260130.mbx

260130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 30, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 22 Headlines 84 LUMBER: Class Certification Filing in Runciman Due Feb. 27 ABRI CREDIT: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Diaz Says AERO GROUNDTEK: Court Allows Brown Leave to File Reply ALEX AND ANI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hassid Suit Extended ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rai Suit Due Oct. 6 ANTHEM HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mazzola Due July 23, 2027 ASHLEY STEWART: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harrison Due April 30 BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Credit Revocations BATH & BODY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 16 BELLRING BRANDS: Denha Alleges Securities Law Violations BELLRING BRANDS: Faces Suit Over False, Misleading Business Info BELLS OF STEEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Alleges BLOOMBERG LP: Allowed Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 25 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Huyler Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy on Eggs CASPIAN TECHNOLOGY: Ebben Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices CHEM LINK: Lowell Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA COFFEE & CHILL: Diaz Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls COMCAST CABLE: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Suit for $117.5-Mil. COMMUNITY FIRST: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1MM COMPASS GROUP: Mehlberg Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal COMPASS MINERALS: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit CONTAINER STORE: Website Conceals Tracking Practices, Ridzuan Says CORA TEXAS: Class Certification Hearing Set for March 4 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over Rotisserie Chicken's False Ads DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Filing of Class Cert Opposition Due Jan. 30 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS: Scheduling Conference Order Entered DISCOUNT BAZAAR: Faces Nouhou Suit Over Labor Law Violations DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Fostoria City Joins Card Merchant Action Deal EIGHTFOLD AI: Faces Class Suit Over Use of AI in Hiring Practices ELIGO ENERGY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 30 ELSEVIER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nguyen Due Sept. 7 ETN AMERICA: Settles TCPA Class Action, Gives Up Supplier Name FCA US: Fails to Secure Sensitive Personal Info, Spadafore Says FIRST SOLAR: Faces Fraud Class Action Suit Over Stock Downgrade FLAMINGO EAST: Pardo Sues Over Property's Non-Compliance with ADA GRACO CHILDREN'S: Francoforte Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd GREEN TRIPS: Proposed Discovery Order Filing Extended to Feb. 12 GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Bianchi Alleges HEARTLAND AMBULANCE: Kinnamon Sues Over Unlawful Pay Scheme HIGH TIME: Calcano Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HONDA MOTORS: Engine Recall Fails to Fix Defect, Class Suit Says HUEL INC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, McKie Alleges ICONTAINERS USA: SX Holdings Seeks to Certify Class INOVASI RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Claims JEFFERSON COUNTY, WI: Domres & Berth Sue Over Unlawful Booking Fees KENNETH COLE: Ortiz Sues Over Illegal Tracking & Data Sharing KIM KIDD: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LIBOR MANAGEMENT: Bangroup Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages LINUS TECHNOLOGIES: Lopez Balks at Mislabeled Food Calorie Content LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Response Filing in Cuevas Due March 10 MONROE UNIVERSITY: Baston Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Info MONROE UNIVERSITY: Maysonet Files Suit Over Data Breach NISSAN NORTH: Faces Smith Class Suit Over Defective Car Window OHANA MILITARY: Court Denies Class Certification in Water Case ONE LIFESTYLE: Kelley Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ONEPOINT PATIENT: Court Seeks Clarity on Class Settlement ORACLE CORP: Ohio Carpenters' Pension Plan Files Securities Suit PAUL PERRY: Directed to Release Detained Special Immigrant Juvenile PHARMERICA CORP: $5.27MM Settlement in "Lurry" Has Prelim OK PLANT BASED: Clark Seeks Proper Wages for Food Servers POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Student Data Collection PRIME BUYERS: Initial Disclosures in Amazon Suit Die Feb. 27 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tampons Contaminated With Lead, Otkina Alleges PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wins Dismissal of "Dalewitz" Dental Floss Suit QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Zanol Securities Suit over Disclosures RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response RENT THE RUNWAY: Sharma Securities Suit over IPO Ongoing RESOURCE CORP: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Wright Says RESOURCE CORP: Nelson Files Suit Over Data Breach RETRO FITNESS: Annual Membership Fees' Class Suit Reconsidered ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Seeks to Continue Class Hearing to Feb. 9 SEEKING HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Alleges SOPAPILLAS LLC: Bejarano Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations STANDARD SALES: Failed to Prevent Data Breach, Olivas Alleges SUNBURN HOLDINGS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Doe Says TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Laboy Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class TEKNI-PLEX INC: Kraner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA TRANSPORT CARE: Phillips Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA TRELLA HEALTH: Heiting Sues Over Unfair Data Trackers' Installation UNITED PARKS: Seaworld Users Sue Over Fake Sales and Hidden Fees UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Jerotz Suit Due July 29 UNITED STATES: HHS Employees Get Court OK to Pursue Class Action UNITED STATES: Nonprofit Balks at Termination of TPS for Ethiopia UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: $8.75MM Settlement Gets Final Court OK VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Must Submit Class Certification Bid VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Eli Lilly VERIFF OU: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Stockton Says VERIFF OU: McLaughlin Sues Over Over Failure to Secure Private Info VERIFF OU: Reed Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Flowers Suit WASHOUTS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Looper Suit Says WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid Filing in Baird Due Nov. 4 WHEELS FINANCIAL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tobacco Surcharge WILLIAM BARR: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Jan. 30 WILLIAM C: Ward Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Sensitive Info WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Bid for Class Certification Terminated Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits ********* 84 LUMBER: Class Certification Filing in Runciman Due Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN, individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No. 2:24-cv-00852-NR-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kelly entered an order as follows: -- Class certification discovery set for Feb. 13, 2025, is extended to Apr. 10, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence for Feb. 27, 2026, is extended to Apr. 24, 2026. -- The Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence for Mar. 27, 2026, is extended to May 22, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of Class certification, due by Apr. 10, 2026, is extended to June 5, 2026. -- The Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, due by Apr. 17, 2026, is extended to June 12, 2026. The Defendant is an operated American building materials supply company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Bf7qH at no extra charge.[CC] ABRI CREDIT: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Diaz Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SERGIO ONOFRE DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ABRI CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-553 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other members of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). According to the complaint, the Data Breach occurred between May 3, 2024, and May 4, 2024. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of Defendant's members, including Plaintiff. Abri has informed the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation that Social Security numbers, financial accounts, driver's licenses, and credit/debit card numbers were impacted by the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what type of information was accessed. Plaintiff Sergio Onofre Diaz is a citizen of Illinois, residing in the city of Joliet. Defendant Abri Credit Union was originally chartered in October 1949 as Argonne Credit Union, a not-for-profit cooperative initially serving employees of Argonne National Laboratory. Following significant expansion and mergers with DesPlaines Valley Credit Union and Prairie Trail Credit Union, the entity was renamed Abri Credit Union in 2010. Today, Defendant operates as one of the largest credit unions in Illinois, managing over $376 million in assets and maintaining seven physical branches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com AERO GROUNDTEK: Court Allows Brown Leave to File Reply ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN v. AERO GROUNDTEK LLC et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01550 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order granting motion for leave to file reply. The Plaintiff may file a reply in support of her motion for class certification, not to exceed seven (7) pages, no later than February 4, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Aero Groundtek is a landscape and irrigation company.[CC] ALEX AND ANI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hassid Suit Extended ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILAN HASSID, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. ALEX AND ANI, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00679-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application for extending deadline to file motion for class certification. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than April 30, 2026. The motion for class certification shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Court's Order Re: Motions for Class Certification issued on April 14, 2025, the Court says. The court's current scheduling order sets Jan. 27, 2026, as the deadline for any motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks to extend this deadline to April 30, 2026, to allow "additional time to obtain the Court's ruling on the motion to compel, to allow compelled discovery (and any associated depositions) to be completed." The Plaintiff also asserts that this discovery will "directly bear on the evidentiary record for class certification." Under the circumstances, the court finds good cause to modify the class certification deadline. The Defendant is an American retailer and producer of jewelry. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wLOjIK at no extra charge.[CC] ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- So if you have ever met Queenie, you know Alice + Olivia (A+O) is basically her uniform. She rocks it daily. Unfortunately for her favorite brand, they just got hit with a new TCPA class action. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff Natali Chernova filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of Florida alleging A+O simply refuses to take "no" for an answer. Chernova v. Alice + Olivia, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-20356-CMA (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 20, 2026). While Queenie keeps buying, Chernova apparently wanted out. And it allegedly didn't go well. According to the Complaint, Chernova started getting texts from A+O's short code (54098) in April 2025. She allegedly tried to opt out on April 22, 2025, by replying with the phrase "No more messages." The A+O's system texted back a standard "Thanks for texting us!" autoreply but seemingly failed to actually stop sending messages according to the Complaint. Just two days later, on April 24, A+O allegedly slid back into her DMs with: "you're officially on the list early access to the vacation drop starts now!" And allegedly again on April 25, with: "24 hours left your early access to the vacation drop ends tonight!" On April 25, Chernova hit A+O with a second "No more messages". The Complaint alleges that despite this a "persistent and incessant barrage" of texts followed throughout May and June, promoting everything from "the thong drop" to a "Happy Pride" sale. Plaintiff alleges the messages didn't stop until June 10, 2025 -- almost two months after she asked them to stop. The lawsuit alleges violations of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c), claiming A+O failed to maintain a written policy for their internal DNC list or train their personnel on how to use it. Under 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(d), companies are mandated to maintain a written policy for maintaining an internal DNC list and train their personnel on how to use it. Additionally, when a consumer makes a DNC request, the company must honor it within a reasonable time, which the law now states may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of such request. Now, Plaintiff seeks to represent a National Internal Do Not Call Class defined as: "From four years before the filing of the Complaint, all persons in the United States who (1) were sent more than one text message by or on behalf of Defendant within any 12-month period; (2) regarding Defendant's goods or services, to said person's cellular telephone number; and (3) while Defendant did not maintain the required procedures under 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(d) for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive such calls." We will keep an eye on this one. You can read the full lawsuit here: Chernova v Alice + Olivia And yes, Queenie is probably still shopping the sale. [GN] AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rai Suit Due Oct. 6 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AADIT RAI, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01905-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pretrial deadlines: Event Date Deadline for joining parties Mar. 18, 2026 Deadline for amending pleadings Apr. 15, 2026 Reports of expert witnesses under June 12, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: All motions related to class certification Aug. 3, 2026 discovery must be filed by this date and noted for consideration (pursuant to LCR7(d)): Class Certification Discovery to be Sept. 1, 2026 completed by: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Motion Oct. 6, 2026 for Class Certification and Report of Class Certification Expert: Deadline for Defendant to file Opposition Nov. 5, 2026 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Reply Nov. 19, 2026 re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NuiObE at no extra charge.[CC] ANTHEM HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mazzola Due July 23, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mazzola, et al., v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01433 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows: All discovery shall be completed on or before June 7, 2027, and all interim discovery deadlines are incorporated by reference. All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by agreement of the parties without the court's approval provided those amendments do not delay the deadline for completion of all discovery. The Plaintiffs shall move for class certification on or before July 23, 2027. Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before September 6, 2027. The parties' joint trial memorandum shall be filed on or before September 6, 2027, if no dispositive motions are filed, or within the period set by the court upon its disposition of any dispositive motions that are filed. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (E.R.I.S.A.). Anthem is a health insurance plan provider.[CC] ASHLEY STEWART: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harrison Due April 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Harrison and Sandra Pickens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ashley Stewart, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01349-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheri Pym entered an order granting joint stipulation for extension of time by 90 days. ]The Scheduling Order entered on Aug. 27, 2025, as previously modified, is further modified as follows: Class certification fact discovery cutoff: April 13, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file class April 30, 2026 certification Deadline for the Defendant to file class May 28, 2026 certification Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file class June 25, 2026 certification Last day to file motions before class June 30, 2026 certification hearing: Last Day to conduct mediation: July 9, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: July 28, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Ashley is a lifestyle brand for plus size women's fashion. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MQlg4m at no extra charge.[CC] BARCLAYS BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Credit Revocations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Barclays Bank Delaware has unlawfully failed to provide timely written notices that sufficiently explain the reasons for revoking customers' credit accounts. The 10-page lawsuit states that, according to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), a creditor must provide a customer with written notice of any adverse, credit-related action and cite the specific reasons why the action was taken. The complaint alleges that Barclays Bank Delaware has repeatedly failed to both specify its reasons for revoking customers' credit accounts and inform customers of their right to a statement of specific reasons. The lead plaintiff, for example, had his credit account revoked on August 15, 2023, and received a letter from the bank, dated the same day, notifying him of the revocation, the filing says. However, the only explanation provided for this action in the written notice, according to the suit, was that the man's account had been closed due to "[n]egative public record information identified." The filing argues that this "vague, boilerplate" explanation—and similar vague explanations Barclays Bank Delaware has allegedly provided other consumers—is inadequate and unhelpful, and does not align with the ECOA's provision that notices containing specific reasoning are meant to both provide "valuable educational benefit" to consumers and allow the consumer to correct their creditor "where the creditor may have acted on misinformation or inadequate information." Per the ECOA, a creditor has 30 days from the date of credit revocation to provide an accountholder with specific reasoning and notify the consumer of their right to a specific reason, which the complaint alleges Barclays Bank Delaware failed to do. Instead, the lawsuit says, the bank only ever issued the initial closure notice containing inadequate reasoning attached, in violation of the ECOA. The Barclays Bank Delaware class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who, between December 7, 2020 and the date of class certification, received a letter from Barclays Bank that gave "[n]egative public record information identified," or other similarly unspecific language, as the only reason or reasons for the revocation of a credit account. [GN] BATH & BODY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath & Body Works, Inc. (NYSE: BBWI) and certain of the Company's senior executives for securities fraud after significant stock drops resulting from the potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Bath & Body Works, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/bath-body-works-inc-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until March 16, 2026, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Bath & Body Works securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and is captioned Lingam v. Bath & Body Works, Inc., et al., No. 2:26-cv-00039. Why is Bath & Body Works Being Sued for Securities Fraud? Bath & Body Works is a specialty retailer of home fragrance and body care products. During the relevant period, the Company explored product categories, or "adjacencies," beyond its core business. The key adjacencies included products for men, lips, hair, and laundry. Bath & Body Works stated that customers were "responding favorably to innovation" including "adjacencies" of men's, lip, and laundry. The Company also stated that its "strategy is working," and that the Company was driving topline growth through "extending our reach through category adjacencies." As alleged, in truth, Bath & Body Works' strategy of pursuing adjacencies was not growing the customer base or delivering the promised level of growth in net sales. Why did Bath & Body Works' Stock Drop? On August 28, 2025, Bath & Body Works reported disappointing Q2 2025 financial results and announced it was cutting its full year guidance for earnings per diluted share by $0.03, to $3.28 to $3.53. This news caused the price of Bath & Body Works stock to drop $2.18 per share, or 6.9%, from a closing price of $31.54 per share on August 27, 2025, to $29.36 per share on August 28, 2025. Then, on November 20, 2025, Bath & Body Works released its Q3 2025 financial results. The Company announced it was slashing full year guidance and revealed that its strategy of pursuing "adjacencies, collaborations and promotions" had "not grown our total customer base." The Company also revealed it would exit certain adjacencies to focus on core categories. This news caused the price of Bath & Body Works stock to drop $5.22 per share, or 24.8%, from a closing price of $21.04 per share on November 19, 2025, to $15.82 per share on November 20, 2025. Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/bath-body-works-inc-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Bath & Body Works, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/bath-body-works-inc-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Adam McCall, Esq. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP adam@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] BELLRING BRANDS: Denha Alleges Securities Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------- DANIL DENHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLRING BRANDS, INC., DARCY HORN DAVENPORT, and PAUL RODE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00575 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2026) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations regarding the strength, sustainability, and drivers of BellRing's sales growth, as well as the impact of competition on the demand for the Company's products. During the class period, the Defendants represented that sales growth reflected increased end-consumer demand. In truth, BellRing's reported sales during the class period were due to its key customers stockpiling inventory, which concealed the erosion of the Company's market share as competition intensified, and did not reflect increased end-consumer demand or brand momentum, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired BellRing securities between November 19, 2024 and August 4, 2025, inclusive. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, BellRing develops, markets, and sells "convenient nutrition" products such as ready-to-drink protein shakes, powders, bars, and other protein enriched food products, primarily under the brand name Premier Protein. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Bleichmar, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com - and - Ross Shikowitz, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 75 Virginia Road White Plains, NY 10603 Telephone: (914) 265-2991 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com - and - Adam C. McCall, Esq. 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: amccall@bfalaw.com BELLRING BRANDS: Faces Suit Over False, Misleading Business Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against BellRing Brands, Inc. ("BellRing" or the "Company") (NYSE:BRBR) in the The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired BellRing securities between November 19, 2024 and August 4, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until March 23, 2026 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Allegation Details: According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose to investors that its strong sales results did not reflect increased end-consumer demands or brand momentum. Rather, customers accumulated excess inventory as a safeguard against product shortages that had previously constrained BellRing's supply. Once customers gained confidence that product shortages were a thing of the past, they promptly reduced their inventory by selling through existing products and cutting back on new orders. Following the destocking, the Company admitted that competitive pressures were materially weakening demand. On August 4, 2025, BellRing reported its fiscal Q3 25 financial results, revealing a disappointing 2025 sales outlook, stating "BellRing management has narrowed its fiscal year 2025 outlook for net sales to [a] range between $2.28-$2.32 billion[.]" On this news, the price of BellRing stock declined $17.46 per share, or nearly 33%, from $53.64 per share on August 4, 2025, to $36.18 per share on August 5, 2025. Next Steps: If you purchased or otherwise acquired BellRing shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in securities, derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] BELLS OF STEEL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Bells of Steel USA Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00145-TWP-CSW (S.D. Ind., Jan. 23, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://bellsofsteel.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by See and other blind or visually impaired individuals pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of rights under the ADA. The Defendant 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 power racks, barbells, weight plates, benches, all-in-one trainers, gym accessories, and other gym equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law BLOOMBERG LP: Allowed Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER ADAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-04775-JLR-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rochon entered an order granting the Defendant leave to move for summary judgment prior to class certification consideration, and no pre-motion conference will be required. The parties shall propose a summary judgment briefing schedule by Jan. 4, 2026, the Court says. Bloomberg is a private financial, software, data, and media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tjlNWd at no extra charge.[CC] BUNZL DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LAZARO TORRES, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. BUNZL DISTRIBUTION MIDCENTRAL, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06210-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order granting joint stipulation to modify scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than May 8, 2026. 2. All expert discovery shall be completed by July 23, 2026. The parties must serve their initial expert witness disclosures no later than May 22, 2026. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures shall be served no later than June 23, 2026. 3. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than May 8, 2026. 4. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Aug. 25, 2026, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. 5. The court will set dates and deadlines for summary judgment, trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after the resolution of the motion for class certification. Bunzl wholesales and distributes food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5YZ54U at no extra charge.[CC] CAL-MAINE FOODS: Huyler Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy on Eggs ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON HUYLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00135-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 22, 2026) seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief against Defendants for violations of: (1) the antitrust laws of the United States; and (2) the antitrust and consumer protection laws of the states. From at least January 1, 2022 until the time that the adverse effects of Defendants' anti competitive conduct cease, the Defendants and their co-conspirators allegedly conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of conventional fresh shell eggs. The Defendants implemented and executed their conspiracy by collectively increasing the price of conventional eggs including manipulation of an industry-wide pricing benchmark, exchange of competitively sensitive pricing information, leverage of a slight supply disruption and a temporary spike in input costs to justify outsized, and utilization of other available means to exploit their collective market power and artificially increase prices of conventional eggs, says the suit. Headquartered in Ridgeland, MS, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces and distributes shell eggs in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Adrian Buonanoce, Esq. Naveed Abaie, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com bpouya@pwfirm.com abuonanoce@pwfirm.com nabaie@pwfirm.com - and - Brian S. Pafundi, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: bpafundi@pwfirm.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. Samantha M. Gupta, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com sgupta@fklmlaw.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 243-6335 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com CASPIAN TECHNOLOGY: Ebben Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW EBBEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASPIAN TECHNOLOGY CONCEPTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00112-NJ (E.D. Wis., January 22, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Allegedly, the Defendant's unlawful compensation policies and practices deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former technician employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendant improperly classified said employees as salaried-exempt for compensation purposes, despite these employees primarily performing non-exempt duties each workweek, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the suit. Caspian Technology Concepts LLC is a technology company based in Waukesha, WI. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com CHEM LINK: Lowell Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JARED LOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEM LINK, INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-00257 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 23, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 2021 through November 2024. The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $24.3599. In addition to the base rate of pay, the Defendant incorporated various routine and non-discretionary bonuses into its payment structure. Chem Link delivers polymer innovation in high-performance roof sealants, window sealants, and adhesives & coatings for pro applications in construction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com COFFEE & CHILL: Diaz Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO DIAZ individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COFFEE & CHILL LLC Defendant, Case No. 2026-001276-CA-01 (Cir. Ct., Miami Dade Cty., Fl., January 21, 2026) is a class action that alleges the defendant violated telemarketing regulations by continuing to send solicitations after opt-out requests and failing to maintain required do-not-call procedures. The complaint relates that to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited calls and continues to solicit consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Further, to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited calls to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Defendant's solicitations caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff Francisco Diaz is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade, Florida. Defendant Coffee & Chill LLC is a limited liability company with its headquarters located in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 813-340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com COMCAST CABLE: Agrees to Settle Cyberattack Suit for $117.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC has agreed to a massive $117.5 million settlement to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging the internet and mobile services provider failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to safeguard sensitive consumer information, leading to an October 2023 data breach. The Comcast class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 16, 2026 and covers approximately 31,658,000 individuals residing in the United States and its territories who were sent an individual notice from Comcast informing them of the October 2023 data breach. According to the agreement, Comcast settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form will have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses stemming from the October 2023 data breach are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $10,000 as reimbursement. The agreement outlines that losses must have been incurred on or after October 16, 2023 in relation to the data breach, and reimbursable expenses include those related to identity theft, fraud, falsified tax returns, credit report costs, costs to freeze credit, and credit monitoring costs, among other expenses. In addition to claims for out-of-pocket losses, Comcast settlement class members may also file a claim for up to five hours of lost time spent remedying issues related to the data breach at a rate of $30 per hour. This reimbursement, the agreement notes, is subject to the same $10,000 cap outlined in the documented-loss payout option. In place of an out-of-pocket loss and lost time payment, class members may instead file a claim to receive an alternative one-time cash payment of approximately $50. The settlement agreement reports that class members will have options for how they receive their cash payout, including via check and "at least one option" for electronic payment. Per the proposed benefits plan, the final amount each class member receives will be determined by the total number of valid claims filed and what remains in the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees, lead plaintiff service awards and settlement administration costs. Finally, in addition to any monetary benefits, the settlement agreement reports that all class members will be eligible to receive identity defense and restoration services from CyEx. Once the court-approved Comcast settlement website is live, the settlement administrator will publish information on how consumers may file their claim form and any other pertinent information related to receiving settlement benefits. The settlement agreement preliminarily lists that claim forms must be submitted by August 14, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Comcast data breach settlement at a hearing currently set for July 7, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Comcast class action lawsuit, into which two dozen class action cases were consolidated, alleged that the sensitive information of over 36 million Xfinity customers was exposed during what was a supposedly preventable cyberattack between the approximate dates of October 16, 2023 and October 19, 2023. The lawsuit references the cause of the data breach as a previously unknown "vulnerability" in the systems of Citrix -- the provider of cloud computing software used by Comcast -- that was announced by Citrix prior to the onslaught of the breach. [GN] COMMUNITY FIRST: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Community First Medical Center agreed to a $1 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to protect consumers from a 2023 data breach. The Community First Medical Center settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised in the July 2023 data breach at Community First Medical Center. The data breach class action lawsuit claims that Community First Medical Center failed to protect consumer information from a data breach on July 12, 2023. As a result of the breach, sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information and health information, was allegedly exposed. Community First Medical Center is a Chicago hospital that provides emergency services, surgical services, cancer care, women's health services and more. Community First Medical Center has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Community First Medical Center settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for data breach-related expenses such as fraud, communication charges, credit expenses and bank fees. These payments are available only to class members who have documentation of their losses. Class members who did not suffer any out-of-pocket losses as a result of the data breach can receive an alternative cash payment of around $40. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the net settlement fund after deductions. All class members are eligible for one year of free credit and identity theft monitoring services. These services include three-bureau credit monitoring, $1 million in identity theft insurance, dark web monitoring and medical record monitoring. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 3, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Community First Medical Center data breach settlement is scheduled for March 25, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 2, 2026. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised in the July 12, 2023, Community First Medical Center data breach or those who received a data breach notification from the defendant. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses or a cash payment of around $40. Proof of Purchase Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses, such as bills, receipts, account statements, 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 April 2, 2026 Case Name Pacheco, et al. v. Community First Healthcare of Illinois Inc. d/b/a Community First Medical Center, Case No. 2023CH08487, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Final Hearing March 25, 2026 Settlement Website CFMCSettlement.com Claims Administrator CFMC Data Incident Settlement Administrator Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 (833) 754-8355 Class Counsel Ben Barnow BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES P.C. Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Tyler J. Bean SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Defense Counsel Casie D. Collignon BAKER HOSTETLER LLP [GN] COMPASS GROUP: Mehlberg Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mehlberg, et al., v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04179 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file Exhibits 1-31, the unredacted Suggestions in Support of their motion for class certification, and the Declaration of Alexander T. Ricke under seal provisionally. The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). Compass is a contract foodservice company.[CC] COMPASS MINERALS: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Compass Minerals International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2025, that on July 30, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas held a hearing at which it approved the settlement of $48.0 million, including fees and expenses awarded to lead counsel and plaintiffs with regards to a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in, alleging that the company and such officers made misleading statements damaging shareholders. Compass Minerals International, Inc. through its subsidiaries is a provider of essential minerals, primarily salt and plant nutrition with production sites located in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. CONTAINER STORE: Website Conceals Tracking Practices, Ridzuan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SITI AISHAH RIDZUAN, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00619 (N.D. Cal., January 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for surreptitiously installing and operating tracking software on its website, www.thecontainerstore.com, without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Container Store's Website is designed to attract, monetize, and retain users through digital marketing, advertising attribution, analytics, and audience measurement, and THE CONTAINER STORE affirmatively conducts business with California residents by offering products for sale to California consumers and by accepting California billing and payment information in the ordinary course of business. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, Defendant enables third-party technologies on its Website that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap-and-trace devices or processes. These technologies automatically capture and transmit non-content dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information including Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, page URLs, referrer headers, timestamps, session identifiers, and device or browser identifiers to third-party servers in real time during users' interactions with the Website. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered a loss of control over personal data, emotional distress, and a violation of their constitutional right to privacy, says the suit. The Plaintiff on behalf of herself and on behalf of the Class Members seeks injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing its deceptive and unlawful data tracking practices and to require clear and conspicuous notice and opt-in consent for any behavioral tracking involving third-party tools; and also seeks restitution of the value derived from the unauthorized use of their personal information, attorneys' fees where permitted by law, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiff SITI AISHAH RIDZUAN is a California citizen residing in Contra Costa County and was in California when she visited the Website, which occurred during the class period on December 2, 2025. Defendant THE CONTAINER STORE is a retailer specializing in storage, organization, and custom space-management products for residential and commercial use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com CORA TEXAS: Class Certification Hearing Set for March 4 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO JIMENEZ-GONZALEZ, ET AL. V. CORA TEXAS GROWERS AND HARVESTERS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:24-cv-00820-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jackson entered an order that that a combined Collective-Action and Class Action Certification Hearing addressing Plaintiffs' Motion For 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) Notice To Similarly Situated Workers And For Disclosure Of Contact Information and Plaintiffs' Motion For Rule 23 Class Certification be and is set for March 4, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XRDL0s at no extra charge.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over Rotisserie Chicken's False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wyoming News reports that two California consumers have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation, alleging the retail giant has misled millions of shoppers by falsely advertising its popular Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as containing "no preservatives," despite formulating the product with added preservatives that extend shelf life and maintain texture. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the complaint asserts that Costco has "systemically cheated customers out of tens -- if not hundreds -- of millions of dollars" by prominently marketing the Rotisserie Chicken as preservative–free in stores and online while adding sodium phosphate and carrageenan -- ingredients that function as preservatives. Prominent "No Preservatives" Claims Allegedly Misled Shoppers According to the lawsuit, Costco displays large in–store signage and online product listings stating "No Preservatives," without qualification. Plaintiffs Bianca Johnston of Big Bear, California and Anatasia Chernov of Escondido, California say they relied on these representations when purchasing the product, believing the chicken contained no additives that preserve taste, texture, or shelf life. The complaint alleges that Costco's representations were false and misleading because sodium phosphate and carrageenan -- both added to the Rotisserie Chicken -- perform preservative functions by inhibiting spoilage, stabilizing proteins, and extending shelf stability. "Consumers reasonably rely on clear, prominent claims like 'No Preservatives,' especially when deciding what they and their families will eat," said California Managing Partner Wesley M. Griffith of the Almeida Law Group. "Costco's own ingredient list contradicts its marketing. That's unlawful, and it's unfair." Consumers Increasingly Seek Transparency in Food Ingredients The lawsuit cites industry research showing that consumers place significant weight on preservative–related claims and increasingly seek "clean label" products free from additives. Plaintiffs allege that Costco capitalized on this trend while concealing the true nature of its product. Claims Under Washington and California Consumer Protection Laws The complaint brings claims under: -- Washington Consumer Protection Act -- California Consumers Legal Remedies Act -- California Unfair Competition Law -- California False Advertising Law Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution, damages, and disgorgement of profits obtained through Costco's misleading marketing. Plaintiffs Say They Would Not Have Purchased the Product Had They Known the Truth Both plaintiffs allege they would not have purchased the Rotisserie Chicken -- or would have paid less -- had Costco disclosed that the product contains added preservatives. They also state they intend to purchase the product again in the future if it is actually preservative free but cannot rely on Costco's representations unless they are truthful. Case Information The case is Johnston vs. Costco Wholesale Corporation, United States District Court for the Southern District of California. A case number has not yet been assigned. [GN] DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN: Filing of Class Cert Opposition Due Jan. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcus F., Garrett M., a minor, by his next friend Jared Trujillo, Isaac R., a minor, by his next friend Ms. Y., and Christopher M., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated youth, v. DaMia Harris-Madden, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, and Norman Hall, in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner, Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth, Case No. 1:26-cv-00148-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kaplan entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Any opposition to the Motion shall be filed no later than Jan. 30, 2026; -- Any reply papers in support of the Motion shall be filed no later than Feb. 4, 2026, at noon; and -- The Court will confer with counsel and hear argument on the motion on Feb. 5, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. United States of Aritzia refers to the American operations and legal entity of Aritzia. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TCHLeY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Freeman, Esq. Kathryn Wood, Esq. Emma-Lee Clinger, Esq. Antony Gemmell, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 40 Worth Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 577-3300 E-mail: lafreeman@legal-aid.org kwood@legal-aid.org eclinger@legal-aid.org agemmell@legal-aid.org - and - Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq. Damian Williams, Esq. Jacob D. Alderdice, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 891-1600 E-mail: JCreelan@jenner.com DWilliams@jenner.com JAlderdice@jenner.com The Defendants are represented by: Letitia James, Esq. Meaghan E. Brennan, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 416-8411 E-mail: Meaghan.Brennan@ag.ny.gov DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS: Scheduling Conference Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MITCHELL, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05841-MCS-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered an order setting scheduling conference as follows: Joint Rule 26(f) Report The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed by 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. The Report shall be drafted by plaintiff (unless the parties agree otherwise) but shall be submitted and signed jointly. The Court often vacates the Scheduling Conference and issues the Scheduling Order based solely on the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. Notice to be Provided by Counsel Plaintiff’s counsel or, if plaintiff is appearing pro se, defendant’s counsel, shall provide this Order to any parties who first appear after the date of this Order and to parties who are known to exist but have not yet entered appearances. Disclosures to Clients Counsel are ordered to deliver to their clients a copy of this Order and of the Court’s Order Re: Jury/Court Trial, which will contain the schedule that the Court sets at the Scheduling Conference. Court's Website This and all other generally applicable orders of this Court are available on the Central District of California website, www.cacd.uscourts.gov Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) runs programs benefiting veterans and members of their families. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mkLX0O at no extra charge.[CC] DISCOUNT BAZAAR: Faces Nouhou Suit Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ KABIROU BOUREIMA NOUHOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT BAZAAR INC. d/b/a 99¢ Amazing; ONE WAY CONVENIENCE CORP. d/b/a 99¢ Amazing; MAX DEALS OGDEN INC. d/b/a Max Deals; MUHAMMED S. ANDHA; and IBRAHIM SEIDU, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00604 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, spread-of-hours premiums, amounts unlawfully deducted from wages, statutory damages for Defendants' failure to provide wage notices and accurate wage statements, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, including the Wage Theft Prevention. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately December 2019 through February 2025, performing nonexempt store-work duties including security/door work, bag checks, stocking merchandise, cleaning, and other tasks as assigned. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked well over 40 hours per week, often seven days per week, but Defendants paid him a flat weekly amount in cash and did not pay overtime premiums required by federal or New York law. In addition, the Defendants also failed to provide legally required wage notices at hire and upon changes in pay, failed to provide accurate wage statements with payments of wages, failed to maintain accurate time and payroll records, failed to pay spread-of-hours premiums when Plaintiff's workdays exceeded 10 hours, and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's wages, alleges the suit. Discount Bazaar Inc. owns and/or operates a retail discount store located at 1181 Webster Avenue, Bronx, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 679-9660 E-mail: ctucker@saccofillas.com DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Fostoria City Joins Card Merchant Action Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Cottos, writing for The Courier, reports that Fostoria City Council on Tuesday night, January 20, approved an ordinance allowing the city to participate in the Discover Card Merchant Class Action Settlement, which is a proposed fund of up to $1.22 billion for businesses that were overcharged by Discover's alleged misclassification of consumer cards as commercial cards between 2007 and 2023. According to the lawsuit, higher interchange fees resulted from the misclassification. Agencies that accepted Discover during that period have until May 18 to file claims at website www.discovermerchantsettlement.com. "I have no idea," Mayor Don Mennel said of whether Fostoria has any funds to recover. "It's worth a shot. It's probably one of those things that will take two or three years to get resolved. We just feel it's important that we enter it just in case there is money there. We have no idea whether there will be or not." Mennel noted during the meeting that the Ohio Department of Health will have a mobile unit at the Fostoria Learning Center, 342 Perry St., between 10 a.m., and 6 p.m. Members of the public will be able to receive flu shots, have various health screenings done and have other matters addressed. Council heard first readings of proposed measures regarding the vacation of a road portion, a fire/ambulance contract, the auctioning of various materials and the reappropriation of funds. No proposals to waive the three-reading rule prior to passage could be made due to a lack of a quorum, with council members Tom Baker and Sue Lehmann absent. Council excused both absences. Finance Director Steve Dandurand told finance committee members prior to the council meeting that the city is drawing close to petitioning the state auditor's office to be released from the fiscal emergency status which it has had since 2016. Dandurand has said that he does not plan to stay on as finance director beyond the expiration of his contract in October. With that in mind, the finance committee has tentatively scheduled a second February meeting, on the 17th of the month, to move toward finding Dandurand's replacement. [GN] EIGHTFOLD AI: Faces Class Suit Over Use of AI in Hiring Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jen Colletta of HR Executive reports that AI hiring platform Eightfold AI was sued in California state court this January, the latest example of a legal challenge questioning the use of AI in hiring practices. The proposed class action, filed on behalf of job seekers who used the platform's tools -- or were evaluated by employers that did -- charges that candidates were not properly notified of how their information was being used. According to a report in Reuters, this marks the first case of its kind to allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by an AI hiring tool. The latest AI in hiring lawsuit The suit centers on the predictive nature of Eightfold's tool, particularly the "dossiers" Eightfold culls about job candidates from online data. Plaintiffs contend applicants have no knowledge of these reports, nor are they given the opportunity to review or dispute the findings within, which are fed into Eightfold's proprietary AI to predict a candidate's likelihood of success in a particular role. The two named plaintiffs charge that the technology put them at a hiring disadvantage when they sought positions at Eightfold clients, including Microsoft and PayPal. According to Eightfold, it counts about one-third of the Fortune 500 among its clients. According to the complaint, plaintiffs say Eightfold is "collecting personal data such as social media profiles, location data, internet and device activity, cookies and other tracking, to create a profile about the candidate's behavior, attitudes, intelligence, aptitudes and other characteristics that applicants never included in their job application." In a statement to Reuters, however, an Eightfold spokesperson emphasized that, to build the datasets the AI analyzes, the company does not "scrape social media and the like." "We are deeply committed to responsible AI, transparency and compliance with applicable data protection and employment laws," Kurt Foeller told the outlet. The topic of responsible AI gets considerable coverage on Eightfold's website. The platform describes that it regularly conducts AI audits, monitors new regulations, handles data "with a focus on privacy," and operates an AI Ethics Council, among other strategies. AI for HR: growing legal risk? The Eightfold suit highlights the increasingly complex legal landscape facing employers as AI regulations continue to take shape. The use of AI in hiring is making legal waves well beyond Eightfold: HR tech giant Workday is facing its own class action regarding its AI-powered screening tools, which plaintiffs contend unfairly discriminate against older job candidates. Sarah Smart, co-founder of HorizonHuman, recently wrote for HR Executive that "AI in HR technology is already influencing decisions that directly impact who gets hired, promoted or left behind." Regardless of where the Workday suit ends up, she says the case is a "call to action for HR leaders. HR executives must become proficient in AI's applications, risks and governance." That mandate extends far beyond the use of AI in hiring, as the tech permeates the breadth of what HR touches. For instance, Amazon asked a judge to toss out a proposed class action by employees who charge the tech giant routinely dismisses employee requests for accommodations, and that its use of AI to screen those requests is problematic. In analyzing HR tech trends over the last year, HR Tech Chair Steve Boese recently wrote that the legal murkiness surrounding AI for HR is driving up demand for transparency from vendors. HR is questioning vendors "more aggressively" about how their AI models work, while employees are pressing for clearer expectations around the tech's influence and regulators are seeking real documentation, "rather than promises." "Trust is now a defining competitive differentiator in HR technology," Boese writes. [GN] ELIGO ENERGY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 30 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brous et al v. Eligo Energy, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramos entered an order granting the parties request for unopposed extension of certain deadlines as follows: The defendants are directed to file their Daubert motions by Feb. 20, 2026. The opposition is due April 3, 2026. Any reply is due April 20, 2026. The plaintiffs are directed to file the class certification motion by Jan. 30, 2026. The opposition is due March 13, 2026. The reply is due April 13, 2026. Eligo is a Chicago-based retail energy supplier. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gzkSr9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Defendant is represented by: The Parties are represented by: Ryan Watstein, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 75 14th Street NE, Ste. 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 782-0695 E-mail: Ryan@wtlaw.com ELSEVIER INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nguyen Due Sept. 7 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMSA NGUYEN and DAVID GARCIA, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ELSEVIER INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00825-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel Cousins entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows: For the Plaintiffs to disclose and serve Apr. 27, 2026 class expert reports: For the Defendant to disclose and serve June 29, 2026 class expert reports: For discovery on class certification issues: Aug. 24, 2026 For the Plaintiffs to file Class Certification Sept. 7, 2026 Motion and omnibus Daubert motion on class certification experts: For the Defendant to file class certification Oct. 12, 2026 opposition, omnibus Daubert motion on class certification experts, and Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion: For the Plaintiffs to file their Class Nov. 9, 2026 Certification Reply, Daubert Reply, and Opposition to Defendant’s Daubert motion Hearing on Class Certification and Daubert Dec. 9, 2026, Motions: 11:00 a.m. Elsevier is a global information analytics business specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Vgl3W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel E. Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark David McPherson, Esq. Lauren LaVare, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 813-8800 E-mail: mmcpherson@goodwinlaw.com llavare@goodwinlaw.com ETN AMERICA: Settles TCPA Class Action, Gives Up Supplier Name -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric "Czar" Troutman of TCPAWorld comments you folks might remember I covered a story about ETN America and officer Shlomi Cohen being sued by the Wolf in a TCPA class action. ETN responded by issuing a press release doubling down on its TCPA compliance efforts, which I thought was pretty savy. Well turns out ETN settled the case with the Wolf -- not sure how much, if any, money was paid but a settlement was entered into -- and the Court ordered ETN to reveal its lead source as part of the deal. In Friel v. ETN America, et al. 2026 WL 146672 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2026) the Wolf moved to compel ETN to identify the lead source after ETN refused to do so in discovery. ETN didn't really have grounds to refuse to the disclosure -- it is plainly discoverable -- but apparently the lead source had some sort of confidentiality provision in its contract preventing ETN from naming it. Pause. What? If you are a lead buyer and your lead seller has a provision in its contract banning you from speaking its name -- that's a pretty big red flag! Unpause. The Court in Friel made short work of ETN's position and ordered it to provide the name of the lead seller to the Wolf within seven days. So, yeah. You can fully expect the Wolf to sue the lead seller in a new TCPA class action and I will be eagerly awaiting that so I can report the identity of the lead seller that got ETN into this mess. Will be interesting. Speaking of interesting -- best marketing/advertising legal/compliance show in the country is Law Conference of Champions May 4-6, 2026 and tickets are NOW ON SALE! Get them while they last! [GN] FCA US: Fails to Secure Sensitive Personal Info, Spadafore Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LORIA SPADAFORE and THOMAS SPADAFORE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, d/b/a STELLANTIS NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-10214-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., January 21, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security procedures and practices, resulting in a data breach in or around December 25, 2025 (the "Data Breach") in which unauthorized third parties accessed and/or exfiltrated Plaintiffs' and Class Members' highly sensitive personal information and contact information, including but not limited to: names, phone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and other personal information defined as "Personally Identifiable Information" ("PII") under applicable federal and state law. The company relates that the Defendant collects PII in part to conduct sales, perform research and analytics, to personalize content for customers, to advertise and market to customers, to support its business operations, and to conduct business transactions. On December 25, 2025, the ransomware group Everest breached Defendant's systems due to Defendant's failure to secure its databases, gaining access to 1 terabyte of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive Personal Information. According to the complaint, Everest threatened to publish Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Personal Information unless a ransom was paid. The Defendant refused to pay the ransom demanded by Everest and Everest published Personal Information belonging to Plaintiffs and Class Members on January 4, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members now must take action to protect themselves from identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the Class, seeks appropriate injunctive relief designed to prevent Defendant from experiencing another data breach by adopting and implementing best data security practices to safeguard PII and to provide or extend credit monitoring services and similar services to protect against all types of identity theft. Plaintiffs Loria Spadafore and husband Thomas Spadafore are residents of DuPage County, Illinois who purchased a 2023 Jeep Gladiator. The purchase required them to submit PII to FCA US LLC, including name, address, date of birth, phone number, Social Security number, and other personal information. Defendant FCA US LLC is a limited liability company that designs, manufactures, sells, and leases vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com FIRST SOLAR: Faces Fraud Class Action Suit Over Stock Downgrade --------------------------------------------------------------- Will Norman, writing for PVTech, reports that US cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin-film solar manufacturer First Solar is facing a class action lawsuit investigation into its business practices following a downgrade in its stock. The lawsuit is currently investigating whether First Solar or its directors "have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices," on behalf of undisclosed investors in the company. The case is in response to a downgrade of First Solar's stock (FSLR) by investment banking and capital markets firm Jefferies earlier this month, which saw it fall by US$27.67 per share, or around 10%, on the NASDAQ as of 7 January 2026. Jefferies cited lowered guidance for 2025 and a compressed margin, as well as the risk of "de-bookings" in its decision to downgrade First Solar stock from "buy" to "hold". New York-based law firm Pomerantz, a firm specialising in defrauded investor cases, is conducting the investigation. First Solar's stock price had risen massively over the course of 2025, in tandem with its operational expansion in the US. FSLR traded at US$129.6 on 31 March 2025 and hit a high of US$284.59 on 22 December 2025. The company has also opened multiple manufacturing and research bases on US soil. The roughly 10% drop at the start of January could, then, potentially be seen as a course correction after a massive growth period. However, in its downgrade, Jefferies cited limited booking visibility in First Solar's operations, increasing worries over booking cancellations and the company's heavy exposure to Section 45X advanced manufacturing tax credits. These might suggest there was more behind the decision than possibly inflated stock value. The company has previously said it has an extensive backlog of module sales, and PV Tech reported as far back as 2023 that First Solar had sold all of its module capacity through 2026. The only public reports of module order cancellations for First Solar have been with Lightsource bp, the subsidiary of oil and gas giant bp, for which the module producer is seeking damages. First Solar has made over US$2 billion in 45X tax credit deals to date, with its latest US$175 million credit transfer deal closing in October. Overall, renewables tax credits introduced under the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) were harshly scaled back in the Trump administration's reconciliation bill last summer, but 45X credits remained relatively untouched. First Solar CEO Mark Widmar has also said that the current White House policies "strengthen" First Solar's position relative to its competition. The company did revise its guidance for the 2025 financial year down in its Q3 financial report, lowering net sale forecasts down from between US$4.9-5.7 billion to between US$4.95-5.2 billion. First Solar blamed this downgrade on a solar glass supply chain issue and the contract termination with Lightsource. [GN] FLAMINGO EAST: Pardo Sues Over Property's Non-Compliance with ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. FLAMINGO EAST LTD D/B/A FLAMINGO PLAZA, SUNSHINE RETAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A FRESCO Y MAS #0242, and MARSHALLS OF MA, INC. D/B/A MARSHALLS #1197, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20421-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2026) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff found the Defendants' commercial property, grocery store, and department store businesses to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject property and Defendants' businesses. Flamingo East Ltd.owns and operates a grocery store, and department store businesses in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajplawgroup.com GRACO CHILDREN'S: Francoforte Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA FRANCOFORTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00137-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. First, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class as to (1) the proposed Nationwide Class based on common law fraud and unjust enrichment, and (2) State Subclasses based on consumer protection statute violations in the following states: Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. The Court also denies the motion to certify as to the proposed State Subclass based on the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims in California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio. But the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify as to the proposed state Subclasses based on consumer protection statute violations in the following states: Florida and New York. The Court additionally grants the Plaintiffs' motion as to the proposed State Subclass based on the breach of warranty claim in Alabama only. Accordingly, the Court orders the following: 1. The following subclasses are certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons within each State who purchased a new Graco belt-positioning booster seat class from 2015 through 2021, including the states of Alabama, Florida and New York." Lastly, the parties are ordered to mediation of the remaining claims within 45 days. The parties are directed to confer and notify the Court within 14 days whether they prefer private mediation or no-cost mediation before a Magistrate Judge. If the parties oppose mediation, they are to provide their reasons. If the case is not resolved at mediation, the parties are ordered to file a status report within 14 days of the unsuccessful mediation. In conclusion, the Court disagrees with the Defendant's contentions that a class action is not the superior method of adjudicating a case here. The Court holds that a class action here would be manageable, and Plaintiffs have upheld their burden of demonstrating that it would fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy here through an ascertainable class. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and the additional requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) for the approved State Subclasses. The Plaintiffs proposes (1) "a Nationwide Class for the Common Law Claims composed of all persons within the United States who purchased a new Graco belt-positioning Booster Seat from 2015 through 2021," and (2) "State Subclasses composed of all persons within each State who purchased a new Graco belt-positioning Booster Seat from 2015 through 2021," including the states Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Graco manufactures and markets juvenile products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UdZhFi at no extra charge.[CC] GREEN TRIPS: Proposed Discovery Order Filing Extended to Feb. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Washington v. Green Trips Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03585 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 16, 2024), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: The Defendants must provide class certification information in an excel spreadsheet by Feb. 4, 2026, and the parties' counsel shall have an in-person conference of one hour by that same date. The deadline for the parties to file the joint proposed discovery order is extended to Feb. 12, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Green provides non-emergency medical transportation services for the elderly and those who have some form of disability to access healthcare services.[CC] GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Bianchi Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN BIANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00671 (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"), and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. The complaints relates that the Defendant is an online and mobile platform that facilitates on-demand food ordering and delivery services between consumers, restaurants, and delivery drivers throughout the United States. On January 2025, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information. The complaint alleges that the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiff was injured in the form of lost time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included and continues to include: time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach; time spent exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options; time spent self-monitoring their accounts with heightened scrutiny and time spent seeking legal counsel regarding their options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek an Order of the Court requiring Defendant to refund, disgorge, and pay as restitution any profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by Defendant from its wrongful conduct and/or the establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members may seek restitution. Plaintiff Brian Bianchi is a former employee of Defendant and is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant GrubHub Holdings, Inc. is an online and mobile platform that facilitates on-demand food ordering and delivery services between consumers, restaurants, and delivery drivers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com HEARTLAND AMBULANCE: Kinnamon Sues Over Unlawful Pay Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVIYA KINNAMON, individually, and for others similarly situated v. HEARTLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00131-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind., January 22, 2026) arises from Defendant's bonus pay scheme that violated Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff Kinnamon as an emergency medical technician from approximately September 2024 until November 2025. The Plaintiff and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in calculating the hourly employees' regular rates of pay, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violated the IWPL by failing to compensate Kinnamon and the other hourly employees all their earned wages on their regular paydays at least semi-monthly, contends the suit. Headquartered in Muncie, IN, Heartland Ambulance Service LLC provides medical transportation services and offers 911 emergency services, non-emergent medical transportation, fixed wing-air ambulance services, and more to Muncie, Anderson, Portland, New Castle, Kokomo, Marion, Carmel, Fishers, and surrounding IN communities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.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 HIGH TIME: Calcano Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. HIGH TIME PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-511 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://bumpstopper.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January 6, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Bump Stopper Arctic Shave Gel from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MARCOS CALCAN is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant HIGH TIME PRODUCTS LLC operates the Bump Stopper online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. Its interactive Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: shaving products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 HONDA MOTORS: Engine Recall Fails to Fix Defect, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a class action lawsuit alleges that a Honda engine recall failed to fix a dangerous defect that is known to increase the risk of sudden engine failure, leaving drivers at risk of stalling, fires and costly repairs. The complaint (PDF) was filed by Savannah Messenger in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 12, on behalf of drivers nationwide who own or lease certain Honda and Acura vehicles equipped with a 3.5-liter V6 engine. Messenger names American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Honda Motor Company Limited as the defendants, claiming the companies knew for years that the affected engines were prone to premature internal failure, and issued only a limited recall that did not correct the underlying defect. As a result, the lawsuit indicates that certain Honda vehicles may experience abnormal engine noise, loss of power, stalling, overheating and, in some cases, catastrophic engine failure while driving, creating a risk of crashes or fires. According to Messenger's complaint, Honda issued a recall for a quarter million vehicles in November 2023, which was later updated in 2024, due to an improperly manufactured crank pin. The company acknowledged certain vehicles contained crankshaft components that were manufactured out of specification, leading to increased friction, accelerated bearing wear and the potential for engine seizure. The crankshaft is a key internal engine component that converts the pistons' up-and-down movement into rotational motion, allowing power to be delivered to the drivetrain. The crank pin, also known as a rod journal, is the rounded, offset section of the crankshaft where the connecting rod attaches. The lawsuit identifies several specific Honda and Acura models equipped with the 3.5-liter V6 engine that were included in, or affected by, the crankshaft recall, including: -- 2016-2022 Honda Pilot -- 2017-2026 Honda Ridgeline -- 2018-2026 Honda Odyssey -- 2019-2025 Honda Passport -- 2014-2020 Acura RLX -- 2015-2020 Acura TLX -- 2016-2020 and 2022-2026 Acura MDX Messenger alleges that many vehicles outside the recall's VIN range continue to experience the same failure symptoms, despite being built with the same engine components. She claims the recall covered only a fraction of the vehicles experiencing the engine failure problems, and did not address broader design and manufacturing defects affecting the engine's rotating assembly. As a result, the lawsuit alleges many drivers were denied repairs or reimbursement because their vehicle identification numbers were excluded from the recall. The complaint contends that even vehicles that received recall inspections or repairs remain at risk of sudden engine failure. It alleges the fix failed to address excessive operating temperatures or underlying component weaknesses. Honda Engine Defect Claims According to the lawsuit, Messenger's 2016 Honda Pilot vehicle began exhibiting engine problems at around 76,000 miles, including abnormal noise and metal debris found in the oil pan, which she says were consistent with bearing failure tied to the alleged crankshaft defect. She claims Honda and its authorized dealer refused to cover the repair under warranty or recall provisions, ultimately forcing her to pay more than $11,000 out of pocket for an engine replacement after Honda declined reimbursement. Messenger indicates that Honda has received thousands of consumer complaints and warranty claims over the years describing identical engine problems, including rod knock, engine seizure and complete loss of motive power. She cites reports submitted to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) describing vehicles that stalled on highways, lost power in traffic or caught fire without warning. In some cases, drivers allege they were told repairs would cost thousands of dollars because their vehicles were not included in the recall, despite exhibiting the same failure characteristics. The complaint further alleges that Honda closely monitors NHTSA complaints, dealer repair data and warranty trends, and therefore knew or should have known the defect extended beyond the recalled vehicles. The lawsuit indicates that Honda continued to market the affected vehicles as safe and reliable, despite internal knowledge of the defect and its implications. Messenger argues that reasonable consumers would not have purchased the vehicles, or would have paid less for them, had they known the engines could fail well before their expected lifespan. "Honda's halfhearted and unconscionable acts deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff and Class Members of the benefit of their bargain. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known what Honda knew about the Defect, they would not have purchased their Class Vehicles or certainly would have paid less to do so." — Savannah Messenger v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. et al In addition to the recall, the claim points out that NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation has opened a broader investigation into engine failures involving the same 3.5-liter V6 platform, including incidents outside the scope of Honda's recall. Messenger argues the investigation further supports her claim that Honda's recall did not fully address the defect and that drivers remain at risk. The complaint raises allegations of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent omission and violations of state consumer protection laws. It seeks class certification, reimbursement for repair costs, diminished value damages and an order requiring Honda to provide a comprehensive fix. [GN] HUEL INC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, McKie Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- EDEN MCKIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00653 (N.D. Cal., January 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated www.huel.com (the "Website") and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technologies provided by Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook" or "Meta"), TikTok Ltd. ("TikTok"), and Snap Inc. ("Snap" or "Snapchat"). The complaint relates that Defendant Huel owns and operates the Website where consumers can browse and purchase various nutritional meals. When consumers visit the Website, they are presented with the opportunity to opt out of third-party tracking technologies including those which Defendant uses for targeted advertising and website performance purposes. Unbeknownst to its customers, and contrary to its express assurance that customers have control over the sale and sharing of their personal information, Defendant intercepts and discloses its customers' personally identifiable information ("PII"), and product purchase information to unknown third parties -- including, but not limited to, Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat (the "Third Parties") -- even when customers affirmatively disable the tracking technologies. The complaint alleges that the Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain personally identifiable information ("PII"). By failing to procure consent -- and continuing to allow the Third Parties' tracking even after consumers reject the tracking technologies, Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access and Fraud Act. Plaintiff Eden McKie is a resident and citizen of Fremont, California who maintained active accounts with Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat. When creating her accounts, Plaintiff provided the Third Parties with her PII, including her full name, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Plaintiff used the same device to access the Website that she did to access her Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat accounts. Defendant Huel Inc. is an online retailer for complete, convenient, affordable food including delivery. Huel has sold over 400,000,000 meals to over 150 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com ICONTAINERS USA: SX Holdings Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SX HOLDINGS LLC and MOHAMED MAHMOUD, on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, v. ICONTAINERS USA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-20824-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to certify class. Because the Plaintiffs' claims arise from a common course of conduct and depend on proof common to all Class Members, they are amenable to classwide resolution. This case challenges Defendant iContainers USA, Inc.'s uniform breach of its own written contracts governing international shipping estimates. The Defendant's standard Terms and Conditions strictly limit when a quoted shipping price may be increased. During the Class Period, the Defendant routinely violated those limits by imposing post-booking price increases in circumstances where its contracts expressly prohibited doing so. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Nationwide Class: Nationwide Class: "All persons or entities in the United States who (1) received an initial shipping estimate from Defendant iContainers USA, Inc. governed by Defendant’s standard Trading Conditions; (2) paid an amount greater than the initial estimate; and (3) did not change the commodity, location, weight, or dimensions of the shipment in a manner that would contractually permit an increase under Section 9.2 of the Defendant's Contract. The Plaintiff Mahmoud also seeks certification of the following subclass: Insurance Subclass: "All members of the Nationwide Class who paid the Defendant amounts identified on Defendant's invoices as "insurance" and/or "insurance administration fee."" iContainers provides online freight forwarding services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=42mCgs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com - and - Jeffrey Klafter, Esq. Seth Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: jak@klafterlesser.com seth@klafterlesser.com INOVASI RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR MANUEL SALVADOR RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all other laborers similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. INOVASI RESTAURANTS, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00754 (N.D. Ill., January 22, 2026) alleges the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook by Defendant at Defendant's Everett Farms restaurant from approximately early May 2021 through approximately late October 2025. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, he never received any overtime premiums of half his regular hourly rate of pay for any of the work he performed in excess of 40 hours per week, says the Plaintiff. Inovasi Restaurants, LLC operates five restaurants and one liquor store in northern Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (224) 522-3178 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WI: Domres & Berth Sue Over Unlawful Booking Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- SARA DOMRES and RANDALL BERTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, WISCONSIN, and TRAVIS MAZE in his official capacity as JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00050 (W.D. Wis., January 22, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating due process and equal protection in connection with its mandatory booking fee charged to those arrested on suspicion of a parole violation. According to the complaint, the Jefferson County Jail charges its mandatory booking fee without any pre-deprivation process to assess who should or should not be charged the fee, without any notice of or opportunity to dispute the fee, and without any post-deprivation process for having the fee reimbursed. Moreover, the Jefferson County Jail extracts payment without any judicial authority, desired service, or taxing authority. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to federal statutes providing for the protection of civil rights. Jefferson County operates the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and the Jefferson County Jail. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phil Telfeyan, Esq. Caroline McCance, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 7th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org - and - Mark Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net - and - Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com KENNETH COLE: Ortiz Sues Over Illegal Tracking & Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ORTIZ and JOHN INZALACO, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. KENNETH COLE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00771-LJC (N.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2026) concerns egregious violations of consumer privacy and breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendant's ecommerce website, www.kennethcole.com, the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used by providing the option to click or select a "OPT OUT" button, as shown in the following screenshot, which has been stretched for readability. Unlike many websites, however, the Defendant affirmatively represented that users could browse the Website without being tracked, followed, or targeted by third-party data brokers and advertisers. Those representations were false, the Plaintiff contends. This type of tracking and data sharing is exactly what Website visitors sought to avoid when they adjusted their cookie settings to opt out of or reject cookies. The Defendant falsely told Website users that it respected their privacy choices and would refrain from tracking and data sharing when users rejected cookies. Despite receiving clear notice of users' lack of consent, Defendant ignored those choices and violated state statutes and tort duties owed to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated Website users, the Plaintiff adds. Kenneth Cole is an American fashion house that was founded in 1982 by Kenneth Cole.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com KIM KIDD: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Kim Kidd, Inc. d/b/a The Willow Tree, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00524-PJS-DLM (D. Minn., January 21, 2026) arises because Defendant's website www.thewillowtree.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 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 herself full and equal access to important Website content - content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the future. Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Kim Kidd, Inc. is an Alabama Company offers women's apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, shoes, loungewear, jumpsuits, jewelry, hats, makeup, perfume, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LIBOR MANAGEMENT: Bangroup Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Bangoup, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Libor Management, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, and Choice Hotels International, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00267 (W.D. Wash., January 22, 2026) seeks to recover for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as a Front Desk Agent at their Country Inn & Suites hotel in Bothell, WA from approximately May 2024 to October 2025. The Plaintiff's weekly hours could vary, but on average, Plaintiff worked approximately 40 hours per week, or more. In addition, the Plaintiff and Class Members were unable to take uninterrupted, regular meal breaks due to company-wide labor budgeting practices. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Collective and Class Members for all hours worked at the legally mandated overtime rate, triggering violations of FLSA and Washington State minimum wage and overtime requirements, says the suit. Headquartered in Bethesda, MD, Libor Management LLC is a foreign limited liability company that operating public hotels and motels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com - and - Derek Moretz, Esq. Devin Kathleen Epp, Esq. LAWYERS FORJUSTICE PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (424) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 LINUS TECHNOLOGIES: Lopez Balks at Mislabeled Food Calorie Content ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIELLA LOPEZ, DAVID FREIFELD, AND CRYSTAL PATERSON, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. D/B/A DAVID PROTEIN, Case No. 1:26-cv-00635 (SD.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2026) seeks to redress Defendant's alleged unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the calories and fat content in its consumer food products. According to the complaint, the Defendant knows consumers are mindful of the number of calories and grams of fat they consume, and thus, calories and fat content is a material driver in the purchase of products promoting low calories. Thus, Defendant prominently labels its protein bar products. However, the Defendant misrepresents the calories and fat content on each of the Products. The Products include Chocolate Chip Cookie, Cinnamon Roll, Fudge Brownie, Red Velvet, Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk, Blueberry Pie, Pumpkin Spice, Cake Batter flavored bars -- with the specific number of calories and fat per serving on the Products' front labels and/or in the Nutrition Fact Panel (NFP). Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each Product will actually provide the amount and percentage daily value of calories and fat per serving stated on the Product package. The Food and Drug Administration regulations require that the caloric content per serving is expressed to the nearest 5-calorie increment up to and including 50 calories, and 10-calorie increment above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero, on a food product's NFP. The Defendant's unlawful and misleading calories and total fat claims caused Plaintiff and members of the Class to pay a price premium for the Products, the Plaintiffs contend. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells a variety of protein bar Products. These Products have packaging that predominately, uniformly, and consistently states the Products contain a specific number of calories and total fat. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Russell M. Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 926-7948 E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 E-mail: nsuciu@brysconpllc.com LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Response Filing in Cuevas Due March 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, DORA MEZA DE CASTILLO, and GLORIA HERNANDEZ on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the case schedule as follows. 1. Responses to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion due by March 10, 2026; 2. Replies are due by May 29, 2026; and 3. Motion for class certification hearing set for June 30, 2026. Without this short, one-week extension, the Defendant will suffer severe prejudice by not having adequate time to depose the Plaintiffs' expert and to diligently prepare its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification, which is highly relevant and necessary in order to efficiently defend against the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. As part of the Plaintiffs' motion, the Plaintiffs submitted the declarations of the three named plaintiffs and proposed class representatives, 13 class member declarants, and two retained experts. Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t9do1T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2501 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com MONROE UNIVERSITY: Baston Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA BASTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONROE UNIVERSITY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00562 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive personal and medical data entrusted to it by its students and employees. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of its operations, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains a vast amount of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together, "PII/PHI"—belonging to its students and employees. The Defendant lost control of that information when cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"), exposing the Class's PII/PHI to unauthorized access and misuse. It is unknown precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the intrusion was discovered. What is clear is that Defendant lacked effective safeguards to prevent, timely detect, or promptly contain the breach, allowing unauthorized actors unfettered access to students' and employees' sensitive information. The complaint alleges that the Defendant breached its duties by failing to implement reasonable data-security measures, which directly resulted in the Data Breach. Defendant's negligence is demonstrated by its failure to prevent unauthorized access to its systems and to protect Plaintiff's and the Class's PII/PHI, causing widespread harm and monetary losses. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered increased anxiety, stress, fear, and frustration—injuries that are concrete, ongoing, and far more than mere annoyance or speculative concern. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of her PII/PHI, including the invasion of her legally protected privacy interests. Plaintiff also suffered actual injury in the form of the diminution in value of her PII/PHI. PII/PHI is a form of valuable intangible property that Defendant was required to adequately protect. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law. Plaintiff Erika Baston is a citizen of New Rochelle, New York and is a victim of the Data Breach and received notice from Defendant that her PII/PHI was compromised. Defendant Monroe University is a New York-based entity incorporated in New York that provides higher education for residents of many states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: 202-973-0900 Facsimile: 202-973-0950 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com MONROE UNIVERSITY: Maysonet Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARY MAYSONET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. MONROE UNIVERSITY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00344 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Monroe (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former students and applicants of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). The complaint relates that the Private Information compromised in Defendant Monroe University's Data Breach that occurred between December 9 and December 23, 2024 included certain personal or protected health information of individuals, including Plaintiff's. This Private Information includes: name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, passport number, government identification number, medical information, health insurance information, electronic account or email username and password, financial account information, and/or student data. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for either treatment or employment or both, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what type of information was accessed. Plaintiff Rosemary Maysonet was a student of Defendant, residing in the city of New York. Defendant Monroe University is a New York-based entity incorporated in New York that provides higher education for residents of many states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com NISSAN NORTH: Faces Smith Class Suit Over Defective Car Window -------------------------------------------------------------- KATIE SMITH, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. (NNA), Case No. 3:26-cv-00089 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 23, 2026) is a class action lawsuit arising from a window defect on the rear liftgates in 2021-2025 Nissan Rogue vehicles which are prone to suddenly explode and shatter into thousands of pieces. According to the complaint, the defect happens without external impact, including when the vehicle is parked, when closing the rear liftgate, or during normal driving. The defect creates a serious danger for vehicle occupants and others on the road as the windows can shatter into dangerous fragments and create a serious distraction. NNA has refused to remedy the defect and routinely denies warranty coverage even when there is no indication of vandalism or impact. Although NNA is aware of the Defect, it does not disclose the Defect to consumers and continues to sell Class Vehicles subject to the Defect, the Plaintiff contends. Due to the undisclosed Defect, the Plaintiff and Class Members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain in purchasing or leasing their Class Vehicles. The Plaintiff and Class Members are at risk of their rear windows suddenly exploding, posing a serious safety hazard, requiring costly replacement, and causing diminution of value of their Class Vehicles. The Plaintiff accordingly seeks relief both for herself and for other current and former owners or lessees of these Class Vehicles. On March 24, 2025, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2025 Nissan Rogue from an authorized Nissan dealership. The Plaintiff purchased her Class Vehicle for personal, family, or household use. NNA is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, warranting, marketing, advertising, distributing, and selling vehicles and motor vehicle components, including the Class Vehicles, under the "Nissan" brand name in Tennessee and throughout the United States of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Spragens, Esq. SPRAGENS LAW PLC 915 Rep. John Lewis Way S., Suite 100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 983-8900 Facsimile: (615) 682-8533 E-mail: john@spragenslaw.com - and - Timothy N. Mathews, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com OHANA MILITARY: Court Denies Class Certification in Water Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Martha Jennifer Camp, Adam Camp, William E. Thompson, and Juanita Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, Hunt MH Property Management, LLC, Defendants, Civ. No. 24-00003 LEK-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii denied without prejudice the Camp Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and ordered the parties to submit briefing regarding issue class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) by January 30, 2026. On November 17, 2023, the Camp Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against the Landlord Defendants in the State of Hawaii First Circuit Court, which was subsequently removed. The Camp Plaintiffs alleged that the Landlord Defendants acquired and sold contaminated water from the United States Department of the Navy through the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Water System. They further alleged that the Landlord Defendants provided the contaminated water to the Camp Plaintiffs and knew or should have known of the prior fuel leaks at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility. The Camp Plaintiffs alleged the following claims: negligence (Count I); strict liability (Count II); medical monitoring (Count III); private nuisance (Count IV); unfair or deceptive trade or practice and unfair methods of competition pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 480-2 (Count V); breach of the implied warranty of habitability (Count VI); trespass (Count VII); breach of contract (Count VIII); and violations of several provisions of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 521 (Count IX). On July 30, 2024, the Court dismissed with prejudice Counts II, III, and the portion of Count V alleging a UDAP claim. The Court dismissed without prejudice the portion of Count V alleging a UMOC claim. The remaining claims are Counts I, IV, VI, VII, VIII, and IX. Proposed Class and Subclass. The Camp Plaintiffs sought to certify a class and subclass of individuals who were allegedly harmed by the distribution of jet fuel-contaminated water between November 20, 2021 and March 31, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The proposed class included all persons authorized to reside within an Ohana Military Communities, LLC property managed by Hunt MH Property Management, LLC from November 20, 2021 to March 31, 2022. The proposed subclass included all persons who entered into a contract with the Landlord Defendants and paid lease rent on a housing unit entitled to receive potable water distributed by the Defendants effective between November 20, 2021 and March 31, 2022. The Government argued that the Camp Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they have not demonstrated a redressable injury, claiming its payments to the Plaintiffs exceeded the total rent paid during the Red Hill Incident period. The Court found that the Camp Plaintiffs have sufficiently established standing, holding that the temporary loss of money in the form of rent payments constitutes an injury in fact for purposes of Article III. The Court found that the Camp Plaintiffs' proposed class and subclass cannot satisfy the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). Expert declarations established that exposure to contaminated water varied between neighborhoods, between homes, and between residents. The Hawaii Department of Health's Exposure Assessment found that exposure varied spatially and temporally within the drinking water system, making it impossible to know the true exposure experienced by any individual. The Court found that residents responded in different ways, with some staying in hotels, some remaining at home, and some being deployed away from Oahu. The Camp Plaintiffs' deposition testimony illustrated highly individualized experiences. The Court stated that proving if the Red Hill Incident was the legal cause of the putative class members' injuries will require personalized determinations. Such individual-by-individual determinations preclude a finding of predominance. The Court found that proving and calculating damages present individual hurdles. The Camp Plaintiffs' proposed common methodology based on rent abatement fails to account for the TLA and per diem payments made to some residents. Determining whether a class member suffered an uncompensated economic injury requires analyzing each putative class member's specific expenses and third-party assistance received. The Court also found that the loss of use damages theory cannot be standardized and would require individualized inquiries into causation and harm. The Court found that the case may be appropriate for class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) for adjudication of several liability issues, including whether the Landlord Defendants had a duty to the Camp Plaintiffs and whether they are liable for a breach of that alleged duty. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to identify the liability issues that should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) and to file a joint statement not to exceed ten pages identifying the liability issues by January 30, 2026. If the parties cannot agree, they are ordered to individually submit briefs not to exceed five pages by January 30, 2026. Accordingly, the Camp Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed May 8, 2025, was denied without prejudice. Powell's joinder in the Camp Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed May 12, 2025, was denied as moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OaCaIC from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Hunt MH Property Management, LLC, Ohana Military Communities, LLC, Hunt MH Property Management, LLC, Represented By Joachim P. Cox -- jcox@cfhawaii.com -- Randall C. Whattoff -- rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com -- and Kamala S. Haake -- khaake@cfhawaii.com -- at Cox Fricke A Limited Liability Law Partnership LLP Plaintiff Cleophas C. Powell Represented By Carlos D. Perez-Mesa, Jr. -- cperez-mesa@paclawteam.com -- at Clay Iwamura Pulice & Nervell ONE LIFESTYLE: Kelley Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- JADE KELLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ONE LIFESTYLE, LTD. d/b/a THE GOAT RESTAURANT AND BAR a/k/a THE GOAT, BILLY GOAT TAVERN TN, LLC, and LIFESTYLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00080 (M.D. Tenn., January 22, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kelley worked for Defendants as a bartender from approximately June of 2021 to approximately April of 2025. Allegedly, the Defendants unlawfully retained a portion of the tips Plaintiff and other bartenders and servers received from customers. In addition, the Defendants paid them an hourly wage below $7.25 per hour even though the Defendants did not meet FLSA's statutory requirements for claiming a tip credit towards the minimum wage. Among other things, the Defendants also required these employees to spend significant time in performing non-serving, non-tipped work throughout their scheduled shifts, during the time periods when customers were present in the respective restaurant, says the suit. Headquartered in Columbus, OH, One Lifestyle owns and operates 11 The Goat Restaurant and Bar locations across Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com ONEPOINT PATIENT: Court Seeks Clarity on Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In re OnePoint Patient Care, LLC., Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-649-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ordered Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing on their motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff Christopher Russo filed a complaint against OnePoint asserting several causes of action related to its role in the Data Incident. The Court consolidated the Russo action with another putative class action on January 10, 2025. The parties began discussing potential settlement and scheduled mediation with an experienced class action mediator. In advance of mediation, Plaintiffs propounded informal discovery requests on OnePoint to which OnePoint responded by providing information related to, among other things, the nature and cause of the Data Incident, the number and geographic location of victims impacted, the specific type of information breached, and the remedial measures implemented in response to the Data Incident. The Settlement Agreement provides that OnePoint will pay $2,115,000 into a non-reversionary common fund. Following final approval, Plaintiffs will ask that up to one-third of the Settlement Fund be allocated to attorneys' fees. They also will ask that CAFA notice and administration fees, litigation expenses, and a total of $5,000 in plaintiff service awards be deducted from this amount. The Class Members' Valid Claim claims will then be paid out of the remaining sum. If monies remain in the Settlement Fund after the date the Class Members' settlement checks expire, those monies will not revert to OnePoint but will be paid to a proposed cy pres recipient. There are approximately 528,452 potential settlement class members. The Settlement Agreement proposes two alternate payment options. Under Cash Payment A, Class Members may submit claims for up to $3,500 for documented losses related to the Data Incident. Class Members seeking compensation under this category will be required to provide reasonable supporting documentation. In the event such a claim is deemed deficient, it will be treated automatically as a request for Cash Payment B. The second option, for an Alternate Cash payment does not require any supporting documentation. Class Members who elect this option will simply submit a claim form indicating their choice. The Cash Payment B option is subject to a pro rata increase in the event the amount of Valid Claims is insufficient to exhaust the entire Settlement Fund. Similarly, in the event the amount of Valid Claims exhausts the amount of the Settlement Fund, the amount of the Cash Payments will be reduced pro rata accordingly. The Court found that the procedural factors weigh in favor of preliminary approval. The settlement is the product of mediation before an experienced class action and data breach mediator. The negotiations were conducted at arm's length and in good faith by experienced counsel. Interim Class Counsel attested that the Parties did not discuss Service Awards or attorneys' fees and costs until after an agreement had been reached on all material settlement terms regarding Settlement Class Member Benefits. However, the Court raised several concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed relief. The Court noted that the record contains no direct evidence regarding the likelihood that the putative class would succeed on their claims. OnePoint has yet to file a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss. Although Plaintiffs report that the parties engaged in initial discovery sufficient to understand the size of the Settlement Class and the issues at hand, the motion is silent on what those issues are. The Court stated that Plaintiffs have not shown that the value of the proposed relief of approximately $4 per person falls within the range of reasonableness given settlement amounts approved in comparable cases. Although Plaintiffs cite to a handful of cases approving settlements ranging from $0.10 to $3.61 per class member, almost all those cases were decided over several years ago and involved much larger class sizes. The Court compared the settlement to more recent, similarly sized data breach class actions, noting that the Settlement Agreement appears to provide relatively low value per person. The Court found that the remaining Rule 23(e)(2)(C) considerations weigh in favor of finding that the proposed relief is adequate. The proposed method of distributing relief to the class appears reasonably calculated to provide effective relief to the class. The claims process is relatively simple, and the few administrative burdens appear reasonably intended to deter fraudulent claims. The parties' proposed Settlement Administrator, Epiq, appears qualified to handle the Notice Program and Settlement Administration. Regarding equitable treatment of class members, the Court noted that the Settlement Agreement employs a common payment structure approved in similar data breach class action settlements, with one important distinction. Unlike other cases, the Settlement Agreement requires Class Members to choose between a reimbursement-type claim and a pro rata claim. Class Members are not eligible to receive both. Despite potential concerns, the Court found the proposal appears to equitably compensate the Class Members. The Court found that Plaintiffs have established that the proposed class action likely satisfies the requirements of predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3). Common questions related to the adequacy of OnePoint's cyber security and its response to the Data Incident predominate and class action litigation is superior in light of the size of the proposed class and the relatively small amount in dispute per class member. The Court identified two deficiencies with Plaintiffs' proposed notices. First, both the postcard notice and the long-form notice incorrectly define the Settlement Class as all living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice by Defendant that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident, which is narrower than the Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Second, the notices do not clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language the class claims, issues, or defenses. The Court ordered that, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall supplement their Motion with additional briefing regarding the fairness of the settlement, the likelihood of class certification, and with revised notices, consistent with this Opinion. Interim Class Counsel are Tyler J. Bean of Siri & Glimstad LLP, A. Brooke Murphy of Murphy Law Firm, Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSiEtm from PacerMonitor.com Defendant OP Pharmacy, LLC Represented By: Matthew Stewart Jennifer Brumfield Baker Hostetler mstewart@bakerlaw.com jbrumfield@bakerlaw.com Plaintiff Christopher Russo, Shannon Cobb, Ryan Howey, Represented By: Andrew W. Ferich Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC aferich@ahdootwolfson.com Jeff Ostrow Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. ostrow@kolawyers.com Leslie L. Pescia Tyler James Bean Siri & Glimstad LLP lpescia@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com Amanda Brooke Murphy Murphy Law Firm abm@murphylegalfirm.com ORACLE CORP: Ohio Carpenters' Pension Plan Files Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION PLAN, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION, LAWRENCE J. ELLISON, SAFRA ADA CATZ, MARIA SMITH, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES INC., SANTANDER US CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BNY MELLON CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC., ING FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC, and STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, Defendants, Case No. 1 (Sup. Ct., New York Cty., N.Y., January 14, 2026) asserts strict liability and negligence claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") related to the following offering of senior notes (the "Senior Notes") by Oracle issued pursuant to the Shelf Registration Statement filed with the SEC on March 15, 2024, and as supplemented on September 25, 2025 (together, the "Offering Documents"). The Securities Act claims are brought on behalf of a "Class" of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Oracle Senior Notes pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents, prepared by Oracle, certain Oracle officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Senior Notes (collectively, the "Defendants"), and issued in connection with the Offering, who were damaged thereby. The complaint relates that on September 10, 2025, Oracle and OpenAI OpCo, LLC ("OpenAI") announced a $300 billion, five-year cloud computing contract, to supply OpenAI with computing power. The Oracle–OpenAI agreement covers roughly 4.5 GW of data center capacity per year and represents one of the largest commercial cloud contracts ever signed. On September 25, 2025, Oracle issued the Senior Notes, comprising of $18 billion in bonds, to fund its AI infrastructure expansion. The Offering was one of the largest debt issuances on record in the tech industry and did not disclose that further significant debt would be required to fund the Oracle–OpenAI agreement. Unbeknownst to investors, Oracle needed to raise a significant amount of additional debt to build the AI infrastructure. Specifically, on November 13, 2025 (just seven weeks after issuing the Senior Notes), reports emerged that Oracle was looking to raise an additional $38 billion in debt sales to help fund its AI buildout. The $38 billion would consist of $23 billion and $15 billion term loans led by various banks. Proceeds from the loan would fund two data centers developed by Vantage Data Centers in Wisconsin and Texas -- data centers that would support the Oracle–Open AI agreement. The bond market's reaction to Oracle's additional debt was swift and bracing; Oracle's Senior Notes began to trade with yields and spreads similar to lower-rated issuers as investors began to demand higher yields due to perceived credit risk. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the value of the Senior Notes (as evidenced by the decline in their market value), Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Ohio Carpenters' Pension Plan purchased Senior Notes pursuant or traceable to the Offering documents and was damaged thereby. Defendant Oracle Corporation is an Austin, Texas-based company that sells database software, enterprise applications, and cloud infrastructure and hardware. Defendants Ellison, Catz, and Smith are the "Individual Defendants". Defendants BofA Securities, Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc.; Santander US Capital Markets LLC; TD Securities (USA) LLC; Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc.; ING Financial Markets LLC; Standard Chartered Bank; BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC; NatWest Markets Securities Inc.; PNC Capital Markets LLC; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. are the Underwriter Defendants that were also instrumental in soliciting investors and in making the Senior Notes that were offered and sold in or traceable to the Offering available to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. COTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: mminhas@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com PAUL PERRY: Directed to Release Detained Special Immigrant Juvenile ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brayan Lopez Sarmiento, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul Perry, et al., Respondents, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01644-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), Judge Anthony John Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Petitioner Axel Eduardo Martinez Ucles' request for immediate release from immigration detention and issued a Memorandum Opinion on January 19, 2026, in further support of that order. On January 8, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner Ucles' request for immediate release from immigration detention and ordered that he be released immediately from custody. The Court further enjoined his re-detention absent a pre-deprivation hearing in which Respondents carry the burden of establishing changed circumstances justifying Ucles' re-detention based on his flight risk or danger to the community. Petitioner Ucles is a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States in 2018. Following his arrival in 2018, he was served a Notice To Appear to commence removal proceedings but was subsequently designated an unaccompanied minor and placed into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. He was released to his mother in Manassas, Virginia, upon the determination that Ucles was not a danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. On April 19, 2023, Ucles was granted deferred action as a Special Immigrant Juvenile for a period of four years, which rendered him eligible to apply for employment authorization. As a result of his deferred action, the government dismissed all pending immigration charges against him. In July 2025, Ucles was re-apprehended by immigration officials without prior notice or a pre-deprivation hearing. On July 23, 2025, while detained, he was issued a new Notice To Appear, which charged him under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as a noncitizen present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. In a letter dated July 28, 2025, USCIS terminated Ucles' deferred action, stating that the agency has individually reviewed your case and exercised discretion to terminate your period of deferred action. Then in September 2025, DHS added against Ucles an additional charge under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Petitioner's Special Immigrant Juvenile status has not been revoked or modified as of the time of Petitioners' filings. On December 8, 2025, the immigration court denied bond, concluding, without explanation, that Ucles is a flight risk based on multiple failure to appears. The Court addressed Respondents' jurisdictional challenges. The Court found that Section 1252(b)(9) does not present a jurisdictional bar because Petitioner does not challenge any removal order and no order of removal has yet been entered against him. Rather, he challenges the lawfulness of his detention and the policies related to it. Regarding Section 1252(g), the Court concluded that because Ucles' petition is a challenge to his present immigration confinement, the Court is not deprived of jurisdiction under Section 1252(g). The Court examined the statutory framework governing Special Immigrant Juvenile status and deferred action. Individuals with Special Immigrant Juvenile status are deemed to have been paroled into the United States, and certain paragraphs classifying individuals as inadmissible shall not apply. The Court concluded that Ucles' Special Immigrant Juvenile status operates to confer upon him the status of a parolee with inadmissibility waived as a ground for his detention or removal within the context of his challenges to his detention. The Court found that Ucles is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that Respondents' rescission of Ucles' deferred action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court stated that USCIS's termination notice provided no rationale as to why the agency was terminating Ucles' Special Immigrant Juvenile deferred action, despite his continuing Special Immigrant Juvenile status and the protections and benefits that flow from that status. Although the termination of deferred action is discretionary, the APA requires more to satisfy the Court's deferential review. The Court also found that once someone such as Ucles was granted deferred action and Special Immigrant Juvenile status, which included lawful presence as a parolee and the ability to seek work authorization, he had a protected property and liberty interest under the due process clause. The Court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge framework to determine what process is due to Ucles under the Constitution. The Court found that Ucles clearly has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. The Court stated that even where the government retains discretion to detain an individual, the government's decision to release an individual from custody creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release. The Court found that all three Mathews factors demonstrate Petitioner has the right to a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The Court noted that Ucles has a significant private interest in remaining out of custody and continuing the life that he built for himself under the reasonable expectation that he would not be removed before he is able to adjust his status. The Court also found that the risk of erroneous deprivation is considerable given that Respondents proceeded based on the erroneous assertion that Ucles was not paroled into the United States. Finally, the Court found that the government's interest in holding Ucles without a hearing is low, particularly in light of Petitioner's Special Immigrant Juvenile status and lack of any meaningful criminal record and history of overall compliance with the immigration system. The Court found that Petitioners are likely to succeed on their due process claim with respect to Ucles' re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing. Each of the remaining temporary restraining order factors supports the Court's grant of a TRO. The Court found that immediate release is the appropriate remedy to cure the due process violation and restore the status quo. Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion in part and Petitioner Ucles is entitled to the relief set forth in the Court's Order dated January 8, 2026. A Copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 19, 2026 is availablae at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yd9qMW from PacerMonitor.com Petitioners Brayan Lopez Sarmiento, Jhonatan Alex Rodriguez Argueta and Josue Antonio Rodriguez Argueta Represented By: Sophia Leticia Gregg American Civil Liberties Union Of Virginia sgregg@acluva.org Tanishka Vanessa Cruz Cruz Law PLLC tcruz@tcruzlaw.com Eden Brooke Heilman Vishal Mahendra Agraharkar Geri Greenspan Aclu Of Virginia eheilman@acluva.org vagraharkar@acluva.org ggreenspan@acluva.org Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Paul Perry, Joseph Simon Represented By Christian James Cooper -- christian.cooper@usdoj.gov PHARMERICA CORP: $5.27MM Settlement in "Lurry" Has Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Jaketrius Lurry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PharMerica Corporation, Civil Action Lead Case No. 3:23-cv-297-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a nationwide class action settlement. PharMerica is a pharmacy services provider for various healthcare facilities and programs nationwide. PharMerica collects and maintains personal identifiable information and protected health information of its clients' patients and employees. Plaintiffs alleged that in March of 2023 a cybercriminal ransomware gang targeted PharMerica's computer network and exfiltrated 4.7 terabytes of information, including Plaintiffs' personal information. Individual complaints were filed and consolidated into the instant matter on July 19, 2023. On October 16, 2023, the Court entered an order appointing J. Gerard Stranch, IV of Stranch, Jennings, & Garvey, PLLC as Interim Lead Counsel, E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague, P.C., Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Lynn A. Toops of CohenMalad, LLP, as Executive Committee Co-Members, and August Herbert of Gary Ice Higdon as Liaison Counsel. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 12, 2024. On June 12, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part PharMerica's motion to dismiss. The parties exchanged informal discovery regarding the Data Incident, including details as to how the incident occurred, who was involved, the specific data elements impacted, liability, and damages. On August 1, 2025, the parties engaged in formal mediation which resulted in an agreement to settle. The settlement was the product of mediation sessions with Steven R. Jaffe, an experienced mediator, and the negotiations were conducted at arm's length in good faith by experienced counsel. The Settlement Class is defined as all living persons in the United States who were provided notice of the Data Incident. Excluded from the Settlement Class are all persons who are directors and officers of Defendant, governmental entities, anyone who validly and timely opts out of the Settlement, and the judge assigned to the Action, the Judge's immediate family, and Court staff. PharMerica shall pay $5,275,000.00 into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund. Following the payment of Settlement Administration Costs, PharMerica's past and future costs of data mining to confirm membership in the Settlement Class, any Service Awards awarded to Class Representatives, and attorneys' fees and costs as awarded to Class Counsel, the Settlement Fund will provide Class Members with the ability to claim a cash payment that will be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis. In addition to the Settlement Fund, PharMerica will pay claims for documented out-of-pocket expenses up to $10,000 per Class Member and one year of Kroll Complete Monitoring on a claims-made basis. Kroll Complete Monitoring includes credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, pay day loan monitoring, social security scan, fraud consultation, identity theft restoration services, $1,000,000 of insurance coverage for fraud and/or identity theft with no deductible, credit score reporting, and real-time inquiry alerts. The Settlement Agreement provides that PharMerica has adopted, paid for, implemented, and will maintain certain Business Practice Changes related to information security to safeguard personal information on its systems. Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees of up to $3,481,750.00, which equates to 33% of the Settlement Fund. If approved, $1,740,750.00 shall be payable out of the Settlement Fund and $1,741,000.00 payable directly by PharMerica. The Settlement Agreement also provides for reimbursement of Class Counsel's reasonable costs incurred, as well as service awards of $3,500 for each of the named Plaintiffs. The Court concluded that the Settlement is fair enough to begin the class-notice process. The Court found that the Settlement Agreement was the product of mediation sessions and the negotiations were conducted at arm's length in good faith by experienced counsel. Moreover, the proposed settlement was not reached until after Plaintiffs and their counsel made it past the motion to dismiss stage. The Court recognized that Plaintiffs face significant risks if this litigation were to proceed to trial, including but not limited to the possibility that the nationwide class would not be certified. The risk that Plaintiffs' claims would not succeed on the merits is underscored by the dismissal of seven of Plaintiffs' claims on PharMerica's motion to dismiss. In light of those risks, the Court found the relief proposed is sufficiently adequate at this stage. The Court found that the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. All Class Members are eligible to file claims for the same benefits if those benefits apply to them. All Class Members may request the pro rata cash payment, all Class Members may choose to enroll in Kroll Complete Monitoring, and all Class Members who can provide documentary evidence of any out-of-pocket expenses fairly traceable to the Data Incident may request reimbursement for those expenses up to $10,000.00. The Court found that the Settlement Class likely satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The proposed class consists of millions of members and certainly suffices for numerosity. The Court found that commonality is likely met because each remaining cause of action in the Consolidated Complaint alleges that PharMerica failed to adequately secure Plaintiffs' personal information. Plaintiffs' and the class members' claims all arise from the same alleged acts and omissions of PharMerica and seek relief related to the alleged Data Incident, satisfying typicality. The Court had no reason to doubt Plaintiffs or their counsel would adequately represent the class. The Court found that common questions related to PharMerica's relevant conduct, including its cyber security practices and response to the Data Incident, predominate. Class action litigation is therefore superior in light of the size of the proposed class and the relatively small amount in dispute per class member. The Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion and preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement. The Court directed the parties to perform and satisfy the terms and conditions that are triggered by such preliminary approval. The Court approved the form and method of notice provided from the Settlement and found that it complies with the applicable rules and the requirements of Due Process. The Court appointed Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator. A final approval hearing shall be held on May 12, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., at 601 W. Broadway, Louisville, KY 40202, or via video or teleconference. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e57I72 from PacerMonitor.com Consol Defendants Res-Care, Inc. and Pharmerica Corporation Represented By: Matthew Stewart Carrie Dettmer Slye Casie D. Collignon Baker Hostetler mstewart@bakerlaw.com cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com ccollignon@bakerlaw.com Consol Plaintiff Charley Luther Represented By: Lawrence L. Jones, II Jones Ward larry@jonesward.com Cecily C. Jordan Kim D. Stephens Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC James Pizzirusso Amanda V. Boltax Steven Nathan Hausfeld LLP jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com snathan@hausfeld.com Amy Elisabeth Keller David A. Straite Dicello Levitt LLP akeller@dicellolevitt.com dstraite@dicellolevitt.com Casey L. Hinkle Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP chinkle@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com Consol Plaintiff Tandria Marallo Represented By: Anthony L. Parkhill Ben Barnow Barnow & Associates PC b.barnow@barnowlaw.com Matthew L. White Mark K. Gray Gray & White mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com Consol Plaintiffs Vanessa Williams, Micaela Molina, Frank Raney, Holly Williams, and James Young Represented By: Andrew E. Mize James Gerard Stranch, IV Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com Raina C. Borrelli Samuel J. Strauss Turke & Strauss LLP raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com Lynn Toops Cohen & Malad, LLP ltoops@cohenandmalad.com Consol Plaintiff Phillip C'de Baca Represented By: Laura Grace Van Note Cole & Van Note lvn@colevannote.com Kyle R. Salyer Morgan Collins Yeast & Salyer kyle.salyer@kentuckycourage.com Molly Munson Cherala mstarr09@gmail.com Consol Plaintiffs Ryan J. Collins and Hannah Slaughter Represented By: Nicholas Craddock Patrick J. Smith John E. Abaray Abaray Craddock & Smith, PLLC nick@acslawky.com patrick@acslawky.com john@acslawky.com Ian Wise Sloss Johnathan Seredynski Krystyna Gancoss Silver Golub & Teitell, LLP jseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com Consol Plaintiff Shadai Deas Represented By: Paul Doolittle Blake G. Abbott Poulin, Wiley Anastopoulo, LLC paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com Joseph M. Lyon The Lyon Firm jlyon@thelyonfirm.com Consol Plaintiff Frank Raney Represented By: Augustus S. Herbert Gray Ice Higdon, PLLC aherbert@grayice.com James Gerard Stranch, IV Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, Pllc - Nashville Gary M. Klinger David K. Lietz Dean Meyer Milberg Coleman Phillps Grossman PLLC gklinger@milberg.com John C Whitfield Whitfield Coleman Montoya, PLLC jtyson@milberg.com Consol Plaintiff James Young Represented By: Mark B. DeSanto E. Michelle Drake Berger & Montague Pc - Philadelphia mdesanto@bm.net emdrake@bm.net James Gerard Stranch, IV Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, Pllc - Nashville John C Whitfield Whitfield Coleman Montoya, PLLC jtyson@milberg.com Plaintiff Jaketrius Lurry Represented By: Nicholas A. Colella Elizabeth Pollock-Avery Jamisen A. Etzel Katrina Carroll Gary F. Lynch Lynch Carpenter, LLP elizabeth@lcllp.com katrina@lcllp.com James Gerard Stranch, IV Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, Pllc - Nashville Joseph M. Lyon The Lyon Firm PLANT BASED: Clark Seeks Proper Wages for Food Servers ------------------------------------------------------ KEADRE CLARK, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. PLANT BASED HEAT, LLC and RALPH JOHNSON, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02065 (W.D. Tenn., January 22, 2026) seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's wage and hour provisions. The Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid employees worked for Defendants as food servers as well as engaged in other work tasks for Defendants within weekly pay periods. Allegedly, the Defendants did not have a time keeping system that recorded all the compensable work hours of Plaintiff and those similarly situated. In addition, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not provided or paid the credit card tips they had earned within weekly pay periods, says the suit. Plant Based Heat, LLC owns and operates two restaurants in Memphis, TN. 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 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Student Data Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dereka Kay, writing for KTVB7, reports that a second class-action lawsuit has been filed against PowerSchool, the student data company widely used by K-12 schools, alleging the company improperly collects, uses and shares student and parent information without informed consent. The lawsuit is separate from a recent class-action case tied to a data breach that affected hundreds of school districts nationwide, including districts in Idaho. PowerSchool provides a student information system used by schools to manage grades, attendance, assignments and other records. Attorneys say this additional lawsuit focuses not on the breach itself, but on how much data PowerSchool collects and what it does with that information. Lawyers at the California-based firm Hagens Berman say the lawsuit alleges PowerSchool sells student and parent data without informed consent. Many parents are familiar with PowerSchool as the platform they use to check grades and attendance. Across Idaho, numerous K-12 schools use the system to track assignments, accommodations and store parent contact information. But attorneys involved in the case say the company's data collection goes far beyond basic academic records. "We had filed a lawsuit against Power School, alleging that they take student and parent data without informed consent and use that in ways that violate the rights of privacy for students and parents," said Leonard Aragon, a partner at Hagens Berman. Aragon said parents first raised concerns about PowerSchool's data practices with the firm about two years ago. "Everyone collects grades, everyone collects attendance records, but Power School is collecting everything that the students do related to their experience at the school," Aragon said. "If they have certain interventions by third parties, the police, Child Protective Services, something like that, that's collected by power schools, and then power schools offering this information to third parties." Aragon also said the company retains large amounts of sensitive information, which he argues increases the risk of misuse or exposure. "You shouldn't be keeping it, and it's it could be subject to a data breach, and that's exactly what happened, right? There was a data breach, and all this information was taken, or at least a lot of this information was taken by bad actors," he said. Some Idaho school districts say they are not aware of the lawsuit or any allegations involving their students, including the Nampa School District, which wrote a statement that reads in part: "The Nampa School District has not been notified of any lawsuit alleging that PowerSchool is selling student data to third parties without parental permission. We have also not been made aware of any parents or students within Nampa School District being part of such a lawsuit. Regarding student data, we have no reason to believe that PowerSchool is selling Nampa School District student information to third parties. Student data is protected under FERPA, and any violation of those protections would be a serious federal matter." Blaine County School District Superintendent Jim Foudy also said their district was not "aware of the second lawsuit, and wouldn't know if any parents are aware or involved." Meanwhile, Aragon said the data collection lawsuit is moving closer to trial in federal court in California and involves millions of parents nationwide. If successful, attorneys say damages could reach into the billions. "California has a statute that allows for statutory violations, which is just a fancy way of saying, sometimes it's hard to put a number on this, so we put a number on it for you, and they allow for $5,000 per violation that would result in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit," Aragon said. PowerSchool declined to comment on the lawsuit, stating, "PowerSchool does not comment on active litigation." In the meantime, attorneys at Hagens Berman say they are urging parents to ask questions about how their children's data is being collected and used. [GN] PRIME BUYERS: Initial Disclosures in Amazon Suit Die Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., v. PRIME BUYERS CLUB LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02233-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement as follows: Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: Feb. 20, 2026 Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): Feb. 27, 2026 Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery March 6, 2026 Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and LCR 26(f): All counsel and any pro se parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with a combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan by March 6, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gYCovK at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tampons Contaminated With Lead, Otkina Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- OLGA OTKINA, WENDY RODRIGUEZ, LAREINA GREEN, AMANDA MURRAY, STEPHANIE MAYA, KATHERINE VESCOVO, DENA HABBOUSH, and CARMUSE MITCHEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-00773 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 23, 2026) seeks to remedy Defendant's deceptive and misleading business practices regarding the false, misleading, and deceptive marketing and sale of Tampax products throughout the United States. The Defendant's Products include Tampax Pearl Ultra Tampons; Tampax Pearl Super Tampons; mpax Pearl Super Plus Tampons; and Tampax Pearl Regular Tampons. Accordingly, on the Product labels, which is where every consumer looks for information in deciding whether to purchase (or not) a product, Defendant states that the products are: -- The "U.S. GYNECOLOGIST RECOMMENDED TAMPON BRAND"; -- "FREE OF PERFUME"; -- "FREE OF ELEMENTAL CHLORINE BLEACHING"; -- "TAMPON FREE DYES"; -- "CLINICALLY TESTED GENTLE TO SKIN"; and -- "MADE WITH CARE SINCE 1936". The Defendant improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed their Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on their packaging that the Products are contaminated with or at the risk of being contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, which is a powerful neurotoxin that is known to cause cognitive deficits, mental illness, dementia, and hypertension, the Plaintiffs contend. The Defendant knew or should have known that the Products contain lead. The Plaintiffs' independent testing confirmed that Defendant's Products contain lead in the portion of the tampon that is inserted vaginally and contacts the skin, added the Plaintiffs. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, and incorporated in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Chuck Schimmel, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com schimmelc@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Daniel C. Levi, Esq. Nicholas J. Eli, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (844) 383-0565 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wins Dismissal of "Dalewitz" Dental Floss Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Alan Dalewitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, No. 22-CV-07323 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice in a putative class action lawsuit. Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Defendant, alleging deceptive and false advertising practices in violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 and 350. Plaintiff specifically alleged that Defendant's dental floss products are misleadingly branded as Pro-Health despite containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of chemicals known to be harmful to humans and the environment. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing because he did not adequately plead an economic injury. According to the Court, to demonstrate Article III standing, a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and redressability of the injury by a favorable decision. The Court examined whether Plaintiff established standing under both price-premium and benefit-of-the-bargain theories. Regarding the price-premium theory, the Court determined that nowhere in the Second Amended Complaint did Plaintiff allege that he purchased the Oral-B Glide products that were tested. Plaintiff only alleged that he tested a specific Oral-B Glide product, not whether it was an actual item he purchased during the putative Class Period. The Court stated that it could not determine whether Plaintiff purchased a product that was misbranded because the samples plausibly could have been PFAS-free when collected and contaminated with PFAS long after collection through no fault of Defendant. The Court noted that the Second Amended Complaint failed to aver detailed facts supporting the testing performed by Galbraith Laboratories and Eurofins. The Court pointed out that Plaintiff did not clarify, among other things, whether the samples tested were taken from products Plaintiff actually purchased, when the samples were collected, how many samples were collected and tested for each product line, or whether all tested samples yielded positive results for PFAS. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently link the results of his third-party tests to the products he purchased. The Second Amended Complaint was unclear as to the timeline of Plaintiff's purchases in relation to when the third-party testing was conducted. Plaintiff conducted two separate experiments: TOF testing in May 2022, and EPA 537 Isotope Dilution testing between November 1, 2023, and December 11, 2023. For both tests, the Second Amended Complaint did not specify when the samples were collected or whether they came from products that Plaintiff actually purchased around the time of testing. Concerning geographic proximity, the Court observed that although Plaintiff alleged that he purchased Oral-B Glide products for his personal use in Nanuet, New York, neither Galbraith Laboratories nor Eurofins was located in New York. Galbraith Laboratories is located in Knoxville, Tennessee, while Eurofins is located in Bothell, Washington. As pleaded, it was unclear whether the Oral-B Glide samples tested were purchased in New York at all. Under the benefit-of-the-bargain theory, the Court found that Plaintiff offered the same conclusory arguments that were dismissed in a similar case, Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co. The Court stated that Plaintiff paid for dental floss products and received dental floss products, which he consumed without suffering harm, nor did he claim that others were harmed by the consumption of Oral-B Glide products. The Court determined that Plaintiff did not plausibly allege that the Oral-B Glide products were worth less than what he paid for and, therefore, failed to establish a concrete and particularized injury under the price-premium theory of injury. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, noting that where a complaint is dismissed for lack of Article III standing, the dismissal must be without prejudice. The Court advised that the Third Amended Complaint will replace, not supplement, the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was directed to file the Third Amended Complaint no later than February 10, 2026. Should Plaintiff file a Third Amended Complaint, Defendant was directed to answer or otherwise respond by March 9, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to timely file a Third Amended Complaint, this action will be terminated and dismissed with prejudice. The Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to adequately plead Article III standing and did not reach the remainder of Defendant's arguments for lack of jurisdiction. The Memorandum and Order dated January 9, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ILJViX from PacerMonitor.com Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company was represented By Adam Randall Fox While Plaintiff Alan Dalewitz was represented By Kim Eleazer Richman QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Zanol Securities Suit over Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------- Quanex Building Products Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2025, that on September 19, 2025, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company and two of its officers was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, titled "Zanol v. Quanex Building Products Corporation et al," Case No. 4:25-cv-04453. The suit alleges certain violations of federal securities laws related to public disclosures made by the company in 2025 principally related to its window and door operations in Mexico and seeks unspecified damages. Quanex currently manufactures and distributes components for original equipment manufacturers in the building products industry, including window, door, solar, refrigeration, custom mixing, building access, and cabinetry markets.with operating locations in the U.K., Germany, Mexico, Canada, and Italy, as well as through sales and marketing efforts in other countries. RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANNA HICKS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY, P.C., a North Carolina professional corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00465-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant is seeking a 30-day extension, up to and including March 2, 2026, to complete fact discovery, including to resolve several deficiencies in the Plaintiff's discovery responses and to depose the Plaintiff. The Defendant has consulted with counsel for the Plaintiff who indicated Plaintiff consents to a two-week extension. The deadline for the Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification has not passed. The requested extension is not made for purposes of delay or any other improper purpose. On Aug. 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant, asserting three claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on Jan. 9, 2026. Raleigh offers a wide range of services including cataract surgery, treatment for glaucoma, dry eyes, cosmetic surgery procedures and more. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dCEaog at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Derin B. Dickerson, Esq. Shanique Campbell, Esq. Calvin Hart, Esq. Nicholas A. Young, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree St. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: derin.dickerson@alston.com shanique.campbell@alston.com calvin.hart@alston.com nick.young@alston.com RENT THE RUNWAY: Sharma Securities Suit over IPO Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Rent The Runway, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2025, that a November 14, 2022 putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled "Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al." (22-cv-6935) is currently ongoing. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading concerning the company's growth at the time of the IPO. On June 8, 2023, the court appointed Delaware Public Employees' Retirement System and Denver Employees Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs. On August 21, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by allegedly making certain false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, concerning, among other things, the company's growth prospects and fulfillment costs at the time of the IPO. All defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and that motion was fully submitted on February 23, 2024. On September 25, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the claims based on the company's growth prospects statements but allowing certain other claims to proceed. On October 9, 2024, defendants moved for reconsideration of the September 25, 2024 order and/or for certification which motion was fully submitted as of October 30, 2024. In response to an application filed by defendants on November 19, 2024, on November 20, 2024, the court issued an order adjourning defendants' deadline to file an answer to the amended complaint sine die. On May 16, 2025, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion to extend the time to answer the amended complaint until after the motion for reconsideration is resolved. The court approved the initial discovery plan on June 3, 2025. On September 12, 2025, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for reconsideration, dismissing all remaining claims except those based on fulfillment costs. Following the order, defendants filed their answers to the amended complaint on October 6, 2025. On October 16, 2025, defendants requested, per the court's rules, a pre-motion conference in connection with their anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings, which plaintiffs opposed. On October 24, 2025, the court ordered briefing on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On November 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking an order allowing discovery to proceed during the pendency of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which defendants opposed on November 21, 2025. On December 3, 2025, the court issued an order directing a limited "second phase" of discovery to proceed pending the outcome of defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, focusing on a limited category of information appropriately cabined by the scope of plaintiffs' remaining claims. Rent the Runway, Inc. is a shared designer closet with thousands of styles by hundreds of brand partners that gives customers access to its "unlimited closet" through its subscription offering or the ability to rent a-la-carte through its reserve offering. The company's corporate headquarters is located in Brooklyn, New York and its operational facilities are located in Secaucus, New Jersey, and Arlington, Texas. RESOURCE CORP: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Wright Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESOURCE CORP. OF AMERICA & RECOVERY OF TEXAS, LLC d/b/a RESOURCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00018 (S.D. Tex., January 21, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving service from Defendant's Clients, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. On January 14, 2026, Defendant experienced a cyber incident on a server used to store data of Clients' patients. As a result of the Data Breach, an unauthorized third-party was able to access and copy files containing the sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The following types of Private Information were compromised in the Data Breach: name, Social Security number, contact information, address and medical and health insurance information. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Plaintiff William Wright is a patient of one of Defendant's Clients. Defendant Resource Corp of America & Recovery of Texas, LLC is a provider of solutions that converts hospitals at-risk dollars into revenue. Accordingly, Defendant provides services to numerous medical facilities and providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, 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 RESOURCE CORP: Nelson Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- DAPHNE NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESOURCE CORP. OF AMERICA & RECOVERY OF TEXAS, LLC d/b/a RESOURCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00017 (S.D. Tex., January 21, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving service from Defendant's Clients, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. On January 14, 2026, the Defendant experienced a cyber incident on a server used to store data of Clients' patients. As a result of the Data Breach, an unauthorized third-party was able to access and copy files containing the sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff's Private Information, including name and Social Security number, were published on the dark web. As a consequence of and following the Data Breach, Plaintiff has experienced a significant increase in spam calls, text messages, and emails, evidencing misuse of her Private Information. The Data Breach has caused Plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety, and stress, which has been compounded by Defendant's delay in noticing her of the fact that her Social Security number was acquired by criminals as a result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Plaintiff Daphne Nelson is a citizen and resident of Tallahassee, Florida. Defendant Resource Corp of America & Recovery of Texas, LLC is a provider of solutions that converts hospitals at-risk dollars into revenue. Accordingly, Defendant provides services to numerous medical facilities and providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214/744-3000 Facsimile: 214/744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com RETRO FITNESS: Annual Membership Fees' Class Suit Reconsidered -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Enuco, writing for NJ.com, reports that a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a trial court should reconsider a class action lawsuit claiming hidden fees were added to monthly membership dues. The lawsuit, filed in 2020, claims that Retro Fitness, a large network of popular gyms, did not clearly advertise several fees that boosted monthly members dues above the advertised rate. Shaun Morrell filed the lawsuit after signing up for a membership to Retro Fitness in East Windsor and claiming he was never shown a contract agreement for the membership since he registered over the phone, and was not told about an "annual rate guarantee fee," according to the lawsuit. Morrell, who filed the lawsuit as a class action, said the gym charged him a $19.99 enrollment fee, a $29.99 processing fee, and an annual rate guarantee fee of $39.99. Combined, Morrell argued the fees increased the monthly rate far past the advertised monthly rate of $19.99. Attorneys for Morrell argued that the lack of clarity regarding the fees violated the Trust-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, The Retail Installment Sales Act, Consumer Fraud Act and the Health Club Services Act. A spokesperson for Retro Fitness did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Morrell's lawsuit was combined with a similar pending suit in 2021 where four other plaintiffs claimed similar violations of the same statutes, according to the appeals court ruling. The trial court ruled in favor of Retro Fitness and other defendants in 2024, dismissing the complaint on grounds it was filed past the statute of limitations. On appeal, Morrell's attorneys argued they had filed the case within the statute of limitations and that his case should be separated from the similar case with which it was consolidated, since that case had exceeded the statute of limitations. The appeals court ruled that the trial court failed to adequately address the issue of the applicability of the statute of limitations in their decision, according to the appellate decision. The dismissal was vacated by the appeals court and remanded to the trial court for an oral or written statement of reasons to justify their legal determination. [GN] ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Seeks to Continue Class Hearing to Feb. 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART, and JUAN CARLOS VAZQUEZ, v. ROBERT LUNA, SHERIFF, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting request for continuance of hearing and declaration of counsel for the Plaintiffs in response to the Defendants' preemptive objection and request to strike reply in support of motion for class certification to Feb. 9, 2026. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oBX14y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Dominic Price, Esq. JDP PC 23465 Civic Center Wy. Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (310) 451-2222 E-mail: jdp@jdpfirm.com SEEKING HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seeking Health, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00148-TWP-CSW (S.D. Ind., Jan. 23, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://seekinghealth.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by See and other blind or visually impaired individuals pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of rights under the ADA. Seeking Health, LLC operates the website that serves as a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view health and wellness supplements, make purchases, and perform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law SOPAPILLAS LLC: Bejarano Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA FERNANDA LARA BEJARANO, individually, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. SOPAPILLAS, LLC and STEVE J. DALE, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00085 (M.D. Tenn., January 22, 2026) seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's wage and hour provisions. According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a common plan, policy, and practice of failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees at least the FLSA minimum wage and any applicable overtime compensation rates of pay for non-tip producing "side-work" within weekly pay periods during all time relevant to this lawsuit. In addition, the Defendants failed to maintain timely and accurate pay records pertaining to Plaintiff and those similarly situated, as is required by the FLSA. Sopapillas, LLC owns and operates the Sopapillas restaurant in Brentwood, 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 STANDARD SALES: Failed to Prevent Data Breach, Olivas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND OLIVAS JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANDARD SALES COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00018 (W.D. Tex., January 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to prevent a data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing personally identifiable information ("PII"). The complaint relates that Standard accumulates highly private PII of its current and former employees as well as its employees' dependents. In collecting and maintaining its employees' PII, Standard agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with state law and federal law. However, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII--rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. In failing to adequately protect its employees' information, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former employees, as well as their dependents. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks compensatory damages for breach of implied contract, which includes the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest, and costs. Plaintiff Raymond Olivas Jr. is a former employee of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Standard Sales Company, L.P. is one of the largest beer wholesalerships in the United States, employing more than 500 people in administration, receiving, warehouse, sales and customer service. Standard operates 8 locations and distributes beer, mixers and beverage brands in Texas, Mississippi and Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com SUNBURN HOLDINGS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Doe Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNBURN HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a SUNBURN CANNABIS, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80051 (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for installing a tracking technology on its website, www.sunburncannabis.com. The complaint relates that on June 1, 2025, the Plaintiff visited www.sunburncannabis.com and purchased medical marijuana. After adding his medication to his cart, Plaintiff navigated to the checkout page and entered his full name, phone number, email address, home address, and billing address. Knowing that Defendant was statutorily required to safeguard his protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") from disclosure, Plaintiff reasonably expected that his communications revealing such information would remain confidential. According to the complaint, the Defendant's products and services are only available to individuals who possess a Florida medical marijuana card. Cards are only administered to adult individuals who have been medically diagnosed with a qualifying condition or a comparable chronic condition. However, in the pursuit of profit and to the detriment of patient privacy, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties, including Google LLC ("Google"), to intercept patients' communications as they seek medical marijuana products for purchase on its Website. This is because Defendant has surreptitiously installed the Google Analytics Pixel on the Website. This technology is intentionally installed to track and disclose patient activity on Defendant's Website, in real time, to third parties. By assisting a third party, like Google, with intercepting sensitive and confidential communications, Defendant violated state and federal anti-wiretapping laws -- along with HIPAA and other state laws prohibiting marijuana treatment centers from disclosing such information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illicit actions. Plaintiff is domiciled in Panama City, Florida. Defendant Sunburn Cannabis owns and operates the Website, one of the largest online dispensaries for medical marijuana. Defendant possesses a license from the State of Florida designating it as a recognized medical marijuana treatment center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: swetscot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com TECHNICAL RESPONSE: Laboy Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARLEY LABOY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. TECHNICAL RESPONSE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00368-KAC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying under Rule 23(b)(3), the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") Class defined as: "All employees of Defendant who were terminated pursuant to a mass layoff or plant closing (as those terms are defined in the WARN Act) within 90 days of Aug. 8, 2024," -- appointing her as class representative, and -- appointing undersigned counsel as class counsel. The Defendant is a U.S.-based engineering and manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=84xJim at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah England, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 980 N Michigan Ave. Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com TEKNI-PLEX INC: Kraner Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA KRANER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TEKNI-PLEX, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00185-JRK (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 23, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant employs many hundreds, if not thousands, of hourly, non-exempt employees, including Named Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the State Law Class in furtherance of its business purposes and operates multiple facilities, including, but not limited to operating facilities throughout Ohio, North Carolina, New Jersey, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Indiana, Nevada, Washington, and Texas, among other locations to be identified throughout the prosecution of this case. The Defendant manufactures packaging and containers for various medical device components and materials in the healthcare, personal care, household, and food and beverage markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com TRANSPORT CARE: Phillips Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Phillips v. Transport Care Services LLC, and Mobility USA LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00249-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 23, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other similar situated employees who were not paid overtime in violation of the FLSA. In addition, the Plaintiff brings Rule 23 class claims against the Defendants on behalf of himself as well as similarly situated employees for unpaid wages, treble damages, and other relief under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. TCS provides non-emergency medical transportation services primarily for the Department of Veterans Affairs and other government entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 4900 O’Hear Ave Ste 100 & 200 North Charleston, SC 29405 Telephone (843) 588-5587 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net TRELLA HEALTH: Heiting Sues Over Unfair Data Trackers' Installation ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRELLA HEALTH LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00653 (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2026) arises from Defendant Trella Health's alleged violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has partnered with California data companies, including 6Sense and LinkedIn in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. The Defendant has done this by installing tracking beacons from 6Sense and LinkedIn on their website. However, the Defendant did not obtain a court order before using or installing the Tracking Beacons on the website. The Defendant also did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the Class Members before using trap and trace technology, including the Tracking Beacons, to identify visitors to its website, asserts the suit. Trella Health LLC offers data analytics services for healthcare organizations. The company owns, operates, and/or controls www.trellahealth.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com eventry@taulersmith.com UNITED PARKS: Seaworld Users Sue Over Fake Sales and Hidden Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a SeaWorld customer has filed a class action lawsuit against Seaworld. Why: The plaintiff claims SeaWorld uses fake sales and hidden fees to trick customers into purchasing overpriced tickets. Where: The SeaWorld class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new SeaWorld class action lawsuit accuses SeaWorld of using fake sales and hidden fees to trick customers into purchasing overpriced tickets. Plaintiff Claire Petrun filed the SeaWorld class action complaint against United Parks & Resorts Inc. on Jan. 7 in a California federal court, alleging violations of California's Ticket Seller Law and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Petrun alleges that SeaWorld "overcharges" customers on its website by using "unfair and illegal tactics" to trick and manipulate consumers into purchasing tickets and paying more than they otherwise would. According to the lawsuit, SeaWorld's use of fake sales and hidden fees violates California's Hidden Fees law. The law also prohibits advertising goods or services with the intent not to sell them as advertised. Class action: SeaWorld uses bait and switch tactics Petrun alleges that SeaWorld's website advertised one price for tickets, only to later disclose a higher, different price during the checkout process. The lawsuit argues that such fees are deceptive and unfair because they interfere with consumers' ability to price-compare and manipulate them into paying fees that are either hidden entirely or not presented until late in the transaction. Petrun claims that SeaWorld's website initially tells consumers that a certain amount will be charged as "Taxes & Fees," but fails to provide a breakdown of how much is taxes and how much is fees. After a consumer clicks the "Checkout" button, SeaWorld reveals that no taxes were charged at all, and the entire amount was the company's service fee, the lawsuit alleges. "Defendant quotes consumers its fee under the misleading heading 'Taxes & Fees' to falsely pin the responsibility for these junk fees on the government," the SeaWorld class action says. "In reality, taxes are never a part of the equation." Petrun is looking to represent anyone in the United States who purchased event tickets from SeaWorld's website during the applicable statute of limitations period. She is suing for violations of California's Ticket Seller Law and the CLRA and seeks certification of the SeaWorld class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. A similar lawsuit was fielded against SeaWorld last year by a Florida resident. The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher and Stefan Bogdanovich of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The SeaWorld class action lawsuit is Claire Petrun v. United Parks & Resorts Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00090, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Jerotz Suit Due July 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIDA JEROTZ, v. UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10790-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a civil trial order: The Scheduling Conference scheduled for Jan. 30, 2026, is vacated. The Scheduling Order governing this action is as follows: Trial: Apr. 12, 2027 at 8:30 a.m Final pretrial conference, hearing on Apr. 2, 2027 motions in Limine at 1:30 p.m. Last date to hear motion to amend Mar. 13, 2026 pleadings or add Parties: Last date to file class certification July 29, 2026 motion: Fact discovery cut-off: Oct. 16, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 20, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zyHmHE at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: HHS Employees Get Court OK to Pursue Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Katz, writing for Government Executive, reports that a group of Health and Human Services Department employees can proceed in their efforts to pursue a class action lawsuit over their layoffs, a federal judge ruled Thursday evening, January 22, defeating the Trump administration's efforts to have the case thrown out. Seven HHS workers brought their case in June, arguing the department botched their reductions in force in April and therefore violated the 1974 Privacy Act. On January 22, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington said those individuals -- who are seeking to represent all of the 10,000 HHS employees who were laid off last year -- provided sufficient evidence to keep their case moving forward. The Trump administration had sought to have the case dismissed, arguing the workers should instead take their case to an entity designed specifically for federal civil servants -- such as the Merit Systems Protection Board -- and that they could not prove HHS had acted with intentional malice. Howell either rejected those claims or said they were not yet sufficient to dismiss the case. The HHS employees brought the case after their RIF notifications were rife with errors, including details about their prior performance ratings, veteran status, experience and other elements of their personnel files. Those elements can factor into who receives RIFs and who is eligible for alternative job offers, they said, meaning the errors -- which amount to violations of the Privacy Act -- contributed to their careers getting derailed. Additionally, they said, the department may have targeted offices it falsely believed to have a large number of poorly performing employees. HHS contested the allegations, saying the erroneous personnel information had no bearing on which offices got slashed whole cloth. Howell said the administration can make that argument at a later stage, but was not appropriate during the "motion to dismiss" considerations. To prove the errors were carried out intentionally, the plaintiffs noted several comments made by Trump administration officials in the lead up to, and following, the April layoffs. HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, for example, acknowledged mistakes would be made and "that was always the plan." The department said Kennedy was not referring to personnel file mistakes and some of the errors have since been corrected with RIF rescissions, but Howell again punted that discussion for a later time. The judge also pointed to Supreme Court precedent that Privacy Act cases can be heard in federal court and do not first have to go to MSPB. She also noted the law requires monetary damages be paid out to successful claimants, whereas the cases before MSPB do not necessarily come with financial awards. Separate tracks for Privacy Act cases are therefore necessary, she said. The Trump administration suggested allowing such cases to go directly to federal court "would open the back door to judicial review to perhaps an overwhelming number of CSRA claims," but Howell said history has shown that suggestion to be "overblown" and "hyperbolic." While the Supreme Court has previously greenlit President Trump's efforts to carry out RIFs as he sees fit, that legal fight concerned constitutional and legislative questions over executive authority. The HHS case takes a different approach, seeking pecuniary relief for errors during the department's hasty efforts. Howell tasked the administration to work with the plaintiffs to come up with a schedule next month for certifying or denying all impacted HHS employees as a class. HHS has walked back many of the 10,000 layoffs it first issued. Most recently, it rescinded RIFs sent to around 400 employees at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [GN] UNITED STATES: Nonprofit Balks at Termination of TPS for Ethiopia ----------------------------------------------------------------- AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER; SAMUEL DOE; STEPHEN DOE; and ABAL DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10278 (D. Mass., January 22, 2026) seeks to challenge Defendants' unlawful periodic review of Ethiopia's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation and the resulting decision to terminate it. The Plaintiffs are African Communities Together (ACT), a non-profit, membership organization representing African immigrants, their families, and their communities across the United States, and three of its members who are Ethiopian nationals with TPS or pending applications for TPS. On December 15, 2025, through a notice in the Federal Register, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of TPS for Ethiopia, effective at 11:59 p.m. on February 13, 2026. The Defendants' actions put current TPS holders and applicants, including Individual Plaintiffs and members of ACT, at imminent risk of losing critical, Congressionally designated humanitarian protection--including protection against deportation and related immigration confinement--and rob people with pending applications of the opportunity to have their applications adjudicated, says the suit. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a Cabinet-level department in the U.S. federal government. Kristi Noem is sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joy Chen, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One International Place, Suite 1020 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 603-8821 E-mail: JChen@cov.com - and - Mark H. Lynch, Esq. Stephen Petkis, Esq. Paul Killebrew, Esq. Ayana M. Lindsey, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: MLynch@cov.com SPetkis@cov.com PKillebrew@cov.com ALindsey@cov.com - and - Michael E. Cunniff, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 E-mail: MCunniff@cov.com - and - Sarah Leadem, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 E-mail: SLeadem@cov.com - and - Nargis Aslami, Esq. Golnaz Fakhimi, Esq. Collin Poirot, Esq. Abbey Rutherford, Esq. MUSLIM ADVOCATES 1032 15th Street N.W. #362 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 897-2622 E-mail: Nargis@muslimadvocates.org Golnaz@muslimadvocates.org Collin@muslimadvocates.org Abbey@muslimadvocates.org - and - Erik Crew, Esq. HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE 4560 Alvarado Canyon Road, Suite 1H San Diego, CA 92120 Telephone: (949) 603-7411 E-mail: ECrew@haitianbridge.org UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: $8.75MM Settlement Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that court approves landmark settlement expanding access to proton beam radiation therapy (PBRT). Final approval of an $8.75 million ERISA class action settlement requires UnitedHealthcare to revise its PBRT coverage policy and provide payments of up to $75,000 to eligible class members denied coverage. Settlement delivers immediate relief and lasting policy change. UnitedHealthcare must remove restrictive PBRT exclusions and adopt revised medical necessity criteria that expand coverage for certain cancer diagnoses based on evolving clinical evidence. Patients and providers denied PBRT coverage may have recourse. Individuals or healthcare providers who were denied PBRT coverage or reimbursement should consider contacting AGG's Healthcare Litigation team to evaluate potential claims or recovery options. Overview On December 12, 2025, Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted final approval of the class action settlement in the consolidated ERISA litigation challenging UnitedHealthcare's denials of proton beam radiation therapy ("PBRT") coverage, certified a settlement class, and entered final judgment. Most importantly, the final settlement requires United to pay up to $75,000 to class members who were denied access to PBRT and requires United to amend and revise its PBRT coverage policy, expanding access to PBRT. The court also approved attorneys' fees and costs of $2 million to class counsel and service awards of $25,000 for each of the three class representatives, to be paid by UnitedHealthcare separately from class member payments. No class member objected or opted out. Case Background The litigation began in 2019 and was later consolidated, with named plaintiffs Kate Weissman, Zachary Rizzuto, and Richard Cole challenging denials of PBRT for individuals diagnosed with cervical/gynecological, primary central nervous system, and prostate cancers under ERISA-governed plans issued or administered by UnitedHealthcare. In May 2025, the court granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement valued that also contemplated important medical policy changes to expand PBRT access and potential payments up to $75,000 per qualifying member who paid out of pocket. Following notice to the class, the court conducted the Final Fairness Hearing on December 12, 2025. The Final Approval Order In its Final Approval Order issue December 12, 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement under Rule 23(e). The court certified, for settlement purposes, a Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) class comprising persons who, while covered by an ERISA-governed plan issued or administered by UnitedHealthcare: -- were diagnosed with one of the three cancers at issue; -- obtained PBRT and had their claim denied for clinical reasons between March 26, 2016, and August 28, 2023; and -- whose PBRT treatment was not paid by another payor. The court made the requisite Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(g) findings and appointed Kate Weissman, Richard Cole, and Zachary Rizzuto as class representatives. Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards By separate order entered the same day, the court awarded class counsel $2 million in attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved service awards of $25,000 each for the three class representatives, all to be paid by UnitedHealthcare separate and apart from class payments. Significance and Next Steps The final approval cements a settlement that both provides monetary relief to eligible class members and prospective relief through revisions to United's PBRT policy. The settlement provides policy revisions intended to expand access to PBRT and transparency for members with certain cancers, and provided payments up to $75,000 per qualifying member, underscoring the settlement's practical impact for affected patients. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, changes to United's PBRT medical policy include removal of a list of 13 different cancer sites for which United deemed PBRT "unproven and not medically necessary due to insufficient evidence of efficacy for treating all other indications." Because of the settlement, individuals may access coverage for PBRT for these cancer sites if there is (1) documentation supporting that surrounding tissue cannot be spared with standard radiation; and (2) an evaluation and comparison of treatment plans for PBRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy ("IMRT"), and stereotactic body radiation therapy ("SBRT") for the specific member. The revisions to the policy reflect developments and studies supporting the use of PBRT, including the American Society of Radiation Oncology's Model PBRT Policy. This outcome could not have been achieved without the efforts of the class representatives and class counsel, who prevailed after years of litigation. [GN] VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Must Submit Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Massimo Mazzaccone v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cote entered an order directing the Plaintiff to submit motion for class certification, appointment as class representative, and appointment of Duane Morris as class counsel in this action. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gaYf5X at no extra charge.[CC] VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Eli Lilly --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Ventyx Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: VTYX) related to its sale to Eli Lilly and Company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Ventyx shareholders are expected to receive $14.00 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ventyx-biosciences-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. (NYSE: ALEX) related to its sale to MW Group and funds affiliated with Blackrock Real Estate and DivcoWest. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Alexander & Baldwin shareholders are expected to receive $21.20 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 9, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/alexander-baldwin-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Ryvyl Inc. (NASDAQ: RVYL) related to its sale to RTB Digital, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, all classes of RTB stock will be converted into Ryvyl common stock based on a calculated exchange ratio. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ryvyl-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- First Foundation Inc. (NYSE: FFWM) related to its sale to FirstSun Capital Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Foundation shareholders will receive 0.16083 of a share of FirstSun common stock for each First Foundation common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 27, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-foundation-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] VERIFF OU: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Stockton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRINA STOCKTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. VERIFF OU and VERIZON VALUE, INC. d/b/a TOTAL WIRELESS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00520 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiff and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that in their ordinary course of business operations, Defendants collect, store, and maintain sensitive Private Information, and have a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. Recently, the Defendant Veriff experienced a cyber incident, in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network. Upon discovery, Defendant Veriff launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On December 10, 2025, Defendant Veriff notified Defendant Total Wireless that certain customers Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information were compromised: name, government-issued ID, date of birth, and address. On January 9, 2026, Defendant Total Wireless began issuing notice letters ("Notice") to impacted customers. In breaching their duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, the Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. 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 herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Trina Stockton is a resident and citizen of Denver, Colorado Defendant Veriff OU is a global identity verification company that provides services to clients, including Defendant Total Wireless ("Clients" or "Defendant Veriff's Clients"). Defendant Total Wireless is a budget-friendly, no-contract prepaid mobile service that runs on Verizon's extensive 5G network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com VERIFF OU: McLaughlin Sues Over Over Failure to Secure Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIFF OU and VERIZON VALUE, INC. d/b/a TOTAL WIRELESS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00566 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons government-issued identification, postal addresses, and dates of birth (the "Private Information") from hackers. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving service from Total Wireless, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant Veriff. Veriff uses this information, inter alia, to verify identities of Total Wireless customers. In its privacy policy, Veriff promises its Clients and the public that it will not share this Private Information with third parties. According to Total Wireless' Notice, it learned of unauthorized access to Veriff computer systems on December 10, 2025, with such unauthorized access having taken place on November 18, 2025. Through the Data Breach, the unauthorized cybercriminals accessed a cache of highly sensitive Private Information, including images of government-issued identification, postal addresses and dates of birth, relating to its Clients' customers. On January 9, 2026, roughly one month after Total Wireless learned that the Class's Private Information was first accessed by cybercriminals, Total Wireless finally began to notify its customers and Class Members that Veriff's investigation determined that their Private Information was impacted. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants' negligent conduct as the Private Information that Veriff collected and maintained on behalf of its Clients is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Kelly McLaughlin is a citizen of the State of Oregon. Defendant Veriff OU is a global provider of AI-powered identity verification that provides services to various clients, including large-scale clients like Total Wireless. Defendant Total Wireless is a pre-paid, no contract wireless service provider covered by the Verizon 5G network and wholly owned by Verizon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonal Jain, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: nwilliams@sirillp.com VERIFF OU: Reed Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dustin Reed v. Veriff OU et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00465-DEH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Do entered an order referring the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purposes: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Particular Motion: Class Certification Veriff is an online identity verification company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9VSFVB at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Flowers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASTRID M. FLOWERS, v. THE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, d/b/a Washington University School of Medicine, Case No. 4:24-cv-01504-ZMB (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Bluestone entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismisses the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective-action claim and the claim for equitable relief under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Further the Court denies as moot the Plaintiff Astrid Flowers's motion to certify class and the University's motion for hearing on certification. Flowers fails to establish that anyone else failed to receive overtime pay, which is surely a prerequisite to a collective action. Ms. Flowers filed the case on Nov. 8, 2024. The Defendant is the medical school of Washington University in St. Louis. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1MZ6cE at no extra charge.[CC] WASHOUTS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Looper Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLIFTON LOOPER, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 81A WASHOUTS, LLC and JAMES T. WALLS, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00087 (M.D. Tenn., January 22, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs for all their overtime hours worked within weekly pay periods at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay. Moreover, the Defendants unjustly enriched themselves by the money they saved in their failure to provide employee benefits on behalf of Plaintiff and those similarly situated, such as social security contributions, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, etc., says the suit. Based in Murfreesboro, TN , 81A Washouts, LLC provides truck wash services. [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 WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid Filing in Baird Due Nov. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-05959-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order setting briefing on class certification as follows: The Plaintiff to serve expert report Aug. 28, 2026 re class certification: Wells Fargo to serve expert report Sept. 25, 2026 re class certification: Expert discovery cutoff re: Class Cert.: Oct. 23, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Nov. 4, 2026 The Defendants' Opp. to motion for class Dec. 4, 2026 certification: The Plaintiff's reply to motion for class Dec. 18, 2026 certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: Jan. 14, 2027 at 10:00 am Wells is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yAROVn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Anastasia K. Mazzella, Esq. Annie Martin-McDonough, Esq. KABATECK LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com am@kbklawyers.com amm@kbklawyers.com - and - D. Joshua Staub, Esq. James C. D. Carr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF D. JOSHUA STAUB 13015 Washington Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (424) 216-1776 E-mail: josh@djoshuastaub.com james@carrlawgrp.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. Rebecca S. Saelao, Esq. Erik Kemp, Esq. Elizabeth C. Farrell, Esq. STINSONLLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 E-mail: mark.lonergan@stinson.com rebecca.saelao@stinson.com erik.kemp@stinson.com elizabeth.Farrell@stinson.com WHEELS FINANCIAL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giannareas v. Wheels Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00115 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 16, 2026), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 1/20/2026. (KM) The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Wheels Financial is a financial services company, primarily known for its LoanMart brand, which offers vehicle title loans and other financing options for consumers with limited credit access, operating through direct lending and storefront partners.[CC] WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Tobacco Surcharge -------------------------------------------------------------- Tobacco Reporter reports that Whole Foods Market Inc. is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit filed January alleging the retailer unlawfully imposes a tobacco-use surcharge of about $780 per year on employees' health insurance premiums without providing a compliant alternative to avoid or recover the fee, according to HR Dive. The suit, brought by three current and former workers, claims that while employees can enroll in a tobacco cessation program, the surcharge is only removed prospectively and cannot be recouped retroactively, falling short of federal requirements outlined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case comes amid a broader wave of ERISA lawsuits challenging employer tobacco surcharge programs, with plaintiffs arguing such policies unfairly raise costs for tobacco users without reasonable alternatives, potentially breaching fiduciary duties under ERISA and related federal laws. [GN] WILLIAM BARR: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Jan. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.T. et al v. WILLIAM BARR, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00116 (D.D.C., Filed Jan. 15, 2020), the Hon. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan entered an order that Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion for class certification by no later than Jan. 30, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.[CC] WILLIAM C: Ward Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Sensitive Info ------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE WARD JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM C. SMITH & CO., INC. c/o Bradley J. Fennell, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00182 (D.C., January 21, 2026) arises from a recent cyberattack discovered by Defendant on May 18, 2025, resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former consumers' highly personal information, including names, demographic information, ("personally identifying information" or "Sensitive Information."). On January 12, 2026, eight months after the Data Breach was discovered, WC Smith finally began notifying Plaintiff and the Class of the Breach through breach notices. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed thousands of its current and former consumers, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 Defendant's possession. Plaintiff EDDIE WARD JR. is a citizen of Marlboro, Maryland and a Data Breach victim. Defendant WILLIAM C. SMITH & CO., INC. is a D.C. corporation with its principal place of business located at 1100 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, 1000, Washington D.C., 20003.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Bid for Class Certification Terminated -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE, and MARQUIS RICHARDSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated ORDER 20-cv-3812 (ER) 3 LQ s, v. WORKFORCE7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC., and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramos entered an order directing the Clerk to terminate the motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and various provisions of the New York Labor Law. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which was filed on June 6, 2025. On May 21, 2025, the Court entered the parties' revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order, giving the Plaintiffs, Workforce7 Inc., Ronald Hilton, and Vali until June 23, 2025, to file their motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Since then, the Court has granted all seven requested extensions of this deadline. Workforce7 specializes in professional flagging services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Gz0E5 at no extra charge.[CC] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In February 2024, the named plaintiffs in Rouse et al. v. H.B. Fuller Company et al. filed a third amended complaint in their lawsuit against the Company and one of its subsidiaries, which was initiated in September 2022. The suit is pending in the federal District of Minnesota and seeks damages arising from property damage attributed to alleged defects in grout sold by the Company's divested North America Flooring business. As previously disclosed, the court ordered the parties and their insurers to attend a meditation session on October 21 and 22, 2025. At that mediation session, the Company and the plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle this matter for up to $75.0 million. Under the proposed settlement, in lieu of funding the maximum settlement amount, the Company's payment obligations will be limited to validly submitted claims, settlement administration costs, service awards, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses. The terms of a definitive settlement agreement are being negotiated and will be subject to court approval. In light of these developments, the Company concluded that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and recorded an accrual in anticipation of the settlement of $34.8 million ($26.3 million after tax) based on a range of possible outcomes. This accrual is included in other accrued expenses in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of November 29, 2025. The Company believes that it is entitled to reimbursement from its insurers for a substantial portion of the potential settlement amount as well as legal fees already incurred and paid and is actively pursuing reimbursement from its insurers." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://tinyurl.com/mw4p3wwu ********* 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 ***