cervenka alleged that Defendants misclassified him and its other delivery drivers as independent contractors, instead of non-exempt employees, and failed to pay overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. Cervenka sued Defendants in October 2021. Six months after Defendants filed their answer, Cervenka moved for court-approved notice of this collective action to similarly situated delivery drivers. That motion remained pending before the Court. Even without court-approved notice, three individuals had opted in as plaintiffs since the filing of this action. Cervenka asked the Court to toll the statute of limitations for all putative collective members from May 31, 2022, the date Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Court-Authorized Notice, until the Court issued a ruling on that motion and notice was disseminated. The Court explained that in a FLSA collective action, the statute of limitations for a named plaintiff ran from the date that the plaintiff filed the complaint, while the limitations period for an opt-in plaintiff ran from the opt-in date. The Court noted that a litigant was entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations only if the litigant established two elements: (1) that he had been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing. The second element was met only where the circumstances that caused a litigant's delay were both extraordinary and beyond its control. The Court denied the request for two reasons. First, and most fundamentally, equitable tolling could not be applied on a group-wide basis to prospective or hypothetical parties because the doctrine required fact-specific determinations about specific individuals. Second, failure to receive an opt-in notice to a particular lawsuit did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying application of the equitable-tolling doctrine. The Court explained that the tolling standard did not lend itself to group-wide tolling for hypothetical future parties. It required instead that the Court make fact-specific determinations about specific individuals. In the FLSA collective-action context, these determinations could not be made until a putative plaintiff actually opted in to the collective action. Indeed, the Supreme Court's articulation of the tolling standard presupposed that an existing party to the case was seeking to toll the statute of limitations on his own behalf. The Court noted that because no potential opt-in plaintiffs had been identified by Plaintiff, the Court could not conduct a fact-specific inquiry as to whether those potential opt-in plaintiffs had diligently pursued their rights. Cervenka had not identified any specific opt-in plaintiffs, and the Court could not assess whether hypothetical opt-in plaintiffs had diligently pursued their rights. The Court disagreed with an approach to the tolling issue that focused on the diligence of the named plaintiffs, rather than the opt-in plaintiffs. For the FLSA statute of limitations to be equitably tolled as to an opt-in plaintiff, the opt-in plaintiff, rather than the named plaintiff, must have exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing his or her rights. Even if Cervenka had identified specific opt-in plaintiffs who generally pursued their rights diligently, he had not shown that some extraordinary circumstance stood in their way and prevented timely filing. The Court noted that the Fifth Circuit held that failure to receive an opt-in notice to a particular collective action did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying application of the equitable-tolling doctrine. That was because equitable tolling focused on whether an external obstacle prevented timely filing, not on whether an external obstacle prevented timely filing in a specific suit. When an employee's own inaction relegated opt-in notice from a specific suit as the only means of discovering an FLSA violation, the court would not transform routine litigation into an extraordinary circumstance. The Court found that Cervenka had not identified an external obstacle preventing potential plaintiffs from timely joining this suit or initiating their own. Rather, potential opt-in plaintiffs had been free, for the entirety of this action, to discover their claims and give their written consent to join this action. Indeed, several already had. They had also been free to initiate their own suits. Thus, Cervenka had not carried his burden to show that an extraordinary circumstance stood in the potential plaintiffs' way and prevented timely filing. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations for Putative Collective Members. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZA1Net from PacerMonitor.com JVF CONTSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dubon Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- EDVIN MAGDALENO DUBON DUBON; RENE IVAN COLOMA MORAN; and SANDINO SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JVF CONSTRUCTION & LANDSCAPING CORP.; VICTOR ROJAS; JENNY DE ROJAS; and ROSIO CALLE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00158-NJC-AYS (Jan. 13, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. JVF Construction & Landscaping Corp. is a business specializing in full-service construction and landscaping. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aneeba Rehman, Esq. Nadia M. Pervez, Esq. PERVIEZ & REHMAN, P.C. 6268 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 8 Commack, NY 11725 Telephone: (631) 427-0700 KAISER FOUNDATION: $47.5MM Settlement Claim Filing Due March 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Kaiser Permanente has agreed to a $47.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it violated privacy laws by using web tracking technology on its website and mobile apps. The Kaiser Permanente settlement benefits Kaiser Permanente members in California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia who accessed authenticated pages of Kaiser Permanente websites or mobile applications between November 2017 and May 2024. According to the class action lawsuit resolved by this settlement, Kaiser Permanente violated federal and state data privacy laws by using third-party web tracking technology on its website and mobile apps. Plaintiffs in the case say this technology allowed third parties to collect their sensitive health information without their consent. Kaiser Permanente is a health care provider that operates in eight states and the District of Columbia. Kaiser Permanente has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $46 million to resolve these allegations. The settlement may increase to $47.5 million under certain conditions. Under the terms of the Kaiser Permanente settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive between $20 and $40. Class members who were Kaiser Permanente members for a longer period of time may receive a larger share of the settlement fund. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 12, 2026. The final approval hearing for the data privacy lawsuit settlement is scheduled for May 7, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 12, 2026. Who's Eligible Kaiser Permanente members in California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia who accessed the authenticated pages of the Kaiser Permanente websites or mobile applications between November 2017 and May 2024. Potential Award $20 to $40 (estimated) Proof of Purchase Kaiser Permanente member ID number Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/12/2026 Case Name Doe, et al. v Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02865-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 05/07/2026 Settlement Website KaiserPrivacySettlement.com Claims Administrator Kaiser Privacy Breach Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services Inc. P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 info@KaiserPrivacySettlement.com 855-783-3816 Class Counsel Melissa L. Yeates Tyler S. Graden KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP James E. Cecchi Kevin G. Cooper CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C. Defense Counsel Kristin J. Madigan Jennie Wang VonCannon Jeffrey L. Poston CROWELL & MORING LLP [GN] KNOXVILLE TVA: Faces Etter Suit Over Unprotected Private Data ------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN ETTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNOXVILLE TVA EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00023 (E.D. Tenn., January 20, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data of Defendant Knoxville TVA Employees Credit Union's current and former customers. On August 14, 2025, Defendant Marquis identified suspicious activity on their network and later determined that it was the result of a cybersecurity incident. Despite the fact that Defendant Marquis became aware of the data breach on August 14, 2025, the Defendants waited until December 29, 2025--nearly five months after the data breach and well past the industry standard timeline--to inform the victims affiliate of the data breach via letter. The Defendants' delay in informing and failure to provide clear notice of the data breach even though Plaintiff and Class Members had their most personally identifiable information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, caused Plaintiff and Class Members to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, alleges the suit. Knoxville TVA Employees Credit Union is a Tennessee state-chartered credit union headquartered in Knoxville, TN, and has over 23 branches in East Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parkes Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com KRISTI NOEM: Chavez Second Bid for TRO OK'd ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GUADALUPE SIXTOS CHAVEZ; JUAN MANUEL HERNANDEZ DIAZ; and JESUS HERRERA TORRES, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo entered an order granting petitioners' second motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). (1) Respondents release Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Sixtos Chavez on the conditions set by order of the immigration judge on Dec. 31, 2025, including release on bond of $2,000, in the event that it was later determined that the immigration court had jurisdiction. (2) Respondents provide Petitioner Jesus Herrera Torres with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) and its associated regulations by Jan. 23, 2026. (3) The parties must submit a joint status report on Petitioners' detention status by Jan. 28, 2026. Given the final judgment entered in Maldonado Bautista, we conclude that Petitioners have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that they should be eligible for a bond hearing under section 1226(a) and therefore grant Petitioner's request for a TRO. The Petitioners Jose Guadalupe Sixtos Chavez and Jesus Herrera Torres2 are both currently detained at the Otay Mesa immigration detention center. Both Petitioners were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") agents on Aug. 22, 2025, in Pasadena, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W34zxz at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Student Does 1-6 v. Noem et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02998-KSH-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Hayden entered an order granting request for further extension to respond to class certification motion. The Defendant requested an additional three-week extension for Respondents' brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class. If granted, the brief will be due on Feb. 5, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ezidur at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John T. Stinson, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 401 Market Street, 4th Fl. Camden, NJ 08101 Telephone: (856) 757-5026 E-mail: john.stinson@usdoj.gov KRISTI NOEM: Rodriguez's Petition for Writ Of Habeas Corpus OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO SALAZAR RODRIGUEZ, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00176-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Rodriguez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court says that the United States has violated Rodriguez's due process rights. The Court grants Rodriguez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and orders the following: -- The United States is directed to release Petitioner Rodriguez immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of his due process rights. -- The United States must provide him with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. -- The United States must certify compliance with the Court's order by a filing on the docket by January 20, 2026 The Court finds that all three Matthews factors favor Rodriguez. The current detention of Rodriguez is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the INA. Rodriguez, who has been present in the United States for approximately 20 years, is not seeking "admission" into the United States, a fact acknowledged in his notice for appearance by the checking of the box for "present" and not for "arriving," as well as his arrest pursuant to the I-200 Warrant which authority arises out of Section 1226. Section 1226, not Section 1225, applies to his detention. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Zex3u at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS BRADSHAW, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; JAMES CLARK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS PETERS, in his individual and official capacity; THE LANDSKRONER LAW FIRM, LTD. dba LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC, a limited liability company; JACK LANDSKRONER, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J LIBMAN APC, a California Professional Corporation; MICHAEL J. LIBMAN, an individual; KIESEL LAW LLP, a California limited liability partnership; PAUL KIESEL, an individual; PARADISLAW GROUP PLLC, a New York Professional Service Limited Liability Company; PAUL PARADIS, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-06661-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on March 19, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., will move the Court for an order, dismissing with prejudice, and without leave to amend, the Plaintiff Dennis Bradshaw's fourth amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"). The Plaintiff filed his state law claims against them in the 4AC before timely complying with the procedural requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, which requires a claimant to first file a government tort claim with a public entity before bringing such claims against the public entity or its employees in a civil lawsuit. The Plaintiff did not file his tort claims directly with the City of Los Angeles or with Tom, Solomon, and Dorny, who are City employees, before bringing his civil claims in court. Thus, the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed on this basis alone. The Plaintiff's Non-Fraud Related Claims expired on July 1, 2021, and Plaintiff’s Fraud-Related Claims expired on July 1, 2023. However, the TAC -- naming Tom and Dorny as defendants for the first time -- was not filed until September 22, 2023 – beyond the one-year and three-year limitations periods identified above. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Although Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint against the City of Los Angeles and several other defendants in July 2019 -- almost six years ago -- he now amends his Complaint for the fourth time adding conclusory, unsupported, and time-barred claims against numerous attorneys that were employed with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, including defendants Richard Tom, Eskel Solomon, Deborah Dorny, and James Clark. The Plaintiff named Tom, Solomon, and Dorny as co-defendants for the first time in his Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed on September 22, 2023, asserting a single cause of action against them for violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ZHj71 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence Borys, Esq. Pascale Gagnon, Esq. Timothy J. Lepore, Esq. ROPERS MAJESKI PC 801 South Figueroa St, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 312-2000 Facsimile: (213) 312-2001 E-mail: lawrence.borys@ropers.com pascale.gagnon@ropers.com timothy.lepore@ropers.com - and - Christopher C. Cianci, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 351-4500 Facsimile: (212) 878-8600. - and - Brian S. Ginter, Esq. Charles E. Slyngstad, Esq. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP 44 South Flower Street 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2942 Telephone: (213) 236-0600 Facsimile: (213) 236-2700 - and - Cyril Yu, Esq. LOZANO SMITH One Capitol Mall Suite 640. Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 329-7433 LVMH MOET: Doan Sues Over Handbag's Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------- LEILANI DOAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON, INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00496 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2026) arises out of Defendant's deceptive advertising and marketing of its "Louis Vuitton Keepall Bandouliere 50" handbag. According to the complaint, LVMH Moet Hennessy misrepresents and falsely touts the value and composition of the handbag by displaying deceptive statements about the hand and consequently misleading consumers about the product's quality and benefits. Moreover, LVMH advertises the product as being leather, when it reality the product is not leather and is substantially comprised from non- leather materials, such as canvas. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants to seek reimbursement of the premium she and the Class Members paid due to LVMH's false and deceptive representations about the features and price of the product. Headquartered in New York, NY, LVMH advertises, sells, manufactures, mass markets, and distributes handbag and travel accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP PC 2219 Main Street, Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (747) 234-6673 Facsimile: (310) 868-0170 E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.com MDL 2951: March 5 Class Cert hearing Vacated 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 vacating the March 5, 2026, hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, pending the Court's forthcoming order on the pending motion for summary judgment. MDL 2951 is a U.S. federal Multidistrict Litigation consolidated in 2020 to centralize lawsuits against StubHub for issues with ticket refunds during the pandemic, with cases alleging failures to provide refunds for canceled events. The nature of suit states Torts --- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. StubHub is an online ticketing platform that allows individuals to buy and sell tickets to upcoming events and shows. Users can find tickets on StubHub for sporting events, concerts, comedy shows, festivals and more across the globe.[CC] MDL 3035: Russ Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (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 Russ 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. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BI51Mv 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 METALSA-ROANOKE INC: Eissens Sues Over Illegal Pay Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ TRESTON EISSENS, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METALSA-ROANOKE, INC., Defendant, Case No.7:26-cv-00054-RSB-CKM (W.D. Va., January 20, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant pursuant to the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Eissens worked for the Defendant as a line and machine operator from approximately May 2023 until March 2024. Throughout his employment, the Defendant classified Plaintiff as non-exempt and paid him by the hour. The Defendant subjected Plaintiff to its rounding policy and bonus pay scheme, which violated the VOWA and FLSA. The Defendant does not pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at the required premium overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Novi, MI, Metalsa-Roanoke, Inc. manufactures automotive components such as chassis structures for light and commercial vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com MILIANS A/C PARTS: Arencibia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Anniel Arencibia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MILIANS A/C PARTS INC. d/b/a MILIAN TRUCK CENTER, Case No. 8:26-cv-00060 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 9, 2026), is brought to remedy Defendant's failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation including, but not limited to, unpaid overtime compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Plaintiff, were employed by Defendant and were denied overtime pay required by federal wage and hour laws. During the applicable statutory period, Defendant willfully misclassified this group of employees (titled Warehouse Operators and Warehouse Helpers) as exempt from the overtime wages sections of the FLSA by labelling them as independent contractors. During the applicable statutory period, Defendant willfully refused to compensate each member of the class for all hours worked over 40 hours in any work week as required by federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Warehouse Operator during the 3 years from June 27, 2025 through October 28, 2025. MILIANS A/C PARTS INC. d/b/a MILIAN TRUCK CENTER is in the business of, but not limited to, the sale and assembly of truck parts and fluids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary L. Printy, Jr., Esq. THE PRINTY LAW FIRM 5407 N Florida Avenue Tampa, FL 33604 Phone (813) 434-0649 Fax: (813) 423-6543 Email: garyjr@printylawfirm.com e-service@printylawfirm.com MISSOURI: State Allowed to File Amicus Brief in Suit vs. MOHELA --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jennifer Joy and Misty Thomas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, d/b/a MOHELA, et al., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-CV-1590-ZMB, Judge Zachary M. Bluestone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Missouri's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of MOHELA's motion to dismiss and denied as moot Missouri's second motion to file amicus brief. Missouri argued that the State has a strong interest in the outcome of this litigation given that MOHELA is an instrumentality of Missouri and its participation as an amicus curiae will bring to this Court the State's categorical position on the issue of sovereign immunity; one the current parties are unable to provide. Plaintiffs argued that the information offered by the State of Missouri is neither timely nor useful and that the State of Missouri's proposed brief advocates solely for MOHELA. The Court found that Missouri's amici briefs notify the Court that Missouri intended MOHELA to function as an arm of the state. Courts frequently consider state intention when determining whether Eleventh Amendment immunity should apply to an entity. The Court found that neither Plaintiffs, nor MOHELA, can define Missouri's position on MOHELA's status. Only Missouri can. The Court rejected Plaintiff's argument regarding timeliness, noting that Missouri sought leave to file amici briefs in support of motions to dismiss that were still pending. The Court deemed the motions timely. The Court also found that Plaintiffs' argument fails because it does not credit Missouri's independent interest in the preservation of Eleventh Amendment immunity for what it believes to be its instrumentalities. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=veMxfu from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri is represented by: Jeffrey R. Fink Thompson Coburn Llp - St. Louis 314-552-6000 jfink@thompsoncoburn.com William R. Bay Thompson Coburn Llp - St. Louis 314-552-6008 wbay@thompsoncoburn.com Matthew D. Guletz Thompson Coburn Llp - St. Louis 314-552-6311 mguletz@thompsoncoburn.com Plaintiff Jennifer Joy is represented by: Amy Collignon Gunn The Simon Law Firm PC 314-241-2929 agunn@simonlawpc.com Joseph Kenney Sauder Schelkopf LLC 610-200-0583 jbk@sstriallawyers.com Plaintiff Misty Thomas is represented by: Amy Collignon Gunn The Simon Law Firm PC 314-241-2929 agunn@simonlawpc.com Joseph Kenney Sauder Schelkopf LLC 610-200-0583 jbk@sstriallawyers.com MITSUI OSK: CAT OKs GBP92.75MM Final Settlement in Cartel Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Rigby, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that a settlement has been agreed in the long-running Car Delivery Charges class action for claimants who paid higher shipping fees for newly purchased or leased vehicles due to a cartel. The agreed settlement, originally reached in December 2025, was approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal last week, following a hearing chaired by Bridget Lucas KC of Fountain Court. The total settlement value from the litigation was finalised at GBP92.75m. The case, which was brought by class representative Mark McLaren and originally valued at GBP150m, concerned artificially inflated shipping fees on 17 million new vehicles imported into the UK between 2006 and 2015. The case affected buyers of cars and vans manufactured by major carmakers including Ford, Vauxhall, Volkswagen, Peugeot, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, Citroën and Renault, none of whom were themselves involved in the cartel. The European Commission had earlier found the defendants liable in an infringement decision adopted in 2018 -- when the UK was still subject to EU law prior to Brexit in 2020 -- and fined the shipping firms EUR395m. These are the fourth and fifth settlements in the case, totalling GBP54m, following earlier settlements with 'K' Line (GBP12.75m), WWL/EUKOR (GBP24.5m) and CSAV (GBP1.5m) in January 2025 and December 2023. The remaining two defendants, MOL and NYK, were the last of the five shipping companies to settle, following a nine-week trial that began in January last year. McLaren, formerly of the consumers' association Which?, instructed Scott+Scott to bring the litigation. He said the settlement was "a historic outcome, as it will be the first time that both UK consumers and businesses will be entitled to compensation through the opt-out regime". He added the case demonstrated that settlements could be achieved under the UK's opt-out regime, which he said was "working exactly as intended." The settlement, he noted, provided claimants with "an effective and fair route" to recover compensation, adding that his priority was to maximise the take-up by all class members on distribution, via the Car Delivery Charges website. Cian Mansfield, managing partner at Scott+Scott, called the settlement "a landmark outcome", saying it highlighted "the importance of the opt-out regime in achieving access to justice for victims of anticompetitive conduct and in returning illegally earned profits to UK consumers and businesses". The class action was funded by Woodsford, a litigation funder. Its chief investment officer, Charlie Morris, said: "At a time when the Department for Business and Trade is reviewing the collective action regime, this action is the paradigm example of why the regime is so important. It has allowed thousands of UK consumers and businesses to receive meaningful compensation when they might not otherwise have been able to do so." He added: "Given that a significant proportion of these settlements is guaranteed to be paid to consumers, businesses and/or charity, this action can and should be recognised as a real success story." Scott+Scott instructed Sarah Ford KC and Sarah O'Keefe of Brick Court Chambers and Nicholas Gibson of Matrix Chambers, while MOL was defended by Arnold & Porter and NYK by Steptoe, which jointly instructed Brendan McGurk KC and Natalie Nguyen of Monckton Chambers. [GN] MODERNIZE INC: Wilson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Wilson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MODERNIZE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00054 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 12, 2026), is brought obtaining to redress for the Defendant's illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") and the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case involves a campaign by the Defendant to generate new customers for its home improvement referral business through the use of telemarketing, despite not having the requisite consent to contact those individuals who, like the Plaintiff, were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Because telemarketing campaigns use technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, Plaintiff sues on behalf of proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls. The Plaintiff has never been a customer of Defendant. The Plaintiff never consented to receive telemarketing calls from Defendant. Despite this, Plaintiff received multiple telemarketing calls from Defendant in November and December 2025, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received telemarketing calls from the Defendant. The Defendant is headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, Pennsylvania 19038 Phone: 215-225-5529 Facsimile: 888-329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com MONROE UNIVERSITY: Rochet Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as Katerin Rochet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 800573/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Jan. 11, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Data Breach). Monroe University -- https://www.monroeu.edu/ -- is a New York-based college with campuses in the Bronx, New Rochelle, & St. Lucia.[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 MONSANTO COMPANY: Carey Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Carey, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-251 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: Eilts Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Eilts, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-252 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 NATERA PRENATAL: Agrees to Settle Prenatal Testing Suit for $8.25MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Natera has agreed to an $8,250,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the genetic testing company manufactured and sold unreliable prenatal tests and misrepresented the products' accuracy to consumers. The Natera prenatal testing class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 8, 2025 and covers all individuals in the United States who paid out of pocket, including a co-pay, co-insurance or deductible, for a Natera noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT), sold under the Panorama or Vasistera brands, in the following states and between the following dates: -- Ohio-February 17, 2016 through August 7, 2025; -- New Jersey-May 5, 2016 through August 7, 2025; -- Florida-February 24, 2017 through August 7, 2025; -- New York and Illinois-April 27, 2017 through August 7, 2025; and -- All other states-February 17, 2018 through August 7, 2025. The court-approved website for the Natera settlement can be found at NateraNIPTSettlement.com/. The class action settlement does not cover consumers whose Natera prenatal screening tests were paid for entirely by insurance or another third-party source. According to the website, Natera settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. All Natera class members with a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $30 with no proof of purchase required. This payment, the agreement stipulates, may become pro-rated depending on the total number of valid claims filed for all settlement benefits and how much remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of the cost of attorneys' fees, lead plaintiff service awards and settlement administration costs. The settlement site notes that Natera class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of purchase of a Natera NIPT are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to 10 percent of the total cost of purchase if the out-of-pocket costs were greater than $300. This payment may also become prorated, the agreement adds. Class members may elect to receive their Natera payout via check or electronic payment, the website relays. As part of the class action settlement, Natera has also agreed to add an italicized disclosure on its website to inform consumers that prenatal tests cannot determine with certainty the genetic conditions of a fetus, and that high-risk results need diagnostic confirmation from a healthcare provider. To submit a Natera prenatal testing settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as provided on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the class action settlement website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the second page of the document. Consumers who believe they may be a Natera settlement class members but did not receive notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and obtain their login information. All Natera settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by March 23, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Natera settlement at a hearing on April 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Natera class action lawsuit alleged that the women's genetic testing company produced and sold prenatal tests that it knew -- or was reckless in not knowing -- could not reliably assess whether a fetus has certain genetic disorders and failed to give consumers proper notice that its NIPTs were allegedly susceptible to false, inconsistent results. [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $303M Deal Final Court Hearing Set May 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- The following is being released by A.B. Data, Ltd., the Notice Administrator for the Ray v. NCAA class action lawsuit. Legal Notice Did You Work as a Volunteer Coach in an NCAA Division I Athletics Program in a Sport Other Than Baseball Between March 17, 2019 and June 30, 2023? You Could Get Money from a $303 Million Settlement. There is a proposed settlement with National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") in a class action antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of former "volunteer" coaches in NCAA Division I sports other than baseball. This court-ordered notice may affect your rights. Please review and follow the instructions carefully. What is this case about? The lawsuit claims that NCAA Bylaws that prohibited schools from paying wages, salaries, or benefits to Division I coaches who were designated as "volunteer coaches" violated the federal antitrust laws. This rule, officially found at NCAA Bylaw 11.7.6, was in effect from 1992 until July 1, 2023. Five former Division I volunteer coaches ("Plaintiffs") prosecuted this lawsuit on behalf of the Class. NCAA denies it did anything wrong. The Court has not decided whether the Plaintiffs or NCAA are correct about whether NCAA violated the law. But litigation involves risks to both sides, and therefore Plaintiffs and NCAA have agreed to the Settlement to resolve the case and get benefits to the Class. Who is included? Generally, you are included in the Settlement if you are a person who, for any period of time between March 17, 2019, and June 30, 2023, worked for a NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of "volunteer coach," as designated by NCAA Bylaws. What does the Settlement provide? NCAA will pay $303,000,000 into a Settlement Fund, making three equal payments over two calendar years, to resolve all claims against it in this lawsuit. If you submit a valid Claim, you will receive a share of this money, also in three payments over two calendar years. If the Court approves this Settlement, the following amounts will be deducted from the Settlement Fund: (i) any Court-awarded attorney's fees (up to 30% of the Settlement Fund) and costs and expenses (up to $5 million); (ii) any Court-awarded service awards for the five Class Representatives/named Plaintiffs (up to $25,000 each); and (iii) the fees and expenses for Settlement administration. The minimum amount to be paid (before fees and costs) per Class Member who files a valid claim will be $5,000. How do I get a payment? If you are a Class Member (and do not exclude yourself), you must submit a claim form online or by mail (postmarked) no later than June 2, 2026 to receive your share of money from the Net Settlement Fund. Claim Forms are available on the Settlement website (www.NCAAVolunteerCoachLawsuit.com), by calling 1-877-390-3148, or emailing info@ncaavolunteercoachlawsuit.com. If your claim is valid, you will get a payment from the net Settlement Fund. Your payment amount will depend on the school, sport, and year(s) in which you worked, the number of valid claims, the wages of the lowest paid coach on your team, the amount of court-approved deductions, and other factors. What are my rights? If you do nothing or if you participate in the Settlement, you will be bound by the Court's decisions and cannot sue NCAA or any Released Defendant Parties yourself for the Released Claims (defined in the Settlement Agreement). If you want to keep your right to sue NCAA or any Released Defendant Parties yourself for the Released Claims, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement by March 21, 2026. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment from the Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the requests for attorney's fees, expenses, and service awards by March 21, 2026. Please visit www.NCAAVolunteerCoachLawsuit.com for more information about how to file a claim, exclude yourself, or object. The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Ray v. NCAA, No. 1:23-cv-00425) on May 11, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. PT to consider whether it will approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or requests for attorney's fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards for the class representatives. You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense. This Notice is only a summary. For more information, including the full Notice and Settlement Agreement, visitwww.NCAAVolunteerCoachLawsuit.com, emailinfo@ncaavolunteercoachlawsuit.com, or call 877-390-3148. Class Members should continue to review the settlement website for important updates about the Settlement and the litigation. Source: A.B. Data, Ltd. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260115698998/en/ CONTACT: info@NCAAVolunteerCoachLawsuit.com (877) 390-3148 [GN] NEBRASKA: Wins Bid to Dismiss Inmates' Law Library Access Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kevin G. Smith, on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Rob Jeffreys, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Director; Steve Fannon, The Work Ethic Camp Warden; and Dawn Sheaffer, The Work Ethic Camp Staff Worker, Defendants, 8:25CV389 (D. Neb.), Senior United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff alleged that he submitted many kite requests to Sheaffer for law library access, but she often failed to schedule Plaintiff for the library because she would take the rest of days off early or express she forgot or got too busy. The Plaintiff further alleged that he submitted numerous kite requests and grievances to Fannon regarding his needs and requests to access the law library, but Fannon failed to instruct, direct, or otherwise implore Sheaffer to provide Plaintiff legal access to Work Ethic Camp law library via sufficient means more than once a week and one hour a day. As a result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff alleged that his only injury amounted to emotional distress tantamount to psychological shocking Plaintiff's conscience. For relief, Plaintiff sought an order declaring Defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying access to the Work Ethic Camp law library and that such violations constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and Plaintiff also requested $1,000,000.00 in damages. The Court noted that it is well established that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. To prevail on an access to courts claim, a prisoner must establish that he sustained an actual injury. To demonstrate actual injury, the prisoner must show that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded. In addition, privileged prisoner mail, that is mail to or from an inmate's attorney and identified as such, may not be opened for inspections for contraband except in the presence of the prisoner. However, an isolated incident, without any evidence of improper motive or resulting interference with the inmate's right to counsel or to access to the courts, does not give rise to a constitutional violation. The Court found that Plaintiff alleged no facts to suggest he sustained any actual injury as a result of Defendants' denial of his access to the Work Ethic Camp law library or the mishandling of his legal mail. Indeed, Plaintiff affirmatively alleged that his only injury amounted to emotional distress, and he did not suggest that he was prevented from presenting any nonfrivolous claim to the courts as a result of Defendants' conduct. The Court noted that the records in Plaintiff's two cases pending at the time of his confinement in the Work Ethic Camp demonstrated that Plaintiff did not suffer any actual injury. The Court's records in Case No. 8:23-cv-156 showed that Plaintiff was able to file an amended complaint, motion for counsel, and offer of proof in the timeframe between his placement at the Work Ethic Camp in early March 2025 and the filing of his present Complaint on June 11, 2025, as well as a timely second amended complaint and reasserted motion for counsel on August 18, 2025. A review of Plaintiff's Nebraska state appellate court records likewise showed that he did not suffer any prejudice with respect to the prosecution of his postconviction appeal between March 2025 and the appeal's final disposition on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff also did not allege facts showing that he suffered any actual injury as a result of Defendants' denial of his requests for access to the Work Ethic Camp law library beyond the established once a week and one hour a day allotment, particularly where access to a law library is not necessarily required to provide meaningful access to the courts. Nor did Plaintiff allege that he suffered an actual injury as a result of the Work Ethic Camp mailroom staff's deficient handling of his legal mail or their haphazard opening of his legal mail more than once outside his presence. Thus, Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a plausible access to courts claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff also appeared to assert claims under a Nebraska state statute and the Nebraska Constitution. The Court noted that Plaintiff's state law claims could only be litigated in this action through exercise of the Court's supplemental jurisdiction. However, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case because Plaintiff's federal claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The Court found that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief and was therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2). The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice because the Court found that further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the Court ordered that this matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Court would enter a separate judgment. A copy of the Court's order dated 15th January is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JuRkMr from PacerMonitor.com NORTHEAST REHABILITATION: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $1.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Northeast Rehabilitation Hospital Network has agreed to a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a data breach discovered in May 2024 that allegedly compromised the private information of patients and employees of the healthcare providers' private information. The Northwest Rehabilitation data breach settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 19, 2025 and covers all individuals in the United States whose private information may have been compromised in the data breach discovered by the hospital network in May 2024. Settlement documents indicate that approximately 148,515 people may have been impacted by the breach. The court-approved website for the Northeast Rehabilitation Hospital Network settlement can be found at NortheastRehabHospitalSettlement.com. Settlement documents state that Northeast Rehabilitation settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form may choose one of two cash payment options. Class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket, unreimbursed losses incurred because of the data breach are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The settlement website relays that this payment, referred to as "Cash Payment A" in all court documents, covers losses from identity theft or fraud, fees for credit reports and monitoring, cost to replace IDs, and postage. In place of documented losses, class members may alternatively file a claim to receive a one-time, pro-rated alternative cash payment of approximately $75, referred to in court documents as "Cash Payment B." Importantly, the settlement agreement notes that no proof is needed to claim an alternative cash payment, which will be distributed from the net settlement fund after all settlement administrative costs, attorneys' fees and lead plaintiff service awards have been paid. Additionally, settlement documents state that Northeast Rehabilitation has agreed to implement enhanced security measures to its computer systems to mitigate the risk of a future data breach. To submit a Northeast Rehabilitation claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement website to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Northeast Rehabilitation claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by February 17, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Northeast Rehabilitation data breach settlement at a hearing on March 2, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Northeast Rehabilitation class action lawsuit claimed that the rehabilitative care provider failed to protect the employee and patient information stored on its network, resulting in the data breach discovered around May 22, 2024. According to court documents, the private information potentially accessed during the cyberattack included names, medical histories and treatments, patient account numbers, medical billing and claims information, health insurance details, Social Security numbers, credit card information, bank account and routing numbers, and other sensitive data. [GN] ONESTA IP: Appeals TRO Extension Order in BMW Suit to Federal Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ONESTA IP, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order extending the temporary restraining order (TRO) in the lawsuit entitled Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Onesta IP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00581-ADA, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a complaint against Onesta IP, LLC for declaratory judgment of patent misuse, noninfringement, and invalidity. On Dec. 15, 2025, BMW filed a motion for temporary restraining order and anti-suit injunction, which Judge Alan D. Albright granted on Dec. 16, 2025. On Dec. 30, 2025, Judge Albright entered an Order extending the TRO. The Court finds that the status quo should be maintained pending the Court's evaluation of, and ruling on, an anti-suit injunction. The Court finds a substantial risk of irreparable harm to BMW, and to the jurisdiction of this Court, if Onesta IP, LLC were to attempt to enforce or pursue an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) against BMW in Munich Regional Court I. Accordingly, the TRO is extended until January 13, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Onesta IP, LLC, Case No. 26-1338, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on January 13, 2026. [BN] OREGON HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Discrimination Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oregon Health & Science University Communications reports that OHSU leaders have decided to settle a class action lawsuit filed in 2021 that alleged OHSU violated anti-discrimination laws by disproportionately disciplining people of color over their white counterparts. This settlement was reached because neither party felt that continuing to pursue this suit was a productive use of time or resources, and both parties acknowledge that OHSU has made significant structural and financial investments in Human Resources since the time period at issue in this lawsuit. OHSU is deeply committed to our people, and to our priorities around equity and inclusion, and will continue to invest in our processes, guidelines and policies to support them. [GN] PAMELA BONDI: Plaintiff Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.T., et al., v. PAMELA BONDI, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00116-EGS (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a one-week extension of time to file reply in support of the motion for class certification from Jan. 23, 2025, to Jan. 30, 2025. A one-week extension of that deadline is necessary due to significant other commitments and deadlines among Plaintiffs’ counsel this week, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiffs intend to file their reply in support of their pending motion for leave to file a second amended complaint by the current deadline of January 23, 2025. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants and the latter stated that Defendants do not oppose this motion for extension. Pamela Bondi is an American attorney and politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hcBdCh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Natalie Behr, Esq. Morgan Russell, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org irp_nbehr@aclu.org mrussell@aclu.org - and - Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, D.C. 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Keren Zwick, Esq. Mary Georgevich, Esq. Gerardo Romo, Esq. Mark Fleming, Esq. Charles G. Roth, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1370 E-mail: kzwick@immigrantjustice.org mgeorgevich@immigrantjustice.org gromo@immigrantjustice.org mfleming@immigrantjustice.org croth@immigrantjustice.org - and - Melissa Crow, Esq. Blaine Bookey, Esq. Peter Habib, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 900, PMB 228 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 355-4471 E-mail: crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu bookeybl@uclawsf.edu habibpeter@uclawsf.edu - and - Anwen Hughes, Esq. Inyoung Hwang, Esq. HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 121 W. 36TH ST., PMB 520 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (202) 547-5692 E-mail: hughesa@humanrightsfirst.org hwangs@humanrightsfirst.org PARTICLE FOR MEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Rice Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS RICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Particle For Men LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00084 (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://www.particleformen.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 beard oil 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. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Rice. 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. Plaintiff Lucas Rice is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Particle For Men 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 men's grooming and personal care products, including face creams, cleansers, masks, sunscreen, neck and scar care products, strengthening shampoos, shaving gel, body wash, deodorant, and cologne.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PEAK NDT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rains Alleges -------------------------------------------------- RANDON RAINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEAK NDT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00092 (W.D. La., Jan. 12, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rains was employed by the Defendants as an inspector. Peak NDT Solutions, LLC is a technology company specialising in the development, production and support of multichannel and phased array ultrasound controllers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick G. Earles, Esq. LABORDE EARLES LAW FIRM 1901 Kaliste Saloom Road P.O. Box 80098 Lafayette, LA 70598-0098 Telephone: (337) 261-2617 Facsimile: (337) 261-1934 Email: digger@onmyside.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com PENUMBRA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Boston Scientific ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN) related to its sale to Boston Scientific Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Penumbra shareholders are expected to receive 3.8721 shares of Boston Scientific common stock or $374.00 in cash for each share of Penumbra common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/penumbra-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- DigitalBridge Group, Inc. (NYSE: DBRG) related to its sale to SoftBank Group Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, DigitalBridge shareholders are expected to receive $16.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/digitalbridge-group-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Flushing Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: FFIC) related to its sale to OceanFirst Financial Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Flushing shareholders are expected to receive 0.85 of a share of OceanFirst common stock for each share of Flushing common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/flushing-financial-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Exact Sciences Corporation (NASDAQ: EXAS) related to its sale to Abbott Laboratories. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Exact Sciences shareholders are expected to receive $105.00 per common share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 20, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/exact-sciences-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Class Cert. Bid Continued to April 2 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gibson v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04529 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued to April 2, 2026. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Diversity-(Citizenship). Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health care in the United States and globally.[CC] QUANOVATE TECH: Doe Sues Over Personal Injury Claims in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quanovate Tech Inc. The case is captioned as JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUANOVATE TECH INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-12201-PA-PD (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2025). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Quanovate Tech Inc. is a health technology company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM PC 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 471-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI AND KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com RUNNING SUPPLY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Running Supply, Inc. d/b/a Runnings, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00473-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., January 20, 2026) alleges violations of the the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has engaged in unfair discriminatory practices against Plaintiff and others in that it has failed to ensure that Defendant's website and online content is fully accessible to persons with disabilities on an independent and equal basis. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Headquartered in Marshall, MN, Running Supply, Inc. offers farm and ranch supplies for sale, including equipment, tools, clothing, pet supplies, sporting goods, household supplies, automotive goods, and more. The company owns and operates the website, www.runnings.com. [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 SADLER HEALTHCARE: Faces Fletcher Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sadler Healthcare, Inc. The case is captioned as JALEESA M. FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SADLER HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 25STCV38035 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 23, 2025). The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. Sadler Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justen A. Lipeles, Esq. 1060 Aviation Blvd., Suite 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 322-2211 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION: Ravenell Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- KANYA RAVENELL, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1-10, Case No. 8:26-cv-00149 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants under Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft Act. Defendant Shimmick employed Ravenell as one of its Straight Time Employees. The Defendant pays Ravenell and the other Straight Time Employees by the hour. The Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Shimmick does not pay Ravenell and the other Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, Shimmick pays Ravenell and the other Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those hours worked after 40 in a workweek. Indeed, Shimmick uniformly misclassified Ravenell and its other Straight Time Employees as exempt from overtime. But Shimmick never paid Ravenell and its other Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis" as would be required for any relevant overtime exemption Shimmick might claim with respect to these employees, the suit says. Shimmick is engaged in heavy civil construction business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Franklin, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: lfranklin@mybackwages.com SKY 26: Hippe Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sky 26 Enterprise Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00085 (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://www.allurez.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hippe and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. According to the complaint, Hippe browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a bracelet 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 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. Plaintiff Xinyue Hippe is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Sky 26 Enterprise Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase rings, wedding bands, earrings, necklaces, bracelets, men's jewelry, watches, and custom-designed pieces.[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 SNAP INC: $65MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 23 -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION KELLIE BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SNAP INC., EVAN SPIEGEL, and JEREMI GORMAN, Defendants. No. 2:21-cv-08892-GW (RAO) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SNAP INC. ("SNAP" OR THE "COMPANY") PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OR CALL OPTIONS, OR SOLD SNAP PUT OPTIONS, BETWEEN FEBRUARY 5, 2021 AND OCTOBER 21, 2021, INCLUSIVE, (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action"), a settlement has been proposed for $65,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on April 23, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., before the Honorable George H. Wu, at the United States District Court, Central District of California, First Street U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 9D – 9th Floor, 350 W 1st Street, Suite 4311, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4565, for the purpose of determining whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; (iii) the application of Plaintiff's Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, and award to Lead Plaintiff should be granted; and (iv) the judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice (the "Settlement Hearing"). The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing without further written notice of any kind to the Settlement Class. Settlement Class Members should check the Court's PACER site or the Settlement Website, www.SnapSecuritiesSettlement.com. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person, telephonic, or video conference appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement Website. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. You may obtain a copy of the Stipulation, the long form Notice, and the Proof of Claim and Release form at www.SnapSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator: Snap Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173101, Milwaukee, WI 53217; (877) 777-9249. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release online or by mail postmarked by May 6, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any Judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein). To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion such that it is received by March 26, 2026, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any Judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court by March 26, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel at the following addresses or by calling (877) 777-9249: Snap Securities Litigation Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173101 Milwaukee, WI 53217 www.SnapSecuritiesSettlement.com info@SnapSecuritiesSettlement.com SAXENA WHITE P.A. c/o LESTER R. HOOKER 7777 Glades Road Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 lhooker@saxenawhite.com DATED: JANUARY 21, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ST. MORITZ SECURITY: Hall Seeks Proper Wages for Security Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD HALL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. MORITZ SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00104 (W.D. Pa., January 20, 2026) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a security employee from approximately September 2025 to January 2026. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated security employees worked more than 40 hours per workweek for Defendant. However, the Defendant does not pay them one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all overtime hours worked as required by law, says the suit. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, Moritz Security Services, Inc. provides security services to its clients throughout the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com STORR OFFICE: "Allen" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Gregory Allen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Storr Office Environments, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00713-D-RN (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Dever III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which involves a data breach discovered by Storr in May 2024. The Settlement Class is defined as all individuals residing in the United States whose Personal Information was potentially compromised in the Data Incident discovered by Storr in May 2024, including all those who were sent notice of the breach. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the judges presiding over this Action and members of their direct families, Defendant and its related entities, and Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. The Court appointed Plaintiff Gregory Allen as the Settlement Class Representative and Cassandra P. Miller of Strauss Borrelli PLLC as Class Counsel. The Court appointed Analytics Consulting, LLC as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and settlement administration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p0FaKp from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Storr Office Environments, Inc., is represented by: Donavan John Hylarides Craige Jenkins Liipfert & Walker LLP 336-917-3243 dhylarides@craigejenkins.com Matthew Reid Mullen Coughlin LLC 267-326-3120 mreid@mullen.law Michael William Jervis Mullen Coughlin LLC 267-930-4498 mjervis@mullen.law Plaintiff Gregory Allen is represented by: Joel R. Rhine Rhine Martin Law Firm, P.C. 910-772-9960 jrr@rhinelawfirm.com SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Pardo Sues Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and ABS MART INC D/B/A EXXON #152, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20214-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 13, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. The subject commercial property and gas station, food mart and cafeteria are open to the public and is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property and gas station, food mart and cafeteria regularly, to include visits to the commercial property and business located within the property on August 29, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. Specifically, he encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property gas station, and food mart business located within the commercial property: there are accessible parking spaces located on an excessive slope; he had difficulty traversing the path of travel, as it was not continuous and accessible; he had difficulty traversing the path of travel due to abrupt changes in level; he had difficulty entering the store without assistance, as the required maneuvering clearance is not provided; restroom signage is not mounted at the required location; he could not enter the restroom without assistance, as the required maneuvering clearance is not provided on the push side; he was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard because the lavatory pipes are not wrapped; he could not use the lavatory without assistance, as it is mounted too high; he could not use the mirror, as it is mounted too high; and he could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the grab bars are not the required length and the rear grab bar is not mounted at the required height, relates the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation and/or commercial facility. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. owned and managed a commercial property at 13695 SW 42nd Street, Miami, Florida 33175 (hereinafter the "commercial property") and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant, ABS MART, INC. D/B/A EXXON #152, owned and operated a commercial gas station, food mart and cafeteria at 13695 SW 42nd Street, Miami, Florida 33175 (hereinafter the "commercial gas station" or "gas station, food mart and cafeteria"), which is located within Co-Defendant, SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.'s, commercial property, 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 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Bid to Block Doc Production in "Burge" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Dena Burge, Leigh Hockett, Jordan Furlan, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Cristine Ridey, and Patricia Sawczuk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-2501-DDC-TJJ, Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas overruled the Defendant's objection to a magistrate judge's order compelling production of documents under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege. United States Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James conducted an in camera review of documents that, according to Plaintiffs, Defendant improperly withheld as privileged. Judge James concluded that some of those documents are not privileged because the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applies. She ordered Defendant to produce the unredacted documents. Defendant objected to Judge James's Order. Plaintiff took issue with Defendant's privilege log and moved to compel production of some privilege-log entries under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff argued that Defendant used attorneys to facilitate statutory antitrust violations as well as to fraudulently conceal those violations, obscuring from the public and regulators that the two settlements were actually one settlement. Judge James concluded that Plaintiff properly could use Defendant's alleged fraudulent concealment as a basis to apply the crime-fraud exception. She concluded that fraudulent concealment and deceitful conduct by Defendant preventing Plaintiff from asserting their claims in a timely fashion could constitute an eligible fraud to invoke the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege. Judge James reviewed the disputed privilege log entries and sorted them into three categories: (1) Emails regarding negotiation of the EpiPen patent litigation settlement with Mylan and Pfizer and the Nuvigil patent settlement with Mylan; (2) Emails regarding public statements concerning the EpiPen and/or Nuvigil patent litigation settlements; and (3) Emails regarding communication with the FTC concerning the settlements. Judge James reviewed the documents in camera and found some but not all, of the redacted communications between Defendant and their attorneys to be probative of the specific allegations of active and intentional fraudulent concealment by Defendant with the participation of their attorneys. She ordered Defendant to produce those communications, unredacted, to Plaintiff. Defendant objected, arguing that Judge James acted contrary to law by compelling Defendant to produce documents based on the too-forgiving legal standard of mere relevance to Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment theory. The Court concluded that Judge James's legal standard matches the standard articulated by the Tenth Circuit. She carefully recited Plaintiff's specific allegations of Defendant's alleged acts of fraudulent concealment: two April 2012 press releases about litigation settlements; a May 2012 report to the Department of Justice reporting the settlements as unrelated; and allegations of a plot to conceal the actual settlement documents by announcing the two settlements separately. Judge James looked for something to give color to the charge or prima facie evidence that Plaintiff's claims of fraudulent concealment have some foundation in fact. Accordingly, the Court overruled Defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge James's Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5KjuGy from PacerMonitor.com TEXANA BANK: Faces Ameer Suit Over Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMI AMEER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXANA BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00065-P (N.D. Tex., January 20, 2026), seeks to recover damages other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rami Ameer worked as a loan officer for Defendant from on or about March 2024 through on or about May 2024 in an office space located in Bigham Farms, Michigan. Allegedly, the Defendant did not classify Plaintiff Ameer and others similarly situated LOs as being exempt from overtime under either the executive, administrative or professional exemptions to overtime pay under the FLSA. However, the Defendant failed to compensate LOs such as Plaintiff Ameer and others similarly situated based on hours worked in a workweek, failed to compensate said employees their mandatory minimum wage as required under their respective state laws or the federal law, and failed to compensate said employees at one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Keller, Tarrant County, Texas, Texana Bank offers mortgage loans and other financial products in multiple states, including Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com TEXAS: Shull Appeals Court Order in FLSA Suit to 5th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER SHULL is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Shull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cecile Erwin Young, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00220, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is entitled Shull v. Young, Case No. 26-40039, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on January 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER SHULL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Defendants-Appellees CECILE ERWIN YOUNG, et al. are represented by: Melissa Hostick, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 209 W. 14th Street Price Daniels Senior Building Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 475-4117 THAVMA ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over ADA Breach ---------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. THAVMA ENTERPRISES, INC., SUBBAY 17050 INC D/B/A SUBWAY and CHEF CHUNG, INC. D/B/A HAPPY HOUSE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20230-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He also has a great deal of trouble walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. The subject commercial property and the commercial businesses located therein are open to the public, and Defendant, THAVMA ENTERPRISES, INC.'s, commercial plaza itself contains a myriad of different businesses that each (including restaurants respectively owned and operated by Co-Defendants, SUBBAY 17050, INC. D/B/A SUBWAY and CHEF CHUNG, INC. D/B/A HAPPY HOUSE that pay Defendant, THAVMA ENTERPRISES, INC. rent and are all located in Miami-Dade County, Florida). The Plaintiff alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and restaurant businesses that are in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza property, and restaurant businesses have each denied or diminished his ability to visit the commercial property and restaurant businesses therein and likewise endangered his safety. The barriers to access have accordingly posed a risk of injuries, embarrassment, and discomfort to him and others similarly situated, adds the complaint. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant THAVMA ENTERPRISES, INC. owned and operated a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza located at the following address: 28720 S. Dixie Highway, Homestead, Florida, 330331 (hereinafter "commercial property" or "commercial plaza property"). Defendant SUBBAY 17050, INC. D/B/A SUBWAY owned and operated a commercial restaurant business at 28720 S. Dixie Highway, Homestead, Florida, 33033 (hereinafter the "commercial restaurant") and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Homestead, Florida. Defendant, CHEF CHUNG, INC. D/B/A HAPPY HOUSE, owned and operated a commercial grocery store at 28708 S. Dixie Highway, Homestead, Florida, 33033 (hereinafter the "commercial restaurant") and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Homestead, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Homestead, 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 TINDER INC: $60.5-Mil. Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set May 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Tinder has agreed to a $60.5 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the dating app unlawfully charged subscribers age 30 and over more for advanced features than younger users. The Tinder class action settlement received preliminary court approval on January 13, 2026. The deal covers anyone who purchased Tinder Plus or Tinder Gold in California on or after March 2, 2015 when they were over the age of 29, or at any time after March 2, 2016 when they were over the age of 28. Approximately 268,000 California users are covered by the Tinder settlement, court documents state. Tinder settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive two one-time cash payments. According to court documents, class members covered under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act will receive a share of the class action settlement equal to 70 percent of the net settlement fund divided by the total number of class members. Per court documents, consumers covered under California's Unfair Competition Law will receive a share of the deal equal to 30 percent of the net settlement fund multiplied by an amount calculated by dividing each individual's total amount paid, or by dividing the average total amount paid by the class-wide total amount paid. Distribution of cash payments to settlement class members will be automatic if the settlement administrator has a valid class member email address or phone number that matches an available third-party payment platform (i.e., PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, or other payment accounts). If a class member does not have an available payment account, the settlement administrator will mail them a check. Settlement class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive a cash payout from the Tinder settlement; however, they must select their preferred payment method from the settlement site. Case documents note that while the settlement administrator will attempt to honor class members' preferred payment methods, payment distribution is at the sole discretion of the settlement administrator. Should any portion of the settlement fund remain after all payments have been distributed, the remainder will be given as a cy pres donation, court documents add. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Tinder age discrimination settlement at a hearing on May 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval is given and any appeals are resolved. The Tinder age discrimination class action lawsuit claimed that the popular dating app charged older users more than younger users for premium subscription services, such as Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. [GN] TNL 202 LLC: Cheli Sues Over Facilities' Non-Compliance With ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an individual, Plaintiff v. TNL 202 LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, & OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, & CARRABBA'S ITALIAN GRILL, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00637 (D.N.J., January 20, 2026) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of their property, as prohibited by the ADA. The Defendants' property have several architectural barriers including accessible parking spaces and a wheelchair maneuvering space in their restrooms, says the suit. TNL 202 LLC, owns a commercial property where Outback Steakhouse and Carrabba's Italian Grill restaurants are located. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Ave Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com TRUIST BANK: Faces Ochar Class Action Suit Over Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- WILSON OCHAR, Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUIST BANK, Case No. 1:26-cv-00193-LMB-LRV (E.D. Va., Jan. 21, 2026) is this class action complaint concerning Truist Bank's unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practice of assessing multiple Overdraft Fees on checking accounts for a single negative balance event, which is routinely caused not by a lack of customer funds, but by the non-transparent internal processing of the Bank's own prior-period service fees. Accordingly, the Defendant assessed two $36 OD Fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds, a. Executing unauthorized force nay debit memos that withdraw funds without customer consent, exacerbating financial harm through improper offsets. b. In the first practice, the defendant assessed two $36 overdraft fees (OD Fees) on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds, breaching its promise to decline overdrafts for accounts without Overdraft Privilege. c. In the second practice, on January 13. 2026. the defendant executed an unauthorized "FORCE PAY DEBIT MEMO -- REG Offset" for $161.02 from the plaintiffs account, without prior notice, authorization, or justification, directly violating federal and state laws governing electronic fund transfers. The Plaintiff contends that the practice breaches the Defendant's contractual promise to either decline transactions that would overdraw the account (given the checking account status without Overdraft Privilege) or to assess fees only when a legitimate overdraft event, not an internal processing error, occurs. This violates the Defendant's adhesion contract, which includes the Truist Online and Mobile Banking for Business Service Agreement (effective as of April 1, /2025) and any related Overdraft Opt-In Form or disclosures. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated business customers have been injured by the Defendant's improper fee maximization practices, the suit says. Truist Bank, is a national banking association with its principal place of business in 214 N. Tryon St. in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist Bank operates numerous branches in the Eastern District of Virginia and is the institution responsible for the challenged banking practices and fee assessments including the plaintiff and members of the Class, in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Wilson Ochar 928 Manor Rd Apt 202 Alexandria, VA 22305 Telephone: (703) 795-6182 Email:wilson.ochar@gmail.com TWITTER INC: Elon Musk Wins Bid to Junk "Woodfield" Layoff Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Chris Woodfield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Twitter, Inc., X Corp., X Holdings I, Inc., X Holding Corp., and Elon Musk, Defendants, C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00780-TMH (D. Del.), Circuit Judge Hughes of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendant Elon Musk's motion to dismiss all claims asserted against him in his individual capacity. On July 18, 2023, plaintiff Chris Woodfield filed a class action complaint against various defendants, including Twitter, Inc.; X Corp.; X Holdings I, Inc.; X Holding Corp.; and Elon Musk. Pending was defendant Elon Musk's motion to dismiss all claims asserted against him in his individual capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 1367. Chris Woodfield is a former long-time Twitter employee and resident of Washington state. He was employed by Twitter twice—most recently from May 2020 through his termination in January 2023. Defendant X Corp. is a Nevada corporation created from the merger of Twitter and X Holdings I—both Delaware corporations. Defendant Elon Musk is a Texas resident. The complaint is a putative class action alleging nine claims against various combinations of defendants, all arising out of employee layoffs following the Twitter Merger in April 2022. Counts VI (fraud) and IX (wage theft) are the only claims asserted against Mr. Musk individually and are the sole subject of this opinion. The complaint mirrors in relevant part the complaint in Arnold v. X Corp., also before this court, which asserted nearly identical fraud and wage theft claims against Mr. Musk based on the same underlying facts. The court dismissed all claims against Mr. Musk in Arnold on September 29, 2025. Regarding derivative liability, Mr. Woodfield's complaint includes a section entitled Veil Piercing Allegations, which claims Mr. Musk can be held personally liable for any amounts awarded on the claims alleged herein. The court concluded Mr. Woodfield has not plausibly alleged Mr. Musk is the alter ego of any of the corporate defendants. Thus, to the extent Mr. Woodfield's fraud or wage theft claims against Mr. Musk are based on a derivative liability theory, they were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). According to the Court "Regarding the fraud claim, Mr. Woodfield's complaint asserts a common law fraud claim. He asserts on information and belief that Mr. Musk ratified the Merger Agreement, never intended the Merger Agreement to provide the protections Twitter claimed, and personally approved many of Twitter's related communications under the belief the Merger Agreement did not actually offer the protections to employees that were described. However, these allegations are either contradicted by the text of the Merger Agreement or are conclusory and devoid of the specific facts required to meet Rule 9's heightened pleading standard. Mr. Musk is not a party to the relevant portion of the Merger agreement, and Mr. Woodfield does not plead any concrete facts to support his claim that Mr. Musk had anything to do with Section 6.9's purported promise regarding severance benefits or any related communications. The court concluded Mr. Woodfield has not met Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. Count VI against Mr. Musk was dismissed without prejudice. Regarding wage theft, Mr. Woodfield brings wage theft claims against Mr. Musk under Washington and California law. Mr. Musk argued that Mr. Woodfield fails to plead individual liability because the complaint does not make any concrete factual allegations of misconduct by Mr. Musk. The court considered substantively identical arguments in Arnold under California and New York law. The court concluded Mr. Woodfield's allegations are conclusory and do not demonstrate the control required for Mr. Musk to be liable under Washington or California law. The court adopted the relevant portions of its September 29, 2025, decision in Arnold and dismissed all claims against Mr. Musk without prejudice. Defendant Musk's motion to dismiss was granted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dbgpPD from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Elon Musk, Twitter, Inc., X Corp., X Holdings Corp., X Holdings I, Inc., are represented by: Jody Barillare Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 302-574-7294 jody.barillare@morganlewis.com Eric Meckley eric.meckley@morganlewis.com T. Cullen Wallace cullen.wallace@morganlewis.com Plaintiff Chris Woodfield is represented by: Joseph Christensen Christensen & Dougherty LLP 302-212-4330 joe@christensendougherty.com Dylan M. Schmeyer dschmeyer@kusklaw.com Michael Dunford mdunford@kusklaw.com Akiva M. Cohen acohen@kusklaw.com Lane A. Haygood lhaygood@kusklaw.com UNDER ARMOUR: Fourth Circuit Reverses Class Action Judgement ------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that in a win for Wiley's client, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, applying Maryland law, reversed judgment on the pleadings in favor of the insured, holding that a securities class action, derivative matters, and government investigations arose out of the same fraudulent scheme and thus were deemed a single claim first made before the relevant policy period. Navigators Ins. Co. v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 25-1068 (4th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026). For nearly a decade, Under Armour faced legal claims and government investigations regarding two types of conduct: its public statements forecasting strong revenue growth and certain accounting practices. In February 2017, after announcing the end of its 26-quarter streak of 20% revenue growth, Under Armour was named in a securities class action alleging false and misleading statements in its 2016 earnings reports, as well as multiple books and records and derivative demands. In November 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice were investigating whether Under Armour used accounting practices, including pull forward sales, to appear financially healthier. After the government investigations became public, plaintiffs in the securities class action amended their complaint to incorporate that new accounting evidence. Six months later, the SEC determined that Under Armour made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in its 2016 earnings reports by failing to disclose the impact of its pull forward sales on revenue growth. Under Armour sought coverage for the initial demands and securities class action complaint under its D&O policies for the 2016-2017 policy period. The 2016-2017 insurers acknowledged coverage for the underlying claims and ultimately exhausted their policies. Under Armour also sought coverage under a second $100 million tower of D&O insurance issued for the 2017-2018 policy period. According to Under Armour, the government investigations and the amended complaint in the securities class action involved separate accounting conduct and thus constituted separate claims first made during the 2017-2018 policy period. The 2017-2018 insurers disagreed, asserting that the underlying matters all arose out of the same fraudulent scheme to mislead investors about the company's financial health and growth prospects and thus were deemed a single claim first made before the 2017-2018 policy period. In the ensuing coverage litigation, the district court ruled for Under Armour on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, agreeing that the government investigations and the portions of the securities class action addressing accounting misconduct were separate claims first made during the 2017-2018 policy period. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding "Under Armour's pull forwards and its misleading statements were part of the same specific scheme to project financial strength in the face of negative economic developments." The Fourth Circuit relied on another case in which Wiley represented the insurer, W.C. & A.N. Miller Dev. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 814 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2016), for the "proposition that conduct that is part of the same scheme is logically or causally related." Here, "the pull forwards and the allegedly misleading public statements derive from the same cause -- a desire to continue to hit its growth estimate -- and resulted in the same effect -- Under Armour giving the illusion it was growing in line with its earlier projections." According to the Fourth Circuit, the accounting misconduct enabled the allegedly false and misleading statements, as "it would have been much harder to claim growth continued unabated if the books had shown that growth had already slowed." In light of this common scheme, the Fourth Circuit held that the underlying matters were deemed a single claim first made before the 2017-2018 policy period. The Fourth Circuit recognized that "this appeal involves high stakes -- $100 million" but emphasized that "these financial implications do not allow us to disregard the plain meaning of the parties' insurance policy." Under that plain language, the court concluded that "Under Armour is not entitled to additional insurance coverage under its 2017-2018 directors and officers insurance policy." [GN] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court OKs Bid to Amend Class Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mary Jones, through her agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Behavioral Health, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-6999-RS (N.D. Cal.), Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend Class Certification Order and Approve Notice Plan. The Court amended its March 11, 2021 Order Granting Motion for Class Certification. The Order vacated the class certification 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 Class is defined as 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 United Behavioral Health, in whole or in part, on or after June 2, 2017, based upon the 2017 Level of Care Guidelines 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 Reprocessing Subclass, certified under Rule 23(b)(3), is defined as any member of the Class who incurred expenses for residential treatment for which benefits were not paid. The Court ordered that the Parties shall provide notice to the Class as set forth in the Notice Plan. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cZRrBx from PacerMonitor.com Defendant United Behavioral Health is Represented By: April Nelson Ross Crowell & Moring LLP 202-624-2500 aross@crowell.com Jennifer Salzman Romano Crowell & Moring LLP 213-622-4750 jromano@crowell.com Andrew John William Holmer Crowell And Moring LLP 213-622-4750 aholmer@crowell.com Plaintiffs Sandra Tomlinson and Mary Jones are Represented By: Jason S. Cowart Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 212-704-9600 jcowart@zuckerman.com Adam Abelson Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 410-949-1148 aabelson@zuckerman.com Caroline E. Reynolds Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 202-778-1800 creynolds@zuckerman.com Meiram Bendat Psych-Appeal, Inc. 310-598-3690 mbendat@psych-appeal.com D. Brian Hufford Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 212-704-9600 dbhufford@zuckerman.com UNITED STATES: Bowers and Youmans Sue Over Denied Insurance Payouts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrin F. Bowers, III and Gary L. Youmans, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United States Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency, and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-00191-DCN (D.S.C., January 20, 2026) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and other appropriate relief brought by farmers and agricultural producers who purchased and maintained crop insurance policies issued through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation administered by the Risk Management Agency, and were improperly denied indemnity payments following the wind and rain caused Hurricane Helene. According to the complaint, relying on incomplete weather assessments and determinations issued or influenced by the United States Department of Agriculture and the RMA, crop insurance providers denied payouts, asserting either that no qualifying wind or rainfall events occurred or that the cause was excluded or minimized based on non-transparent or scientifically flawed analyses. As a result, the Plaintiffs and other farmers were deprived of insurance benefits they were legally entitled to, undermining their financial stability and breaching the core purpose of the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, unjust enrichment, and principles of contract and equitable estoppel. The USDA is a federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming and agriculture, including overseeing the RMA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: A. Gibson Solomons III, Esq. SPEIGHTS & SOLOMONS, LLC 100 Oak Street East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, SC 29924 Telephone: (803) 843-4444 Facsimile: (803) 943-4599 E-mail: gsolomons@speightdsandsolomons.com UNITED STATES: Faces Walsh Class Suit Over False Credit Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIANA WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00173 (D.D.C., Jan. 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Walsh in a representative capacity of behalf of federal student loan borrowers like her because of the Defendant's widespread violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. The Defendant is a federal agency that regularly, directly and/or indirectly, provides information about student loan borrowers' account balances and repayment history to consumer reporting agencies. Accordingly, on the Plaintiff's credit reports, information about her federal student loans through the Department of Education appears as being furnished by "Dept of Ed/Nelnet" and "DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION/NELN." Nelnet is an entity with which Defendant contracts for the servicing of certain federal student loans such as Plaintiff's. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the class or classes she seeks to represent falsely appear from their credit reports to owe double the amount of federal student loan debt and suffer injury and damages in the form of harm to credit reputation and credit score, lost credit opportunities, and waste of time and resources lodging futile disputes and trying to correct the Defendant's false credit reporting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com VENUS FASHION: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Venus Fashion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00292-JMB-DJF (D. Minn., January 15, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.venus.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 and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. 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 her full and equal access to important Website content. 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, asserts the complaint. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to the Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and is a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Venus Fashion, Inc. is a Florida Company that owns, operates, and/or controls its Website, offering women's apparel for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, loungewear, swimwear, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com VGW HOLDINGS: Anderson and Davis Allege Gambling Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------- BETHANY ANDERSON and CHRIS DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VGW HOLDINGS US, INC., VGW US, INC., VGW LUCKYLAND, INC., VGW GP LTD., VGW HOLDINGS PTY LTD. f/k/a VGW HOLDINGS LTD., and VGW GAMES LTD., Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00109-AP (D. Or., January 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlicensed online gambling operation that violates Oregon's gambling and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have structured their casino websites to evade Oregon's gambling laws through a contrived two-coin sweepstakes technicality. Moreover, the Defendants' sweepstakes framing and nominal free-entry mechanisms are pre-textual and commercially illusory in practice, designed to manufacture a superficial claim that consumers are not paying for the chance to win cash even though the platform operates as a real-money casino. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek damages and declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief. Headquartered in Boulder, CO, VGW Holdings US Inc. owns and operates the casino websites, LuckyLandSlots.com and GlobalPoker.com. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marilyn A. Heiken, Esq. JOHNSON JOHNSON LUCAS & MIDDLETON 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401 Telephone: (541) 484-2434 Facsimile: (541) 484-0882 E-mail: mheiken@justicelawyers.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. James M. Davis, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com jdavis@bholaw.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com VGW HOLDINGS: Sornberger Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ala. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY SORNBERGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VGW, LTD.; VGW HOLDINGS US; VGW US, INC.; VGW HOLDINGS, LTD.; VGW LUCKYLAND, INC., VGW GP LTD.; VGW CANADA, INC.; VGW GAMES LTD.; AND VGW MALTA LTD., Case No. 33-CV-2025-900180.00 (Filed Nov. 12, 2025), was removed from the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Jan. 21, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00098-HDM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and a putative class of Alabama residents, the total amount of Alabama players' Gold Coin purchases less Sweeps Coin redemptions between May 12, 2025, and entry of judgment, excluding players whose purchases exceeded their redemptions by more than $75,000 between May 12, 2025, and November 12, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges that the games are unlawful "gambling" under Alabama law. VGW Group specializes in the development and publication of play for-fun, online casino-themed social games, including the games on the Luckyland Slots platform purportedly at issue in this action.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Helen Kathryn Downs, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN PC 1901 Sixth Ave N, Suite 1700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1204 E-mail: hkdowns@maynardnexsen.com VICTORIA: Residents Sue Over Melbourne Water's Negligent Conduct ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Horswill of The Weekly Source reports that on October 14, 2022, the Maribyrnong River in the north western suburbs of Melbourne burst its banks after heavy rain. 45 villas were inundated with the runoff at Tigcorp's Rivervue Retirement Village in Avondale Heights, 11km northwest of Melbourne's CBD. They were uninhabitable for at least six months. Rivervue Retirement Village residents have been seeking compensation for more than three years, and lead plaintiff Stan Korkliniewski and his neighbours are now pursuing Melbourne Water for losses and damages. Litigation Lending is funding a class action for damages filed by Mayweathers and William Roberts Lawyers. Stan paid $585,000 for his 99-year lease in 2018, according to the writ, which alleges the market value of leases in the retirement village has plummeted as a result of the flood. The class action alleges that the loss and damage suffered by the residents was a result of Melbourne Water's negligent conduct in producing and using faulty and/or inadequate flood modelling, and its processes for approving lower finished floor levels for the development of Rivervue Retirement Village. Victorian Ombudsman Marlo Baragwanath released an investigation in November that found the retirement village never should have been built as it was. Poor Melbourne Water modelling in the early 2000s and mistakes in the building plan were responsible for the 2022 flooding at Rivervue, she said. A parliamentary inquiry also previously acknowledged "mistakes were clearly made" in the flood modelling, and found there was a reliance on mitigation work that was ineffective. Through the class action residents are seeking compensation: -- for the cost of repairing and replacing property; -- temporary accommodation; -- higher insurance; -- higher village levies; -- loss of value on their leasehold; and -- for distress. Mayweathers law firm partner Steve Vrtkovsi, who is acting for the claimants, told The Age losses varied between group members, but they were "material and potentially very significant". "The claim is focused on seeking accountability and compensation for residents who were impacted by the alleged conduct of Melbourne Water," he said. Last year, the State Government rejected a recommendation from the parliamentary inquiry to pay for flood-prone homes to be retrofitted or raised. The inquiry stopped short of calling for a Government buyback scheme, arguing it would be too costly. The Ombudsman has since recommended the Government compensate Rivervue residents who sell their leases at a loss. The Government is yet to formally respond to that recommendation. Victorian Ombudsman Marlo Baragwanath "Melbourne Water's rushed and flawed flood modelling used during early site development under-predicted flooding," Baragwanath's report, When the Water Rises, reads. "This meant homes were set too low from the start. Mistakes in approved building plans saw some homes built lower still, without a full safety buffer." The Ombudsman said the state's decision in 2016 to remove Rivervue from significant flood planning controls also gave a false sense of security. The class action alleges Melbourne Water ought to have known the retirement village was flood prone but failed to take reasonable precautions and breached its duty of care. Melbourne Water has since revised its flood modelling and maps, which reflect Tigcorp's Rivervue Retirement Village is flood prone. Melbourne Water Acting Managing Director Fiona Schutt said the authority had been addressing the Ombudsman's recommendations with State and local Governments. "I extend my heartfelt sympathy to all residents affected by the Maribyrnong flood event in 2022 and acknowledge its impact on the community," Schutt said. "We have been regularly engaging with Rivervue residents as part of the Maribyrnong catchment flood mitigation study. "As the case is now before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage." [GN] VIRGINIA: Faces Welch Suit Over Illegal Over-Detention ------------------------------------------------------ ERIC WELCH and SITTICHOK WEERAPUNYANONT, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. CHADWICK DOTSON, DAVID ROBINSON, JEREMIAH FITZ, JR., JAMES PARKS, and DONA SHIFLETT, in their individual capacities, Case No. 3:26-cv-00047-RCY (E.D. Va., Jan. 21, 2026) challenges the illegal and unconstitutional over-detention of people incarcerated in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections and to whom VDOC denied earned sentence credits in violation of the statutory mandate and intent of Virginia's earned sentence credit program. According to the complaint, the Defendants denied Mr. Welch the sentence credits to which he was entitled during a period of about seven months, resulting in over-confinement of approximately two months. Mr. Welch was previously incarcerated in the custody of VDOC after being convicted of a felony and sentenced of incarceration for more than one year, making him eligible for the Program during his incarceration. Defendant Chadwick Dotson was the Director of VDOC from September 14, 2023 to January 16, 2026, and is named in his individual capacity. During his tenure, Director Dotson was ultimately responsible for all of VDOC's policies and procedures, including those related to the Program. Defendant Dotson made final, agency-wide decisions on how to administer the statutorily mandated Program.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Geri Greenspan, Esq. Vishal Agraharkar, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA P.O. Box 26464 Richmond, VA 23261 Telephone: (804) 491-8584 E-mail: ggrenspan@acluva.org - and - Liz Lockwood, Esq. Kathryn Ali, Esq. ALI & LOCKWOOD LLP 502 H St. NE D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 651-2475 E-mail: Liz.lockwood@alilockwood.com Katie.ali@lockwood.com WAYFAIR LLC: Removes White Suit From State Court to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CHARLES WHITE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYFAIR LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case No. 25CV155144) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00317 to the proceeding. Wayfair LLC provides home improvement products online. The Company offers furniture, home furnishings, rugs, outdoor, bed, bath, lighting, kitchen, storage, kids, housewares, decor, decorative accents, and other household goods. Wayfair serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nathan K. Low, Esq. Elizabeth T. Ferguson, Esq. Jonathan G. Chang, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 E-mail: nlow@fisherphillips.com etferguson@fisherphillips.com jchang@fisherphillips.com WEALTHFRONT CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Wealthfront Corporation (NASDAQ: WLTH) resulting from allegations that Wealthfront may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Wealthfront securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=51039 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On January 13, 2026, Barron's updated an article entitled "Wealthfront Stock Plunges After First Earnings Report Since IPO" (that was originally published on January 12, 2026). The article stated that Wealthfront shares had fallen after "the wealth management company reported quarterly earnings and provided data that showed some softening in asset flows in November and December." On this news, Wealthfront stock fell $2.12 per share, or 16.8%, to close at $10.47 per share on January 13, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WORKEASY SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Suit for $1.685MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that WorkEasy Solutions has agreed to a $1.685 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that the workforce management company unlawfully obtained and stored Illinois residents' biometric information without their consent by way of fingerprint-scanning time clocks, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The WorkEasy BIPA class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 1, 2026 and covers all individuals who used any cloud-based WorkEasy biometric devices in Illinois any time between June 24, 2016 and August 15, 2023. Additionally, the settlement covers a subclass of all individuals who used a cloud-based WorkEasy biometric device in Illinois any time before April 30, 2022. These biometric devices, the agreement explains, may have operated under the brand names WorkEasy, EasyWorkforce, EasyClocking, or TimeLogix. Settlement documents also state that there are approximately 21,915 people in the class and 19,248 people in the subclass. The court-approved website for the WorkEasy BIPA settlement can be found at EasyWorkForceBIPALawsuit.com. According to the website, WorkEasy BIPA settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive multiple pro-rated cash payments over the course of five years. The settlement agreement explains that each class member is allotted two "settlement units." The cash value of these units will be split among multiple payments to be made to class members once a year for five years, the agreement adds. To determine the value of the cash payouts, the settlement administrator will first determine the pro rata (equal share) value of each settlement unit, then multiply it by the number of units allocated to the class member. According to the settlement website, the total amount that each WorkEasy class member receives from these settlement units over the course of five years is estimated to be between $160 and $750. Class members can choose to receive their cash payout via check or electronic payment upon filing a claim, the settlement site says, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. To submit a WorkEasy settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the settlement claim ID as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Class members who did not receive notice may also file a claim form may also file a claim form online with documentation of employment required. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form here to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All WorkEasy settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 31, 2026. A hearing to determine whether the court will grant final approval to the WorkEasy settlement will be held on April 28, 2026. Compensation will only begin to be distributed after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. In addition to providing monetary benefits, WorkEasy has agreed to delete the fingerprint template data of class members, and ensure the deletion of data for all employees should their employer terminate their contract with WorkEasy. Additionally, WorkEasy has implemented consent practices and will continue take steps to encrypt fingerprint information. The WorkEasy class action lawsuit accused the company of unlawfully collecting and storing biometric data from its fingerprint-scanning timeclock devices without notice or consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The filing also claimed that WorkEasy failed to properly encrypt the data stored, leaving it more vulnerable to cybercriminals. [GN] WORLD OF WONDER: RuPaul's Drag Race Winner Sues Over Defamation --------------------------------------------------------------- GAYEXPRESS reports that James Ross, who rose to fame as Tyra Sanchez after winning RuPaul's Drag Race season two, is intensifying his legal campaign against the show and its producers. Having previously announced his intention to sue, Ross has now called on other former contestants to join him in what he says is a class action lawsuit. Earlier this year, Ross revealed via social media that he planned to take legal action against RuPaul Charles, Drag Race judge Michelle Visage, and production company World of Wonder. Despite no official court filings being made public at the time, Ross shared what he claimed was a "statement of claim" outlining the alleged grounds for legal proceedings. According to the document posted on Facebook, Ross is accusing the defendants of "intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false light, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage." "For over a decade, defendants, acting collectively and in concert, have engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to discredit, disparage, and destroy Ross's professional reputation," the statement alleged. It also claimed this behaviour was carried out "with reckless disregard for the truth and with the intent to incite hatred, harassment, and ostracisation." While many fans questioned the legitimacy of the legal claims -- especially given the lack of any formal court filings -- Ross has continued to double down, now urging other former Drag Race contestants to join the case. Posting to Facebook on 17 January, Ross wrote: "Pursuant to counsel's direction, I am notifying any former contestants who experienced similar mistreatment by RuPaul and World of Wonder that a class action lawsuit is moving forward. "Silence will not halt this process; it will proceed with or without participation. Confidentiality will be maintained for those who step forward." Controversial Claims and Continued Criticism Ross, who no longer identifies with the Tyra Sanchez name, has made numerous inflammatory posts on social media in recent years. In recent posts, he targeted several Drag Race figures, including Drag Race UK star Cherry Valentine, who tragically died by suicide in 2022, and Michelle Visage. Among his most criticised statements were posts reading "KETAMINE KILLED THE QUEEN" and "Say her name. Cherry Valentine. Death by suicide AFTER appearing on RUPAUL'S DRAG RACE." He also took aim at Visage, writing, "Karma came to collect Michelle Titties." These posts have drawn significant backlash, with many accusing Ross of exploiting tragedy and further distancing himself from the Drag Race community. Despite the inflammatory nature of Ross's commentary, there has been no official public response from RuPaul's Drag Race, its producers, or the former contestants mentioned. However, RuPaul recently reposted a screenshot from a season two acting challenge showing her slapping Tyra Sanchez -- a moment Ross has referenced in his legal claims as an example of perceived mistreatment. Subtle Snubs and Continued Tensions While World of Wonder and RuPaul have remained largely silent in public, fans believe the show has made several subtle jabs at Ross over the years. Most recently, in episode 10 of Drag Race All Stars season 10, RuPaul crowned Raven -- the runner-up of season two -- as the winner of a challenge. Many fans interpreted this as a deliberate nod to Ross's absence and continued estrangement from the franchise. Ross has faced ongoing criticism for his social media behaviour and divisive public statements, yet continues to assert that his legal pursuit is legitimate and warranted. Whether a class action lawsuit will actually be filed remains to be seen. [GN] XIAO'S HIBACHI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Copeland Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE COPELAND, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. XIAO'S HIBACHI & SUSHI, INC. and MEI ZHENG XIAO, individually, Case No. 3:26-cv-00072 (M.D. Tenn., January 20, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid straight time wages, unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Christine Copeland has been employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid tipped employee during the relevant period. Allegedly, the Defendants have violated the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA by, among other things, requiring Plaintiff and those similarly situated to perform non-tip-producing tasks after the ending of their assigned shifts without paying them at least the applicable FLSA minimum wage rate of pay and any applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods, says the suit. Xiao's Hibachi & Sushi, Inc. owns and operates two restaurants in Murfreesboro, TN and one restaurant in Lebanon, TN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com ZA & D SERVICE: Court Partially OKs Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Panagiotis Kasseris, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. ZA & D Service Station, Inc.; Anthony Koulizakis; Nikolas Koulizakis, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-06281 (NCM) (SDE) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Natasha C. Merle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and deferred ruling on the Defendant's motion for sanctions. The Plaintiff testified that his regular work schedule at ZAD ended up being 57 hours per week. According to Plaintiff, he regularly worked Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Despite his agreement with Anthony, Plaintiff was only paid approximately $600 per week for at least the first two years he worked at ZAD, rather than $37.50 per hour. The Defendant disputed Plaintiff's characterization of his working relationship with ZAD. Anthony testified that Defendant considered Plaintiff to be a piecemeal kind of filler kind of guy, and did not work there consistently until 2022. Defendant never issued Plaintiff any wage statements, wage notices, pay stubs, or otherwise kept track of Plaintiff's hours. According to Anthony, Plaintiff's hourly wage was $21 per hour the entirety of his tenure at ZAD. On August 7, 2025, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Defendant sought summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA and argued that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYLL claims. Defendant also raised merits arguments as to Plaintiff's minimum wage, overtime, weekly payment, and timely payment claims pursuant to the NYLL. Regarding factual inconsistencies, the Court rejected Defendant's invitation to consider nonoperative pleadings in determining whether Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. The Court explained that credibility assessments, choices between conflicting versions of the events, and the weighing of evidence are matters for the jury, not for the court on a motion for summary judgment. Concerning FLSA coverage and Plaintiff's employee status, the Court found that Defendant failed to demonstrate that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff was an independent contractor for purposes of the FLSA. The Court noted that evidence in the record indicated there were triable issues of fact with respect to the existence and degree of certain of the economic reality test factors. The Court concluded that the Court cannot conclude, based on the evidence in the record, that Plaintiff was in business for himself as opposed to dependent upon ZAD for the opportunity to render service. Regarding individual Defendant liability, the Court found that Plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence such that a reasonable juror could conclude that Anthony was Plaintiff's employer for purposes of the FLSA. The Court reasoned that evidence suggested Anthony had the power to hire employees, set work schedules, set Plaintiff's rate of pay, and was in charge of payroll at ZAD. However, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence as to Nikolas's employer status. The Court found that based on the record before the Court, no reasonable juror could conclude that Nikolas's role within ZAD, and the decisions it entailed, directly affected the nature or conditions of Plaintiff's employment. For the unpaid overtime claims, the Court found that Plaintiff supplied sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that he worked uncompensated overtime hours. The Court noted that Plaintiff's deposition testimony and declaration were sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff's prima faile burden. The Court concluded that Defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence negating the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from Plaintiff's evidence. Concerning minimum wage violations, the Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's FLSA minimum wage claim. The Court explained that even accepting Plaintiff's statement that he worked 57 hours each week as true, his regular hourly rate of pay would be more than $10 and exceed the applicable federal minimum wage. However, the Court denied summary judgment as to Plaintiff's NYLL minimum wage claim, finding sufficient evidence such that a reasonable juror could conclude that his hourly rate fell below New York State's minimum wage. Regarding the statute of limitations, the Court found it need not decide which statute of limitations applied because Plaintiff's remaining federal claim was within the two year statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations for NYLL overtime and minimum wage claims is six years. For the remaining NYLL claims, the Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for failure to pay weekly wages and failure to provide timely payments, finding that Plaintiff had abandoned these claims by failing to address Defendant's arguments in his briefing. Concerning wage notice and wage statement claims, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing. The Court explained that Plaintiff fails to cite to any record evidence demonstrating that he would have undertaken advocacy and avoided some actual harm or obtained some actual benefit if accurate notices had been provided." Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted as to Plaintiff's FLSA minimum wage claim (Count III), claims for failure to pay weekly wages (Count V), and failure to provide timely payments (Count VI). The Court dismissed Defendant Nikolas Koulizakis from the case. The motion for summary judgment was denied as to Plaintiff's FLSA overtime claim (Count I) and NYLL minimum wage claim (Count IV). The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by January 20, 2026, why his wage notice and statement claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court deferred ruling on Defendant's motion for sanctions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7kh9mk from PacerMonitor.com Defendant ZA & D Service Station, Inc., is represented by: Kevin Sean O'Donoghue Kevin O'Donoghue 646-450-2141 kevin@kodpllc.com Plaintiff Panagiotis Kasseris is represented by: Derrick Storms Solomos & Storms 718-278-5900 derrick@solomosstorms.com ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Class Suit as Agents Steer Clients Into Lending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Gallagher of Real Estate News reports that a Washington state real estate agent has filed a lawsuit against Zillow, adding to the growing number of cases accusing the company of pressuring agents to steer clients into its mortgage lending services. Stephanie Dupuis, who owns a real estate team in Kitsap County, filed the complaint on Jan. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit alleges that Zillow's practices violate both state and federal antitrust laws, and seeks class status for all U.S. residents "who are or who were enrolled in Zillow Group's Premier, Preferred, or Flex Agent programs." 'Impossible to do business' without Zillow: Dupuis alleges that because of Zillow's "monopoly power," real estate agents find it "impossible to do business without working with Zillow to at least some degree." As a result, she and her team felt compelled to work with the company and entered an agreement to become a Preferred Agent -- what Zillow describes as "the next evolution of the Flex program," its invitation-only referral program for agents. Premier, Preferred programs incentivize ZHL referrals: The complaint claims that while Zillow tells both Premier and Preferred agents they are not required to refer clients to Zillow Home Loans (ZHL), "the reality is different," because the company tracks those referrals through its Follow Up Boss system. An agent's rating in Follow Up Boss (FUB) -- a popular CRM Zillow acquired in 2023 -- is tied to the number of ZHL pre-approvals they can secure, according to the lawsuit: "The higher an agent's rating, the more connections Zillow sends their way; conversely the lowest rating agents risk getting cut from the program. In other words, a Premier agent who fails to direct their clients to ZHL will see their business slow to a trickle," according to the filing. The lawsuit alleges this is an "illegal tying arrangement," adding that Zillow is using its power to "extract outsized commissions and steer agents and consumers alike to inferior financial products." What Zillow had to say: "This complaint tells a one‑sided story that does not reflect how Zillow Preferred partners serve buyers or how we work with real estate agents," a Zillow spokesperson told Real Estate News in an emailed statement. "Consumers are always in control of which agent and lender they work with, and Zillow supports agents who deliver strong outcomes for buyers by sharing clear information and helping them understand what they can afford," the spokesperson noted. "Referral fees in the Zillow Preferred program are paid between businesses and are consistent with industry practices. These arrangements do not change the fees consumers can negotiate with their agent. We will defend ourselves against these claims, while we stay focused on delivering a better real estate experience for buyers, sellers, renters and the professionals who serve them." Preferred Agent fees: The Dupuis lawsuit also goes into detail about how the Preferred Agent program works. While Premier Agents pay an upfront fee for leads, those in the Preferred program pay Zillow a percentage of their commission as a referral fee. Fees vary based on a home's sale price and metro area, but they run as high as 40% of the agent's commission on the sale. That is well above the common referral rate of 25%, according to the lawsuit. "Although the cost is substantial . . . the referrals are an essential source of business" for many agents, the complaint states. 'Increased pressure' to secure ZHL referrals: The Dupuis Team, which joined the Preferred Agent program in 2022 after eight years as a Premier Agent, noticed a significant change around May 2025 "when Zillow announced its expansion of its 'enhanced markets' program" for certain markets, including the greater Seattle area. Dupuis was also informed in May that she had to sign up for Follow Up Boss by Sept. 1 or be kicked out of the Preferred program, according to an email included in the filing. "Not long after, Ms. Dupuis experienced increased pressure to steer clients to ZHL," according to the complaint, but she and her team "refused" to do so. As a consequence, the filing states, "Ms. Dupuis could see in FUB that Zillow was penalizing her team for low ZHL pre-approval rates." The team also had its Zillow Showcase account terminated in December 2025. The plaintiffs seek relief through actual damages, treble damages, costs, attorney fees and injunctive relief. Related cases: The allegations in this latest case are similar to those in Taylor and Armstrong, lawsuits filed in the fall and merged in December. Those cases, brought by consumers, claim buyers are steered to ZHL in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). [GN] [] Class Action & Mass Tort Litigation: Outlook for 2026 & Beyond ----------------------------------------------------------------- Insights from Duane Morris Partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley By Christopher Patalinghug The class action and mass tort landscape stands at an inflection point shaped by record settlement volumes, evolving judicial receptivity, rapid technological change, and shifting enforcement priorities. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley, partners at Duane Morris LLP, offer a forward-looking perspective on what lies ahead for 2026 and the years that follow, based on trends solidified in 2025. Sustained High-Volume Environment The most consistent theme emerging for 2026 is continued robust activity in class action and mass tort filings. The upward trajectory in federal court filings observed in 2025 -- marking a 10% increase over 2024 and a 9% increase over the preceding three-year average -- is expected to persist. "In 2025, the number of class action lawsuits filed in federal courts across the country represents an increase from 2024 and reflects a growth trend relative to the number of class action filed over the past four years," according to Mr. Maatman. He also notes, "There is a very clear relational line from the record settlement amounts and high certification rates to the sheer volume of class action filings we saw in 2025." A full-text copy of the article is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/class-action-and-mass-tort-litigation from Class Action Updates (subscription required). [] New ERISA Class Action Lawsuits Name Brokers as Defendants ------------------------------------------------------------- BIPC.com reports that a growing series of ERISA class action complaints has placed employer-sponsored voluntary benefit programs squarely within the fiduciary crosshairs. These actions, filed against major plan sponsors and nationally recognized benefits brokers, do not challenge core medical plan design or employer contributions. Instead, they target accident, critical illness, cancer and hospital indemnity benefits, i.e., programs long treated by many employers as peripheral, employee-paid offerings. The complaints advance a unified and increasingly familiar theory: once voluntary benefits are offered through an ERISA-governed welfare plan, they are subject to ERISA's full fiduciary framework. Employers that exercise discretion over carrier selection, pricing, broker compensation, or plan administration, and brokers that influence or control those decisions, may be held to the statute's exacting standards of prudence and loyalty. According to the plaintiffs, failures in process, rather than outcomes alone, caused plan participants to pay excessive and unreasonable premiums, while brokers and other service providers reaped outsized financial benefits. ERISA's Fiduciary Standard Applies Regardless of Who Pays the Premium ERISA does not condition fiduciary responsibility on whether a benefit is employer-paid or employee-paid. The statute focuses instead on discretion and control. Where an employer sponsors an ERISA welfare plan and retains authority over benefit offerings, service providers and administrative structure, fiduciary status follows. Courts have consistently held that ERISA fiduciary duties are the highest known to the law, hence requiring conduct that is both prudent and loyal, and undertaken solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries. The complaints involving Allied Universal, Laboratory Corporation of America, and other employers allege that the employers exercised discretionary authority over voluntary benefit programs integrated into ERISA welfare plans. That discretion, according to plaintiffs, triggered a duty to ensure that premiums were reasonable, commissions were justified, and carriers were selected through a prudent and well-documented process. The fact that employees bore the full cost of coverage did not, in the plaintiffs' view, diminish the employers' fiduciary obligations. Rather, it heightened them, because every dollar of inefficiency was borne directly by participants. Prudence Is a Matter of Process, Not Tradition A recurring theme across these complaints is the alleged absence of a meaningful fiduciary process. ERISA does not require fiduciaries to achieve perfect results or select the lowest-cost option in every instance. What it does require is a reasoned, diligent decision-making process grounded in objective analysis and periodic review. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that fiduciaries must engage in an ongoing duty to monitor service providers and plan arrangements. The plaintiffs allege that plan sponsors failed to test the voluntary benefits marketplace, failed to benchmark pricing and loss ratios, and failed to scrutinize broker compensation structures that allegedly exceeded industry norms. According to the complaints, these failures were not isolated oversights but systemic deficiencies that persisted for years. In a competitive insurance market, particularly for plans covering tens of thousands of employees, plaintiffs argue that such passivity is incompatible with ERISA's prudence requirement. Broker Fiduciary Status and the Collapse of the "Mere Advisor" Defense Perhaps the most consequential development in this litigation wave is the aggressive treatment of brokers and consultants as ERISA fiduciaries. The complaints allege that brokers exercised discretionary authority over plan administration and compensation structures by recommending carriers, designing benefit offerings, and embedding commissions into employee premiums. Under ERISA, a party that exercises discretionary authority or control over plan management or plan assets may be deemed a fiduciary regardless of title. Even where fiduciary status is contested, the complaints advance alternative theories grounded in ERISA's prohibited transaction rules. Brokers are alleged to be parties in interest who knowingly participated in self-dealing transactions by receiving excessive compensation tied to plan assets, while providing undisclosed or inadequately disclosed benefits to employers. ERISA prohibits fiduciaries causing a plan to engage in transactions that transfer plan assets for the benefit of a party in interest, and dealing with plan assets for their own account. This framing challenges longstanding industry assumptions. For decades, many brokers have operated under the belief that embedded commissions and ancillary services fall outside ERISA's reach. These complaints signal that courts may be asked to reexamine that premise through a fiduciary lens. The Duty of Loyalty and the Problem of Conflicted Compensation ERISA's duty of loyalty is uncompromising. Fiduciaries must act solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and defraying reasonable administrative expenses. Plaintiffs allege that this duty was breached when employers and brokers tolerated compensation arrangements that enriched brokers at the expense of employees, particularly where loss ratios allegedly indicated that a disproportionate share of premiums was diverted outside of claims. The complaints do not allege that commissions are per se unlawful. Instead, they assert that fiduciaries failed to evaluate whether commissions were reasonable in relation to services provided, and failed to mitigate conflicts inherent in compensation structures that incentivized higher premiums. Under established ERISA principles, a fiduciary's failure to address known conflicts of interest may itself constitute a breach of loyalty. Voluntary Benefits as the Next ERISA Litigation Frontier These cases represent a natural extension of broader ERISA litigation trends. Over the past decade, plaintiffs have expanded their focus- retirement plan fees to healthcare pricing, pharmacy benefit management and welfare plan transparency. Voluntary benefits occupy a particularly vulnerable position because they often involve large aggregate premium volumes, limited oversight and legacy broker relationships that have gone unexamined for years. For plan sponsors, the risk is not theoretical. Courts have made clear that ERISA permits plan-wide relief and derivative actions seeking to restore losses to the plan itself. Where fiduciary breaches are established, personal liability may follow. A Fiduciary Imperative for Plan Sponsors The lesson this wave of litigation provided is neither subtle nor novel. ERISA demands discipline, documentation and vigilance. Voluntary benefits are not exempt of these requirements simply because they are employee-paid or historically overlooked. Plan sponsors must be able to demonstrate that voluntary benefit programs are selected, priced, and administered through a prudent process, and that broker relationships are structured to avoid conflicts that undermine participant interests. What once may have been treated as a benign administrative convenience is now a clear fiduciary risk area. ERISA has not changed. What has changed is the willingness of plaintiffs to test long-standing assumptions and the expectation that plan sponsors act like fiduciaries in every sense of the word. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***