260202.mbx

260202.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 2, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 23 Headlines 784 8TH STREET: Umanzor Sues Over Minimum Wages, Overtime Wages A.Y. MCDONALD INDUSTRIES: Stokes Suit Removed to N.D. Iowa ACCELLION INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Brown by Feb. 4 AEGIS TRUST: Faces Ralston Suit Over ERISA Violations ALLIED WASTE SERVICES: Cortes Suit Transferred to E.D. California AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Dayya Suit Removed to D. New Jersey AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Duke Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES: Rodriguez Sues Over Silica Dust Exposure ASPIRUS INC: Class Discovery Cut-Off Due July 10 BARNES-JEWISH WEST: Removes Wickham Class Suit to E.D. Mo. BASSETT FURNITURE: Stephens Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BAYADA HOME HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Peeler" BAYLOR SCOTT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Whittaker Suit Removed to C.D. California BOSTON RED: Campagna Sues Over Deceptive Baseball Game Tickets' Ads BRIDGECREST CREDIT: Loses Summary Judgment Motion in "Caughey" BSN SPORTS LLC: Cruz Suit Removed to E.D. California CAMP 1382 LLC: Ocampo Sues Over Illegally Retained Tips CANON BUSINESS: Klain Suit Removed to N.D. California CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Johnston Suit Removed to C.D. California CASILLAS PETROLEUM: Reiss Sues Over Failure to Pay Gas Royalties CERNER CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bedford Suit Alleges CERNER CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fancher Suit Says CLOUD DENTISTRY: Helgerod Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Vadla Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII COMPU-LINK CORP: Rizzati Balks at Reverse-Mortgage Loan's Fees CONAIR LLC: Must Oppose McCabe Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20 CONIFER REVENUE: Qadri Sues Over Data Privacy Violations CONNECT HOLDING: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CONNECTICUT: Mickens Class Suit Reopened CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CONWAY FENCE: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages COSMEDICA SKINCARE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind COURIER PLUS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations COVENANT HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cole Says COVENANT HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Phillips Says CROCS RETAIL: Gay Class Action Suit Filed in D. Colo. DAVID STANLEY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Duling Suit Claims DECA DENTAL: Pollard Sues Over Data Privacy Violations DELISH BRANDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Alleges DOLLAR GENERAL: Lehman Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. DOT FOODS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Diop Suit Alleges ELIGO ENERGY: Filing Extension for Daubert Motions Sought ESCALETTE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says FANROCK LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Dalton Says FIRST CHOICE HEALTH: Enslow Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Mero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation FLOWERS FOODS: Vaughn Sues Over Unpaid Compensations FLOWERS FOODS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says GEORGE BROWN: McKee Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Copyright Case GREEN COUNTY, WI: Prelim. Pretrial Conference Order Entered GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Shipes Alleges Illegal Access of Personal Info HAIER US: Appliances Have Defective Lint Traps, Sherman Alleges HAIR DOC BASS: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HALEON US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Campos Due Feb. 5 HEADAMP AUDIO: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HEADLIGHT HEALTH: Edquid Sues Over Data Privacy Violations HEAVEN HILL: Joint Scheduling Report Stricken HILTON WORLDWIDE: Shah Suit Transferred to E.D. Va. HP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pattison Suit Due April 22 HP INC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Deadlines HUMANA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 5 ICONTAINERS USA: Mahmoud Seeks to Seal Unredacted Class Cert INDEBTED USA: McKee Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections INSIGHT FOUNDATION: Case Management Order Entered in McCullough INTELLICHECK INC: Perez Sues Over Data Privacy Violations JACKSON WALKER: Faces EJS Suit Over Improper Legal Practices JOHN RISCASSI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Fuselier Suit Due July 10 JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Over Surcharge in Health Insurance JW LEE: Seeks Leave to File Conditional Cert Supplemental Response KALSHIEX LLC: Hallman Sues Over Online Betting Platform KATE MCLEOD: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind KLAVIYO INC: Bid to Strike Nguyen Class Suit Tossed KROEHLER FURNITURE: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Can File Class Cert Opposition Brief LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks Redaction of Certain Docs in Ostenfeld LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks to Strike Fearon's Declaration in Ostenfeld LEADPOINT INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rush Suit Due August 12 LIDESLAMBOUS INC: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Braxton" LITTLE CAESAR: Class Certification Bid Hearing Moved to June 30 LOVE ALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Suit Alleges MAH GROUP: Filing for Class Cert. in Wilson Due June 29 MAREX GROUP: Michaella Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge MAREX GROUP: Narayanan Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge MARIO BADESCU SKIN CARE: McGee Files Suit in S.D. New York META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 22 META PLATFORMS: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought MILLIMAN INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in Healy Suit MONROE UNIVERSITY: Rosario Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Martinek Suit Over Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Grace Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Gucik Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Hildebrandt Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Kulibaba Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Lafleur Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Shamberg Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale NAKED WHEY INC: Wood Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NATIONAL FREIGHT: Bid to Certify Class Remains Terminated NATIONAL MENTOR: Crawley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Washington Class Cert Bid Tossed as Premature NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE: Clas Cert Filing in Williams Due Oct. 20 NESTLE USA: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Falcone Suit NORDSTROM INC: King Suit Removed to C.D. California NORTH ATLANTIC STATES: Buzzanga Sues Over Failure to Protect Data O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Patton Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties OCEAN REEF MEDIA: Sundstrom Suit Removed to W.D. Washington OLD DOMINION: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages OLIVARES DELIVERY: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages OS RESTAURANT SERVICES: Slack Sues to Recover Compensation OTTER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bids Referred to Magistrate Judge OTTER PRODUCTS: Stay of Class Certification Briefing Sought PAUL ATKINS: Davidson Suit Seeks to Certify U.S. Investors Class PEET'S COFFEE: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Munoz Says PEPSICO INC: Davis Sues Over Pepsi Beverage Sales Monopoly PINCH A PENNY POOL: English Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PINCHO HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PNC BANK N.A.: Birdsall Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania PROCTER & GAMBLE: Simmons Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind QUEEN TRANSPORTATION: Ross Balks at Layoff Without Prior Notice RAHIMALI VAKALIAY: Labib Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA RED MCCOMBS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Feliciano Claims RELATION INSURANCE: Terriquez Suit Removed to E.D. California REMEDY WHOLESALE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Wood Says RETRIEVER MEDICAL: Martin Sues Over Data Privacy Violations RICHARD'S RESTAURANT: Lontz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ROBERT LUNA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing in Stewart Tossed ROBINSON AVIATION: Singles Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime RTX CORPORATION: Jacob Class Action Dismissed RUBY INVESTMENTS: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People RUSSELL ROAD: Moore Wins Bid for Conditional Certification SAED ENTERPRISES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People SAIA INC: Mills Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ramnath Alleges Defective Galaxy Smartphones SCOTT SEMPLE: Pagan Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice SHADY OAK: Lear Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA & PMWA SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Westchester Seeks to Certify Class Action SIX MOON: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SLICKDEALS LLC: Cheung Sues Over Data Privacy Violations SMART DIGITAL: Faces Dixit Suit Over Drop in Share Price SMITHFIELD FOODS: Tapscott Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Isaacson Balks at Unlawful Junk Fee Revenues SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT VASCULAR: Travers Sues Over Data Breach SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Seeks Denial of Mikha Class Cert Bid SP PLUS LLC: Valdes Sues to Recover Wrongfully Retained Tips SSP AMERICA: Carr Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes STARBUCKS CORP: Williams Sue Over "Ethically Sourced" Coffee Label STREAMEX CORP: Solak Sues Over Classified Board Structure Amendment SUNNYLIFE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blinds, See Alleges SUNPATH LTD: Parties Directed to Engage in Mediation TAKUMI STAMPING: Ulloa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification TDS MANAGEMENT ZIMBA: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website THREE BULLS: Musacchia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage TIREHUB LLC: Nelson Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. TOMOCREDIT INC: Geagley Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Cheese Products Contains Metal, Crow Claims TRANSUNION LLC: Butler Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Christopher Says TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS: Justice Suit Removed to D. New Jersey TRINITY SERVICES GROUP: Cruz Suit Removed to E.D. California TRULY CLEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges TWO JINN: Lowe Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Washington UNITED STATES: Bourque Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Detention Conditions UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Neblock Balks at Unprotected Personal Info VIRGINIA: Faces Class Suit Over Discrimination Complaint VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS: Eller Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price WFS EXPRESS INC: Foster Suit Removed to W.D. Washington WU'S HOUSE INC: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website YESCARE CORP: Class Cert Hearing in Darpoh Suit Set for March 11 ZNERGEN OPERATING: Zepeda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ********* 784 8TH STREET: Umanzor Sues Over Minimum Wages, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Umanzor, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. 784 8TH STREET CORP. and PASQUALE RUGGIERO, Case No. 2:26-cv-00386 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law Article 19 and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("NYLL"), to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours pay, and statutory damages. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week but were not paid overtime in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours that he worked after of forty hours per workweek. Instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff at his regular rate for all hours worked each workweek. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff an additional hour's pay for each day that Plaintiff's spread-of-hours exceeded 10 hours. The Defendants made unlawful deductions to the wages earned by Plaintiff in violation of NYLL. The Defendants' failure to provide accurate notices and statements not only denied Plaintiff the time-value of the underpayments he seeks to recover in this action, but also resulted in continued practice of paying Plaintiff less than one and one-half times his regular rate for hours that he worked after 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from September 2023 until November 2025. The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com A.Y. MCDONALD INDUSTRIES: Stokes Suit Removed to N.D. Iowa ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Patrick Stokes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A.Y. MCDONALD INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 01311 CVCV117930 was removed from the District Court for Dubuque County, Iowa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on Jan. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01002. This matter arises from a data breach that allegedly exposed the personal information of thousands of individuals associated with A.Y.M. On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against A.Y.M. in the State Court Action, asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment due to the breach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Christensen, Esq. RSH LEGAL P.C. 425 2nd St SE, Suite 1140 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Phone: (319) 365-9200 Fax: (319) 365-1114 Email: jchristensen@fightingforfairness.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Christopher E. Torres, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com ctorres@eksm.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul D. Gamez, Esq. Nick Petersen, Esq. SIMMONS PERRINE PLC 115 3rd St. SE Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Phone: (319) 896-4093 Facsimile: (319) 366-1917 Email: pgamez@sp.law npetersen@sp.law - and - Christopher G. Dean, Esq. Kate M. Montgomery, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 600 Superior Avenue East, Suite 2100 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 348-5400 Email: cdean@mcdonaldhopkins.com kmontgomery@mcdonaldhopkins.com ACCELLION INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Brown by Feb. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc. (RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to modify briefing schedule re Plaintiffs' motion to modify order on class certification. The Parties jointly stipulate and request that the Court set the deadline for Accellion's opposition to the Motion on Feb. 4, 2026, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply on Feb. 18, 2026. This extension shall not affect any other case deadlines imposed by the Court. On Dec. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Parties then fully briefed. On Sept. 30, 2025, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Jan. 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the order on class certification. Accellion operates as a technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rMYYk6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Downs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 The Defendant is represented by: Fred Norton, Esq. Bree Hann, Esq. Gil Walton, Esq. Rebecca Kutlow, Esq. Heather Bates, Esq. Emily Kirk, Esq. THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 906-4900 E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com bhann@nortonlaw.com gwalton@nortonlaw.com rkultow@nortonlaw.com hbates@nortonlaw.com ekirk@nortonlaw.com - and - Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq. ACCELLION, INC. 1510 Fashion Island Blvd, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94404 Telephone: (415) 515-4724 E-mail: camilo.apurcell@kiteworks.com AEGIS TRUST: Faces Ralston Suit Over ERISA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- HEIDI RALSTON, on behalf of the ARCO Construction Holdings Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFREY L. COOK; STEPHEN F. HOLSTE; CHARLES E. FRANKE II; JOHN A. KOMLOS; ROBERT H. BELLINA; RICHARD A. ARNOLDY; ROBERT E. LESSER; and AEGIS TRUST COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00053 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 13, 2026) allege violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, on December 31, 2021, the Plan, through its trust, the ARCO Construction Holdings Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Trust ("ESOT"), purchased from the party in interest Selling Shareholders, directly or indirectly, 100,000 shares of the Company's common stock for $97,186,312. The ESOP financed the entire purchase with loans from the Selling Shareholders that were subsequently assigned to the Company (the purchase and loan transactions together, the "ESOP Transaction" or "Transaction"). As a result of the ESOP Transaction, the Plan and the participants who participated in it became owners of, on information and belief, all of the issued shares of ACH common stock, with the ESOT being the legal shareholder and participants having beneficial interests. Because rank and file ACH employees, including Plaintiff, did not participate in the development, negotiation, or closing of the ESOP Transaction, and have not been provided with copies of the Transaction documents, they lack information regarding specific terms of the Transaction, says the suit. Aegis Trust Company offers advisory, and trustee services focused on Employee Stock Ownership Plans. The company assists businesses in interpreting and adhering to regulatory requirements related to ESOPs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 34 N. Gore Avenue, Suite 102 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 863-5446 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 Email: mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com todd@feinbergjackson.com - and - Mary Bortscheller, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 970 Raymond Avenue, Suite G-70 St. Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: (510) 606-5219 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 Email: mary@feinbergjackson.com ALLIED WASTE SERVICES: Cortes Suit Transferred to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sergio Cortes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01276 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00138-JAM-SCR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment Discrimination. Allied Waste North America, LLC -- https://alliedusa.net/ -- provides non-hazardous solid waste management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Stanley Jungjoon Park, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com hkim@moonlawgroup.com - and - Vasil Oswald, Esq. MILTON LAW 2626 Foothill Blvd., Suite 200 La Crescenta, CA 91214 Phone: (818) 475-7895 Email: boswald@moonlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Heidi Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 232-0441 Fax: (619) 232-4302 Email: hhegewald@littler.com - and - Irene Vera Fitzgerald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 N. Palm Ave., Suite 302 Fresno, CA Phone: (559) 244-7500 Fax: (559) 244-7525 Email: Ifitzgerald@littler.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Dayya Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Salatiel Bassam Dayya, and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. MER-L-001278-25 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00426. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Amazon failed to pay overtime to his and other similarly situated individuals "due to Defendant's policy and/or practice of not paying employees for all hours worked in violation of" New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), and the common law of New Jersey ("Common Law").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kelly Robreno Koster, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 6700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 374-3500 Email: kelly.koster@gtlaw.com - and - Todd H. Girshon, Esq. Jason Burns, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One Vanderbilt Ave New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-801-9311 Phone: 212-801-9294 Email: Todd.Girshon@gtlaw.com jason.burns@gtlaw.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Duke Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cullen Duke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 25-2-37599-4 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00183. The Plaintiff alleges that in 2024 and 2025, Amazon "calculated and collected sales tax on his purchases at a rate higher than the rate applicable to his shipping address under Tennessee law." Plaintiff asserts claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act and brings common law claims for conversion and "unjust enrichment/restitution."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John Goldmark, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Bryan Taylor, Esq. Joshua Peck, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Fax: 206-757-7700 Email: johngoldmark@dwt.com ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES: Rodriguez Sues Over Silica Dust Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- ISMAEL PEDRO CALDERON RODRIGUEZ, ELEODORO CALIXTO RODRIGUEZ, OTONIEL RAMIREZ ESCOBAR, MARIO SANCHEZ CANO, and ROGEIRO TORRES, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ARIZONA TILE, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; C & C NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; CAESARSTONE USA, INC., a California corporation; CAMBRIA COMPANY LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; DAL-TILE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DAL-TILE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DAL-TILE TENNESSEE, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company; ELITE QUARTZ MFG LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HYUNDAI L&C USA, INC., a Delaware limited liability company; LX HAUSYS AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation; M S INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation; SURFACE WAREHOUSE, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00388 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants to require them to pay for medically necessary medical monitoring to detect silica-related disease. The complaint is filed to secure essential healthcare for an especially vulnerable portion of the California population -- young immigrant men from Latin America like Plaintiffs, who came to the United States and found work in California fabricating countertops from artificial stone slabs and installing fabricated artificial stone countertops in kitchens and bathrooms throughout the state. According to the complaint, the artificial stone is an inherently defective product primarily because it contains extraordinarily high concentrations of crystalline silica, an extremely toxic substance that is not only a known human carcinogen that causes lung and other human cancers, but also causes other chronic human diseases, especially silicosis, kidney disease, and a large variety of autoimmune diseases. As of completion of the drafting of this complaint, 466 cases and 25 deaths from artificial stone-induced silicosis have been documented in young Latino men on the Engineered Stone Silicosis Surveillance Dashboard of the California Department of Public Health. The Plaintiffs have all been occupationally exposed to respirable crystalline silica dust in the course of their work cutting, fabricating, and polishing artificial stone slabs and/or installing them as countertops in the State of California, but have not been diagnosed with any disease attributed to exposure to respirable crystalline silica. They require Defendants to fund medical monitoring after being exposed to artificial stone dust in California to detect silica-related disease. Architectural Surfaces Group, LLC designs and provides engineered stone, tiles, granite, marble, quartz, and soapstone products for kitchen, bathrooms, and house areas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Metzger, Esq. Ott P. Brust, Esq. METZGER LAW GROUP, APLC 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 800 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 437-4499 Facsimile: (562) 436-1561 E-mail: rmetzger@toxictorts.com sbrust@toxictorts.com ASPIRUS INC: Class Discovery Cut-Off Due July 10 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Team Schierl Companies, et al., v. Aspirus, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00580 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered a scheduling order as follows: Dispositive motions due Feb. 25, with a 28 / 14-day briefing schedule. Discovery cut-off on July 10, and settlement letters due July 17. All pretrial filings due July 24, with responses due 14 days later. First final pretrial conference on August 26 at 2:30 p.m., and second final pretrial conference on September 2 at 2:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs have requested an extension, which the court will GRANT to allow the parties some additional time to address this order. The parties are ordered to submit a joint status report by Jan. 30 and to address this proposed schedule in their report. The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.[CC] BARNES-JEWISH WEST: Removes Wickham Class Suit to E.D. Mo. ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of KEVIN WICKHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARNES-JEWISH WEST COUNTY HOSPITAL; and BJC HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, State of Missouri (Case No. 2522-CC09713) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Dec. 26, 2025. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01875-RHH. The case is assigned to Judge Rodney H. Holmes. Barnes-Jewish West County Hospital provides health care services. The Hospital offers emergency care, medical education, research, rehabilitation, dermatology, plumonology, oncology, pharmacy, and orthopedic services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Gerbie, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. Suite 900 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Email: dgerbie@mcgpc.com - and - John Sawin, Esq. SAWIN LAW LTD. Suite 900 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 853-2490 Email: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com - and - Joseph Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. Suite 900 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Email: jdunklin@mcgpc.com - and - Lanny H. Darr, Esq. DARR FIRM 307 Henry St. Suite 406 Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 208-6828 Facsimile: (618) 433-8519 Email: ldarr@darrfirm.com - and - Scott Morgan, Esq. MORGAN LAW FIRM, LTD. Suite 900 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 327-3386 Email: smorgan@smorgan-law.com The Defendant is represented by: John D. Comerford, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP - St. Louis 7676 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7311 Email: jcomerford@dowdbennett.com - and - Hannah F. Preston, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP - St. Louis 7676 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 Email: hpreston@dowdbennett.com - and - Robyn Lane Parkinson, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP - St. Louis 7676 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 Facsimile: (314) 863-2111 Email: rparkinson@dowdbennett.com BASSETT FURNITURE: Stephens Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marilyn Stephens, for herself, as a private attorney general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 25-2-37307-0 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00115. The Plaintiff alleges that Bassett Furniture violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Ste. 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 Email: vanessa.power@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com BAYADA HOME HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Peeler" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Donna Peeler and Kathleen Hanline, individually, on behalf of the Bayada Home Health Care 401(k) Plan and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, Plaintiffs, v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., The Administrative Committee of the Bayada Home Health Care 401(k) Plan, and John and Jane Does 1-30, in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:24-cv-00231-MR (W.D.N.C.) Judge Martin Reidinger, United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint, dismissing most claims with prejudice and some without prejudice for lack of standing. The Plaintiffs, Donna Peeler and Kathleen Hanline, are employees of Bayada and participants in the Bayada Home Health Care 401(k) Plan. They initiated this ERISA action on September 9, 2024, individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of the Plan's participants and their beneficiaries. The Plaintiffs claimed that from January 1, 2018 through the date of judgment, they suffered financial losses as a result of excessive fees and investment underperformance attributable to mismanagement of the Plan by the Defendants. The Amended Complaint asserted six causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty of prudence by mismanaging the Plan (Count 1); breach of duty of loyalty by mismanaging the Plan (Count 2); co-fiduciary liability for separate fiduciary breaches (Count 3); breach of duty to monitor the Committee (Count 4); prohibited transactions with a party in interest (Count 5); and prohibited transactions with a fiduciary (Count 6). The Court addressed the Plaintiffs' selection and monitoring claim targeting two funds: the JP Morgan Large Cap Growth Fund A Class and the T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund. The Court held that defined contribution plan participants seeking to obtain monetary relief for alleged ERISA violations must allege a non-speculative financial loss actually affecting, or imminently threatening to affect, their individual retirement accounts. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek monetary damages because neither Plaintiff invested in the JP Morgan Large Cap Growth Fund A Class. As for the T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund, only Plaintiff Peeler invested in it beginning in 2020. However, the Court found that the allegations failed to establish that Plaintiff Peeler suffered an injury-in-fact due to her investment in that fund and the Committee's alleged mismanagement of it. The Court stated that the Amended Complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability and stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek monetary damages pursuant to their selection and monitoring claim based on both funds. To the extent the Plaintiffs sought equitable relief, the Court held they must allege facts supporting a claim for unjust enrichment. The Court found the Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts from which it can be inferred that the Defendants were unjustly enriched by their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence. The Court dismissed the selection and monitoring claim without prejudice for lack of standing regarding monetary damages and with prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim regarding equitable relief. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by failing to adequately monitor the Plan's recordkeeping fees and ensure such fees were reasonable. The Court held that the way to plausibly plead a claim of this type is to identify similar plans offering the same services for less. The Court found that the relevant Form 5500s contradicted the Plaintiffs' allegations. Bayada's Form 5500 included service code 13, but none of the alleged comparator plans' Form 5500s included that code. The Court stated that because the Plaintiffs' recordkeeping allegations failed to establish a meaningful comparison, the Court could not draw a reasonable inference about whether true comparator plans offered the same services for less. The Court also found that the Plaintiffs compared the Plan's recordkeeping fees, which included both direct compensation and revenue-sharing, to recordkeeping fees incurred by plans that included only direct compensation. Such comparisons cannot support a plausible imprudence claim. The Court dismissed the recordkeeping fees claim with prejudice. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by failing to provide adequate monitoring of the fees charged by the Plan's third-party advisory firms, UBS and Morgan Stanley. The Court found that according to the Form 5500s, three of the eleven alleged comparator plans incurred higher total advisory fees than the Plan did. Four of the remaining alleged comparator plans also presented discrepancies with the information alleged. The Court concluded the Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that comparator plans offered similar services for less and dismissed the advisory fees claim with prejudice. The Plaintiffs alleged that their allegations regarding selection and monitoring, recordkeeping fees, and advisory fees serve as a basis to infer Plan-wide mismanagement. Having considered and dismissed the component claims of imprudence, the Court found no reasonable basis for that inference and dismissed the Plan-wide claim with prejudice. The Court held that loyalty claims cannot piggyback prudence claims but must contain independent facts. The Court found the Plaintiffs' only nonconclusory allegations in support of their disloyalty claim either depend on the Committee's use of revenue-sharing or restate the predicates of the Plaintiffs' imprudence claim. The Court dismissed Count Two with prejudice. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' only allegations regarding co-fiduciary liability restate the elements of Section 1105. Because the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims that the Defendants violated their duties of prudence and loyalty, the Court concluded the Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Section 1105 and dismissed Count Three with prejudice. The Court held that Count Four is a derivative claim attempting to hold the Plan's sponsor liable for the Committee's alleged breach of the duty of prudence. Because Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the Committee acted imprudently, their duty to monitor claim predicated on an underlying breach of the duty of prudence failed as a matter of law. The Court dismissed Count Four with prejudice. The Plaintiffs alleged the Plan engaged in prohibited transactions by making payments to UBS and Morgan Stanley that were not for necessary services and were grossly excessive in their amounts. The Court found the Plaintiffs' allegations provided no more than a speculative basis for inferring that the Plaintiffs themselves incurred an actual loss because of the Plan's payments for advisory services. The Court dismissed Count Five without prejudice for lack of standing. The Plaintiffs alleged the Defendants violated Section 1106(b) through the inclusion of and failure to remove the imprudent funds from the Plan. The Court found the allegations were too conclusory and the complaint provided no factual basis to distinguish between ordinary compensation for services in the form of revenue-sharing payments and illicit kickbacks. The Court dismissed Count Six with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The selection and monitoring claim contained in Count One and Count Five were dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. All other claims contained in Count One, as well as Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six, were dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CbDOQ0 from PacerMonitor.com The defendants in this action are Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. and The Administrative Committee of the Bayada Home Health Care 401(k) Plan, along with John and Jane Does. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. and the Administrative Committee are represented by Alexandra Price Nibert and David E. Stevens of Johnston Allison & Hord, P.A., as well as Kevin F. Gaffney, Kayla Madeline Massey, and Christopher Boran of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. The plaintiffs are Kathleen Hanline and Donna Peeler, who are represented by Paul Sharman of The Sharman Law Firm LLC, Lee Melchionni of LRJ Law Group, Scott C. Harris of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Attorneys at Law, and Jon R. Moore of Brown Moore & Associates, PLLC. BAYLOR SCOTT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MADELINE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00126-B (N.D. Tex., Jan. 16, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendant as a care provider. Baylor Scott & White Health LLC operates as a non-profit healthcare organization. The Company offers nursing, surgery, hospice care, podiatry, care, occupational therapy, rehabilitation, cancer care, speech therapy, wound care, and radiology services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. Maureen Villarreal, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com Maureen@a2xlaw.com BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirvis, et al., v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02210 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: The deadlines are extended two weeks and are as follows: The Plaintiffs' consolidated reply to the opposition to the motion for class certification, Daubert motion as to Defendants' experts, opposition to Defendants' Daubert motion, and rebuttal expert reports must be served by Feb. 26, 2026. The Defendants' consolidated opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion and reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Daubert motion must be served by March 13, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion must be filed by March 30, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. The suit alleges violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a massive Omaha-based multinational conglomerate holding company, led by CEO Gregory Abel as of 2026, with roots as a textile firm before transforming under Warren Buffett. It owns diverse subsidiaries—including GEICO, BNSF Railway, and Dairy Queen -- and holds huge, long-term investments in companies like Apple and Coca-Cola.[CC] BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Whittaker Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Florence Whittaker, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE PRACTICE HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; USA BIO MED APPL OF CALIFORNIA, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV34311 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00431. The Complaint asserts 10 causes of action, which are brought as class claims, for alleged violations of California wage and hour laws, namely: violation of California Labor Code for unpaid overtime; violation of California Labor Code for unpaid meal period premiums; violation of California Labor Code for unpaid rest period premiums; violation of California Labor Code for unpaid minimum wages; violation of California Labor Code for final wages not timely paid; violation California Labor Code for wages not timely paid during employment; violation of California Labor Code for non-compliant wage statements; violation of California Labor Code for failure to keep requisite payroll records; violation of California Labor Code for unreimbursed business expenses; and violation of California Business & Professions Code for unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David H. Stern, Esq. Alex E. Spjute, Esq. Jennifer D. Ghassemi, Esq. Matthew J. Goodman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Emails: dstern@bakerlaw.com aspjute@bakerlaw.com jghassemi@bakerlaw.com mgoodman@bakerlaw.com BOSTON RED: Campagna Sues Over Deceptive Baseball Game Tickets' Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAMON CAMPAGNA; LILY ROSE SMITH; and PATRICK SPAULDING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.; and FENWAY SPORTS GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10182 (D. Mass., Jan. 16, 2026) alleges violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, for years, the Red Sox falsely advertised the prices for tickets to baseball games and other events at Fenway Park. The Red Sox's false advertising has cost ticket purchasers millions of dollars in total. The Red Sox's false advertising centers on their use of drip pricing and junk fees. Specifically, the Red Sox would advertise illusorily low prices for their tickets. When purchasers attempted to buy those tickets, however, the Red Sox would add mandatory fees at the last minute, such as "Per-Ticket Fees" and "Order Fees," that could increase the cost of a purchase by as much as 150%, says the suit. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership operates as a sports team. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley E. Oppenheimer, Esq. Daniel G. Bird, Esq. Justin B. Berg, Esq. Alyssa J. Picard, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7000 Facsimile: (202) 326-7999 Email: boppenheimer@kellogghansen.com dbird@kellogghansen.com jberg@kellogghansen.com apicard@kellogghansen.com -and- Albert Y. Pak, Esq. Noah Heinz, Esq. PAK HEINZ P.L.L.C. 20 F Street N.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 505-6350 Email: albert.pak@pakheinz.com noah.heinz@pakheinz.com BRIDGECREST CREDIT: Loses Summary Judgment Motion in "Caughey" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Matthew Caughey v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation and Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC, No. 2:23cv264 (W.D. Pa.), the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Order ruling that Bridgecrest Credit Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied in part with prejudice and denied in part without prejudice. Plaintiff Matthew Caughey brought a consumer protection class action alleging that defendants charged unlawful pay-to-pay fees and excess interest on a motor vehicle installment sales contract, violating Pennsylvania's Consumer Credit Code and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court in February 2023. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown's Report and Recommendation from October 29, 2025, which addressed the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court's order. Defendants' motion regarding plaintiff's UTPCPL claim was denied with prejudice, finding that plaintiff adequately alleged deceptive conduct and justifiable reliance. The motion is Denied without prejudice the defendants' motion based on the gist-of-the-action doctrine, allowing defendants to renew these arguments in a future summary judgment motion after discovery concludes. The ruling allows the case to proceed on the UTPCPL claim while preserving defendants' ability to challenge other aspects of the case later in the litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FxWQwh from PacerMonitor.com BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION Represented By Justin J. Kontul Reed Smith LLP 412-288-3098 jkontul@reedsmith.com Alex Mahfood Reed Smith LLP 412-288-3158 amahfood@reedsmith.com Perry A. Napolitano Reed Smith LLP 412-288-7230 pnapolitano@reedsmith.com Plaintiff MATHEW CAUGHEY Represented By Kevin Abramowicz East End Trial Group, LLC 412-223-5740 kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com Kevin W. Tucker East End Trial Group LLC 412-877-5220 ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com Stephanie Moore East End Trial Group 412-877-5220 smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com Chandler Steiger East End Trial Group 412-877-5220 csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com BSN SPORTS LLC: Cruz Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Salatiel Penaloza Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BSN SPORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV027604 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00117-JDP. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts—on behalf of Plaintiff and all nonexempt employees of BSN Sports who have worked for BSN Sports in California during the applicable statute of limitations—the following causes of action against BSN Sports: Failure to Pay All Wages and Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination; Failure To Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Violations of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Hardy Ray Murphy, Esq. Macy Valdes, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: hardy.murphy@ogletree.com macy.valdes@ogletree.com CAMP 1382 LLC: Ocampo Sues Over Illegally Retained Tips ------------------------------------------------------- Feliciano Ocampo, Galo Avecillas, and Joaquin Atonal Juarez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CAMP 1382 LLC d/b/a CAMPAGNOLA RESTAURANT, CURT HUEGEL, and PATRICIO TELLO, Case NO. 1:26-cv-00327 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law as a result of the Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules of willfully illegally retaining the Plaintiffs' tips. The Defendants were not entitled to pay Plaintiffs and tipped employees the lower tip credit minimum wage, because they never provided written notices that they were taking a tip credit, as required by New York law. The Defendants were also not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiffs and tipped employees typically spent either more than 2 hours or more than 20% of their workdays performing non-tipped side-work. The Defendants never gave Plaintiffs any written wage notice that complied with New York State law. Because Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with a written wage notice that included notice of the tip credit, Defendants' use of a tip credit was an underpayment of wages. In other words, Defendants' violation of the New York Labor Law's wage notice requirement resulted in Plaintiffs being paid less than they were entitled to. The Defendants did not give Plaintiffs paystubs that included the tip credit that Defendants were taking against the minimum wage owed to Plaintiffs, in violation of New York Law. As a result of this violation combined with Defendants' failure to give Plaintiffs appropriate notice of the tip credit, Plaintiffs were unaware that they were illegally being paid pursuant to a tip credit and did not pursue full payment until the instant lawsuit, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as a bussers, runners, and servers. Camp 1382 LLC d/b/a Campagnola Restaurant is a New York corporation that owns and operates a restaurant called Campagnola in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 CANON BUSINESS: Klain Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brandon Klain, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CANON BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CANON U.S.A., INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV481292 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00524. The Complaint asserts ten causes of action against CBPS for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Violation of California Business & Professions Code (Unlawful Business Practices); Unfair Business Practices; all in Violation of California Labor Code and Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gabrielle M. Wirth, Esq. Pavlina K. Rafter, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7655 Phone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 Email: wirth.gabrielle@dorsey.com rafter.pavlina@dorsey.com CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Johnston Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bianca Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 25STCV36102 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00457. The Plaintiff alleges that when she visited Discover's website, Discover "de-anonymized Plaintiff by using electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device." On behalf of a putative class consisting of "all California citizens who visited Defendant's Website while physically in California and whose personal information was shared with the Tracking Entities or other third parties by Defendant without effective and informed prior consent. The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), pursuant to California Penal Code sections 631 and 638.51.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 5 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Email: kcahoy@cov.com CASILLAS PETROLEUM: Reiss Sues Over Failure to Pay Gas Royalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN REISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASILLAS PETROLEUM RESOURCE PARTNERS, LLC; CASILLAS OPERATING, LLC, and CPRP Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00011-GLJ (E.D. Okla., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Oklahoma Production Revenue Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and constituents of the gas stream produced from wells through improper accounting methods, such as not paying on the starting price for gas products but instead taking improper deductions, and by failing to account for and pay royalties. Casillas Petroleum Resource Partners, LLC operates as an oil and gas exploration and production company. The Company focuses on the exploration and development of onshore domestic oil and gas reserves, as well as acquisitions of existing producing assets within the Mid-Continent region. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1310 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 641-8662 Email: randy@rcsmithlaw.com - and - Brady L. Smith, Esq. Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq. Chelsea C. Smith, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 Email: brady@blsmithlaw.com skeeter@blsmithlaw.com chelsea@blsmithlaw.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bedford Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SABRINA BEDFORD; TIMOTHY STROUSE; and JACKLYN ALICEAMALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH; and ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00071-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Defendants failed their duties when their inadequate security practices caused the Data Breach. Defendants' negligence is evidenced by their failure to prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII/PHI. The Defendants' negligence caused widespread injury and monetary damages, says the suit. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health operates as a healthcare software company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Fuller, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206)-802-1272 Facsimile: (206)-299-4184 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1177 Email: thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fancher Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ EMILY FANCHER; and JUDITH ANN HOSTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, INC.; and LAKE REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04010-WJE (W.D. Mo., Jan. 14, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendants' systems because the Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Defendants failed their duties when their inadequate security practices caused the Data Breach. Defendants' negligence is evidenced by their failure to prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII/PHI. And thus, the Defendants caused widespread injury and monetary damages, says the suit. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health, Inc. provides health care services and solutions. The Company offers solutions for hospitals, medical devices, pharmacies, and physicians. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CLOUD DENTISTRY: Helgerod Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA -------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA HELGEROD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLOUD DENTISTRY INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00207 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Cloud Dentistry Inc. is an online interactive platform for dental offices to connect with dental staff in real-time. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonal Jain, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 357-1732 Email: sjain@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Vadla Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Sharyn Anne Limbos Vadla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00070 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurer names, primary insured or dependent information, health insurance member numbers, which may include Medicare Beneficiary Identifiers, and other demographic or health insurance details (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")) and protected health information ("PHI") including health information. Despite Defendants duty to safeguard the Private Information of its Client's current and previous patients, and/or their family members, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on or about October 2, 2025, "suspicious activity was identified within a web portal used by some of its healthcare provider customers to access TriZetto systems" (the "Data Breach"). The data breach occurred in part because Defendants stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in an unencrypted, Internet-accessible environment. Despite learning about the breach in October of 2025, Defendants waited until December of 2025 to begin notifying its Clients of the unauthorized access. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now exposed to cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide Defendants' Clients with their Private Information and/or the Private Information of their family members. Cognizant is an American multinational IT services, consulting, and outsourcing company that specializes in digital transformation and technology modernization for business clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan D. Buxner, Esq. 230 S. Bemiston Ave. Ste. 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-863-6000 Fax: 888-851-4940 Email: ebuxner@buxnerlaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-609-6910 Fax: 267-609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com COMPU-LINK CORP: Rizzati Balks at Reverse-Mortgage Loan's Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- MOLLY-JEANNE RIZZATI AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF KRISTINE RIZZATI; TAMARA SIMPSON AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF JUDITH FORSETH; ELLISA MARTIN AS POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR DATHEL BALCH; DELORIS WHITAKER AS EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE OF RUFUS WHITAKER; AND MICHAEL HAWKINS AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF MARIA GRAHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A CELINK, CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC and FINANCE OF AMERICA REVERSE, LLC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00277 (E.D.N.Y., January 16, 2026) arises out of injuries caused to borrowers of reverse mortgages and Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs), the federally insured version of so-called "reverse-mortgage" loans, due to systemic violations by the Defendants of mortgagor protections provided by standard HECM loan agreements and federal and state laws and regulations. The Plaintiffs and the Classes seek reimbursement or credit reversal of four fees (collectively, the "Disputed Fees") that Celink, on behalf Carrington and FAR (collectively, the "Master Servicer Defendants"), unlawfully charge to Class members nationwide. The Master Servicer Defendants generally turn over nearly all servicing functions to Celink, content to merely collect the servicing revenue charged monthly to service HECM and other reverse mortgage loans. In violation of their contractual, statutory and regulatory obligations as the lenders, mortgagees, issuers and master servicers, the Master Servicer Defendants turn a blind eye to Celink's systemic subservicing violations that breach standardized HECM loan agreements and violate federal and state HECM mortgagors protection statutes and regulations, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and other Class members are injured as a direct and proximate cause of the unlawful acts of Celink and the Master Servicer Defendants, resulting in the Disputed Fees, interest and MIPs being added to mortgagors' HECM principal balances. Compu-Link Corporation is a subservicer of reverse mortgages in the United States, and its clients include regional to nationwide lenders, banks, and insurance companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. P.O. Box 566 55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com - and - Oren Giskan, Esq. Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com canderson@gslawny.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. Maame Gyamfi, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org mgyamfi@aarp.org CONAIR LLC: Must Oppose McCabe Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN McCABE, v. CONAIR, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05594-RER-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation to extend deadline for the Defendant to serve its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: 1. The deposition of Plaintiff Kevin McCabe shall take place on Feb. 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. on Staten Island, NY. 2. The deadline for the Defendant to serve its opposition to the motion for class certification shall be extended from Feb. 12, 2026 to March 12, 2026; and 3. The deadline for the Plaintiff to serve a reply in support of the motion for class certification, if any, is extended from Feb. 26, 2026, to March 26, 2026. On January 16, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff informed defense counsel that Plaintiff would not be appearing for his deposition noticed for January 22, 2026. Conair sells small appliances, personal care products, and health and beauty products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QNZtcH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan Saba, Esq. Francesca Dioguardi, Esq. ROSEN SABA, LLP 2301 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 285-1727 E-mail: rsaba@rosensaba.com fdioguardi@rosensaba.com CONIFER REVENUE: Qadri Sues Over Data Privacy Violations -------------------------------------------------------- AWAISULLAH QADRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a CONIFER HEALTH SOLUTIONS; CONIFER HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC; and TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00101-N (N.D. Tex., Jan. 14, 2026) allege violation of the Texas Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that because of the Defendant's wholly ineffective and inadequate data security practices, the Data Breach, and the foreseeable consequences of Private Information ending up in the possession of criminals, the risk of identity theft to the Plaintiff and Class Members has materialized and is imminent, and Plaintiff and Class Members have all sustained actual injuries and damages. Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions, LLC provides comprehensive revenue cycle services. The Company offers revenue cycle solutions, patient communications, value-based care, and compliance solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com CONNECT HOLDING: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLOTTE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONNECT HOLDING II LLC d/b/a BRIGHTSPEED, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00032-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C., January 14, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber-incident. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Connect Holding II LLC d/b/a Brightspeed is a full-service internet provider who provides internet services to its customers across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: JMartin@awkolaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CONNECTICUT: Mickens Class Suit Reopened ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mickens v. Connecticut Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:24-cv-00471 (D. Conn., Filed March 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order granting Mr. Mickens's motion to reopen the case. Although Mr. Mickens has not cured the deficiencies in his renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will reopen his case and resend him the ruling and other necessary documents. Regarding his excessive force and segregated confinement claims, Mr. Mickens is advised that if he neither pays the filing fee nor obtains leave to proceed in forma pauperis, those claims may be dismissed. If the class certification motion is granted, Mr. Mickens may qualify as a member of the class. If a class certification motion is not filed or is denied, the contaminated water claim may be dismissed unless Mr. Mickens pays the filing fee or obtains leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. The Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) is the government agency responsible for corrections in the U.S. state of Connecticut.[CC] CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Miller, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00215 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendant failing to pay all overtime wages owed to their employees in a timely manner. The Defendant has willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime wages statutorily due to him in a timely manner, and at all times relevant to the NYLL, Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff all earned wages statutorily due to him in a timely manner (together as "the Relevant Periods"). Specifically, throughout the Relevant Periods, Defendant has frequently required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff has worked, forty to seventy hours per week. Yet in exchange, Defendant has not paid Plaintiff all of his statutorily-owed overtime or regular wages in a timely manner, meaning on the regularly-scheduled payday following the end of each pay period, and has instead frequently paid him those owed overtime and regular wages late, usually one pay cycle later, which also constitutes an unlawful deduction from Plaintiff's wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant first as a general utility worker from 2009 to 2012, and then as a distribution splicer from 2012 through the present, at two of Defendant's stations in Brooklyn and Queens, New York. The Defendant is a New York corporation that operates an energy company throughout New York City and Westchester County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Ryan S. Riger, Esq BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 - and - Donte Mills, Esq. MILLS LEGAL, LLC 14 Pennsylvania Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10122 Phone: (646) 703-0060 CONWAY FENCE: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CONWAY FENCE, INC. AND BARRY THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00043-KGB (E.D. Ark., Jan. 13, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime that is required to be paid by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff consistently worked more than forty hours per workweek. The Plaintiff rarely, if ever, received overtime premiums for any hours worked over forty per workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff was typically paid his regular hourly rate, or "straight time" for hours worked over forty per work week. This was in keeping with Defendants' policy of not paying overtime premiums for hours worked over forty per work week. Although they consistently worked very long hours, well over forty hours per work week, the Plaintiffs were not properly compensated for their overtime hours. The Defendants required Plaintiffs to work the long hours described above and thus knew that Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, Defendants failed and refused to compensate Plaintiffs at a rate that is not less than time and one-half of their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 2, 2023 through July 2, 2025. The Defendants construct and install residential and commercial fencing throughout greater Central Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill St. Longview, TX 75601 Phone: (512) 799-2048 Email: doug@welmakerlav.com COSMEDICA SKINCARE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSMEDICA SKINCARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00454 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://cosmedica-skincare.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Cosmedica Skincare develops, manufactures, and markets skincare products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal COURIER PLUS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- K.P.; J.L.; A.H.; B.H.; F.Q.; and J.C., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COURIER PLUS, INC. d/b/a DUTCHIE; GARDEN REMEDIES, INC.; NEW ENGLAND TREATMENT ACCESS, LLC; MLH EXPLORATIONS, LLC d/b/a ETHOS CANNABIS; CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC.; and HERBERY OUTFITTERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02412-YY (D. Or., Dec. 29, 2025) asserts these statutory and common law claims against Defendant including Invasion of Privacy-Intrusion Upon Seclusion; Breach of Confidence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; violations of New York General Business Law; and violations of the Massachusetts Right to Privacy Law. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and other visitors to the Defendants' websites, their private personal and health information was not actually being kept private. Instead, through Dutchie's e-commerce platform, Defendants collected and transmitted personally identifiable, Sensitive Information pertaining to the Plaintiffs, Class Members and other customers, including the fact that they have a medical marijuana card; have purchased medical and/or recreational marijuana; and the specific cannabis products that they have purchased, to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google"), through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools. The Plaintiffs and Class Members used the Platform and had their personal Sensitive Information tracked by Defendants using the Tracking Tools. However, Defendants never obtained authorization from Plaintiff or Class Members to share their Sensitive Information with third parties. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff and Class Members gave no informed consent for information about their Sensitive Information to be transmitted to the third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of user information, says the suit. Courier Plus, Inc. d/b/a Dutchie develops and provides software platforms and online marketplace for cannabis industry. Dutchie serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul B. Barton, Esq. OLSEN BARTON LLC 4035 Douglas Way, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 468-5573 Facsimile: (503) 820-2933 Email: paul@olsenbarton.com - and - Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, New York 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com COVENANT HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cole Says -------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVENANT HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10128-ADB (D. Mass., Jan. 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the personal lives of thousands of individuals including Plaintiff. The Defendant knowingly obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive Private Information and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their Private Information to Defendant if they had known that Defendant would not ensure that it used adequate security measures, says the suit. Covenant Health operatges as a hospital. The Company offers cancer care, rehabilitation, home and behavioral health, weight management, pediatrics, cardiology, ophthalmology, and acute care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com COVENANT HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Phillips Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMAL PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVENANT HEALTH, INC.; and ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL NASHUA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10131 (D. Mass., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII and PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Specifically, by collecting, maintaining, and transferring or otherwise sharing Plaintiff's and class members' PII and PHI with Covenant, St. Joseph owed a duty to safeguard that highly sensitive information. Likewise, by receiving or otherwise maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, Covenant owed a duty to safeguard it. As such, the Defendants breached those duties by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the PII and PHI entrusted to them from unauthorized access and disclosure, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged inadequate security and breaches of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and class members' PII and PHI was accessed and disclosed by an unauthorized actor. Covenant Health operatges as a hospital. The Company offers cancer care, rehabilitation, home and behavioral health, weight management, pediatrics, cardiology, ophthalmology, and acute care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Selesnick, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G Street, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-9740 E E-mail: jselesnick@bergermontague.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. Katherine G. Raths, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bergermontague.com moconnorgrant@bergermontague.com kraths@bergermontague.com - and - Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: mdesanto@bergermontague.com CROCS RETAIL: Gay Class Action Suit Filed in D. Colo. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Crocs Retail, LLC, captioned as JOHN GAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROCS RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04177-PAB (D. Colo., Dec. 27, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Philip A. Brimmer. Crocs Retail, LLC designs, manufactures, and retails shoes. The Company offers clogs, sandals, slides, flip-flops, boots, sneakers, and casual footwear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com DAVID STANLEY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Duling Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA DULING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID STANLEY IMPORTS 2, LLC D/BA DAVID STANLEY CHEVROLET, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00060-J (W.D. Okla., Jan. 14, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. David Stanley Imports 2, LLC dba David Stanley Chevrolet is an automobile dealership that provides vehicles and automotive services to consumers, in Oklahoma and the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com DECA DENTAL: Pollard Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ DOMINIQUE POLLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DECA DENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a DECA DENTAL GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00102 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2026) is an action alleging violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in pursuit of profit and without regard for their patients' medical privacy, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties, such as Google LLC ("Google"), to intercept patients' communications as they seek dental services and book medical appointments on its Website. This is achieved through Defendant's secret installation of complex computer code on the Website which serves to track and disclose Ideal Dental's patients' activity, in real time to third parties, such as Google, alleges the suit. Deca Dental Management, LLC operates as a health care company. The Company offers various dental care services. [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 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com DELISH BRANDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Espinoza Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN ESPINOZA; and MARTIN BALDERAS JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DELISH BRANDS INC. (d/b/a FIRECRACKER WINGS); GANDHI SUYOG; and VINAI PUYJARA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00399 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Espinoza was employed by the Defendants as a cook. Plaintiff Juarez was employed as a delivery driver. Delish Brands Inc. owns and operates a fast-food restaurant, located at New York, NY 10065 under the name "Firecracker Wings." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DOLLAR GENERAL: Lehman Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHANTALE LEHMAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, DG STRATEGIC VII, LLC, and DOES 1-20, Case No. 25-2-39329-1 (Filed by Dec. 29, 2025), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 26, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00286 to the proceedings. The Plaintiff has defined the putative class as: "All current and former employees of Dollar General who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from December 29, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael Scoville, Esq. Amy Morrissey Turk, Esq. Paul M. Chappell, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP World Trade Center 16631 6th Ave SW Burien, WA 98166 Telephone: (206) 718-2343 E-mail: mscoville@mcguirewoods.com aturk@mcguirewoods.com pchappell@mcguirewoods.com DOT FOODS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Diop Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- YOUSSOU DIOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOT FOODS, INC.; and DOT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00480 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber incident. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendants collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendants, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. Dot Foods Inc. wholesales food products. The Company distributes various food products such as pasta, seafood, cheese, desserts, fruits, and vegetables. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com ELIGO ENERGY: Filing Extension for Daubert Motions Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending Defendants' current deadline to file Daubert motions directed at the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses be extended three weeks, to and through Friday, Feb. 20, 2026. The parties have further agreed on a briefing schedule for those motions, under which the Plaintiffs' opposition to Eligo's Daubert challenge will be due on or before April 3, 2026, and any reply briefs will be filed by Eligo on or before April 20, 2026. The Plaintiffs further ask the court for an extension of time to file their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request that their current deadline to file their class certification motion be extended one week, to and through Friday, Jan,30, 2026. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cNJdc3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is 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 ESCALETTE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ESCALETTE, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00676 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2026) alleges that Phylrich failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. 5. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://phylrich.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends. 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. The Defendant operates the Phylrich online retail store, as well as the Phylrich interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FANROCK LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Dalton Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANROCK LLC d/b/a MINT & LILY, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00242-LMP-EMB (D. Minn., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.mintandlily.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Fanrock LLC d/b/a Mint & Lily specializes in personalized jewelry, apparel, and homeware, with a focus on self-expression and customized designs. [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 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FIRST CHOICE HEALTH: Enslow Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Choice Health Company LLC. The case is styled as Nancy Enslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Choice Health Company LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00153 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. First Choice Health Company -- https://www.fchn.com/ -- is an insurance brokerage located in Maryland that focuses on providing affordable healthcare solutions to individual and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Mero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mario Mero, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a CLUB STUDIO FITNESS, Case No. 8:26-cv-00110 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and breach of contract/unpaid wages and attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA due to the Plaintiff being denied overtime pay required by federal wage and hour laws. During the term of their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to each member of the class as required by federal law. The Plaintiff seeks relief for the collective class under the FLSA to remedy Defendant's failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation including, but not limited to, unpaid overtime compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Club Studio Fitness in this judicial circuit as a Club Manager. Club Studio Fitness is in the business of, but not limited to, providing a gym facility with various fitness amenities, such as fitness classes, free weights, a lap pool, basketball courts, and sauna and steam rooms, in the State of Florida, among other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary L. Printy, Jr., Esq. THE PRINTY LAW FIRM 5407 N Florida Avenue Tampa, FL 33604 Phone: (813) 434-0649 Fax: (813) 423-6543 Email: garyjr@printylawfirm.com e-service@printylawfirm.com FLOWERS FOODS: Vaughn Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ---------------------------------------------------- Eddie Vaughn, Jerry Modlin, Detwion Wallace, Ronnie Alexander, Keith Lewis, Anthony Stewart, Derek Smith, Everett Scott Dean, Bradley Robbins, Dale Hamblen, Cordero Hollowell, Christopher Thomas, Jermaine Ousley, Gary Wilson, Cameron Stanton, William Smith, Jr., Janice Alexander, Dylan Austin, Gregory Gingerich, Guillermo Esquivel Garcia, Mike Sisney, Gary Stevens, Lorenzo Briscoe, Jordan L. Davie, Vernell Branscomb, Cedric Knight, Jermaine Nunn, DeAngelo Armour, Richard Foster, Ryan Miller, Daniel Coffman, Jesse Christian, Travis Barefield and John Hampton, individually, and on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF BATESVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00029-BSM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought allege violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and seek permanent injunctive relief, back wages, liquidated damages, and other damages for themselves and those similarly situated. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs and those similarly situated as independent contractors and failed to pay them minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods at all times material to this action. The Plaintiffs also allege Defendants failed to pay them and those similarly situated minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation for hours over 40 per week within weekly pay periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants. Flowers Foods, Inc. is a leading baked goods company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com FLOWERS FOODS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC., DAVE'S KILLER BREAD, INC., and SIMPLE MILLS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00649 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2026) is a class action suit against the Defendants for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendants' websites, www.daveskillerbread.com and www.simplemills.com, to obtain product details and locate items for purchase but was prevented from doing so due to pervasive accessibility barriers. On multiple occasions in November 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to navigate both Websites using NVDA screen-reading software. He encountered widespread accessibility failures documented through SortSite audits, including: missing alternative text, inaccessible images, unlabeled buttons, broken ARIA attributes, keyboard traps, improper heading structures, inaccessible forms, and hundreds of broken links, the suit says. Mr. Williams is a legally blind individual whose central visual acuity with correction is less than or equal to 20/200. Mr. Williams relies on screen-reading software, magnification tools, and keyboard-based navigation to access digital content and independently engage in online commerce. Despite his visual impairment, Mr. Williams regularly shops online for groceries, baked goods, snacks, and household items, and he depends on accessible websites to make informed purchasing decisions. The Defendants own, operate, and control the websites which serve as nationwide digital gateways for product information, nutritional content, store locators, promotional materials, and brand-specific consumer engagement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com GEORGE BROWN: McKee Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ----------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN MCKEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGE BROWN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00219-SCR-DCK (W.D.N.C., Dec. 26, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Susan C Rodriguez, and referred to Magistrate Judge David Keesler. George Brown Associates, Inc. is a debt collection and accounts receivable management firm. They offer services including national skip tracing, credit reporting, legal action, and specialized call center solutions for recovering debts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Telephone: (704) 371-4333 Facsimile: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: David Anthony Grassi, Jr., Esq. FROST ECHOLS LLC P.O. Box 12645 Rock Hill, SC 29731 Telephone: (803) 329-8970 Email: david.grassi@frostechols.com GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal in Copyright Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to file under seal, pursuant to the Court's order authorizing omnibus sealing motion. Pursuant to the Omnibus Sealing Order, the Parties are directed to "re-file a complete set of all briefing and exhibits that reflects the final version of all party and third-party sealing requests highlighted to reflect all proposed redactions." Accordingly, Google submits this motion for the purpose of attaching the under-seal, highlighted versions of updated briefing and exhibits that Google, the Plaintiffs, or any third party seeks to seal. Following the Court's determinations on sealing, Google will file final redacted versions of these documents giving effect to the ruling. Google is an American multinational technology corporation. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CLPSVS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: David H. Kramer, Esq. Maura L. Rees, Esq. Eric P. Tuttle, Esq. Paul J. Sampson, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com mrees@wsgr.com eric.tuttle@wsgr.com psampson@wsgr.com GREEN COUNTY, WI: Prelim. Pretrial Conference Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ANGLIN, v. GREEN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00875-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order. Amendments to the pleadings: Feb. 24, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion to approve notice to proposed FLSA collective: June 12, 2026 Response: July 3, 2026 Reply: July 13, 2026 Motion for Rule 23 certification: Dec. 11, 2026 Response: Jan. 4, 2027 Reply: Jan. 14, 2027 Deadline for filing dispositive motions: June 9, 2027 Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 24, 2027 Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Oct. 15, 2027 Objections: Nov. 5, 2027 Trial: Dec. 6, 2027 The Defendant is the primary "911" ambulance service for the City of Monroe and a large part of Green County. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LpFVIE at no extra charge.[CC] GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Shipes Alleges Illegal Access of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHON SHIPES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00274 (S.D. Tex., January 14, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated to seek relief for the consequences of Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard their private information and provide timely notification that their private information had been compromised. Around September 17, 2025, Gulshan experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole private information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. Gulshan discovered the breach on September 27, 2025, and a subsequent investigation confirmed unauthorized actors had accessed and stolen sensitive and confidential personally identifiable information of individuals whose information was stored and maintained by Gulshan, including Plaintiff. On January 5, 2026, Gulshan began sending notice letters to individuals whose information was accessed in the data breach. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach occurred because Gulshan failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Thereafter, Gulshan failed to timely detect this data breach until after the breach occurred. Moreover, before the data breach occurred, Gulshan failed to inform the public that its data security practices were deficient and inadequate. Had Plaintiff and Class members been made aware of this fact, they would have never provided such information to Gulshan, says the suit. Gulshan Management Services, Inc. is a privately held company overseeing about 150 gas stations and convenience stores in the greater Houston area in Texas. Gulshan manages branded gas stations affiliated with Shell and ExxonMobil.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com mrathur@caffertyclobes.com HAIER US: Appliances Have Defective Lint Traps, Sherman Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- AVROHAM SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a GE APPLIANCES, Case No. 1:26-cv-00453 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2026) arises from the sale of thousands of the GE Profile Ultrafast 2-in-1 Washer/Dryer Combo with defective lint traps and air ducts, causing the Appliances to suffer excessive lint accumulation and fail to perform its central function of drying laundry pursuant to the New York General Business Law, New York Commercial Code, Magnusson-Moss Warranty, and New York common law. The Appliance retails for up to nearly $3,000. Its two-in-one design is especially attractive to consumers because it appears to save space that would normally be taken up by two different appliances. All Appliances share the same defective lint trap and duct system that GE failed to disclose to Plaintiff and Class Member consumers, the Plaintiff contends. The Appliances use an "EZ Access Lint Filter System" that GE describes as: "An exclusive, easy-to-reach lint filter system allows you to remove lint and micro particles, ensuring your Combo operates at the highest levels of efficiency." The Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells appliances throughout the United States, including in the State of New York, under the GE brand name.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Bryan G. Faubus, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St N.E., Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com bfaubus@classlawdc.com HAIR DOC BASS: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HAIR DOC BASS BRUSHES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00352 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.bassbrushes.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on November 24, 2025, in an attempt to purchase The Green Brush from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Hair Doc Bass Brushes Inc. operates the website that retails hairbrushes, bath & dry body tools, men's grooming brushes, and shaving accessories for women and men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal HALEON US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Campos Due Feb. 5 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS CAMPOS, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated, v. HALEON US HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-08057-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Westmore entered a stipulated schedule and order: Event Date Deadline to file stipulation or motion Feb. 17, 2026 to amend pleadings: Further Case Management Conference: April 21, 2026 The Plaintiff's class certification Oct. 23, 2026 expert disclosures and report: Haleon's class certification expert Nov. 20, 2026 disclosures and report: Rebuttal class certification expert Dec. 18, 2026 reports: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Feb. 5, 2027 for class certification: Deadline for Haleon's opposition to Mar. 22, 2027 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in April 21, 2027 support of motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification June 3, 2027 and summary judgment based on preemption: Haleon is a manufacturer of drugs and pharmaceuticals. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G2xErT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hayley Reynolds, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutrideafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Allexanderia Bingham, Esq. Tia Nguyen, Esq. Christopher G. Campbell, Esq. Colleen M. Carey Gulliver, Esq. DLA PIPER (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-3123 Facsimile: (310) 595-3323 E-mail: allexanderia.bingham@us.dlapiper.com Tia.nguyen@us.dlapiper.com Christopher.campbell@us.dlapiper.com Colleen.gulliver@us.dlapiper.com HEADAMP AUDIO: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEADAMP AUDIO ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00373 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://headamp.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. HeadAmp Audio Electronics, Inc. manufactures high-end headphone amplifiers and is a dealer for several audio brands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law HEADLIGHT HEALTH: Edquid Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- RICHIE EDQUID, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEADLIGHT HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00302-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 206) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; California Invasion of Privacy Act; invasion of Privacy Under California's Constitution; use of a pen register or Trap and Trace Device; and California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disclosed confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to Meta Platforms, Inc., via a tracking pixel in violation of various common and statutory data privacy laws. Despite these protections, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant shares website visitors' personal information with Meta using a "Meta Pixel" which is a snippet of programming code that, once installed on a webpage, sends information to Meta. Headlight Health, Inc. provides range of online therapy services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com HEAVEN HILL: Joint Scheduling Report Stricken --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sylvain v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-25229 (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge K. Michael Moore entered an order that the Parties' Joint Scheduling report is stricken. The Parties are instructed to file a revised Joint Scheduling Report on or before Jan. 26, 2026. The Court reminds the Parties that they are welcome to move for continuances on good cause and otherwise file notices with the Court if the estimates provided with the revised joint scheduling report need amendment The nature of suit states statutory actions. The Defendant is a private family-owned and -operated American distillery.[CC] HILTON WORLDWIDE: Shah Suit Transferred to E.D. Va. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as VISHAL SHAH, JONATHAN GABRIELLI, and CHRISTINE Q. WILEY, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01018-EKL, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on January 14, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00059-MSN-WEF to the proceeding. This putative class action arises from a dispute regarding online tracking of personal data. The Plaintiffs sued Defendant Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. for causing third-party cookies and other similar tracking technologies to be placed on devices that accessed website, www.Hilton.com, even after users opted out of tracking. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is the parent company of Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. and Hilton Honors Worldwide, LLC. Hilton Worldwide's subsidiaries own and operate Hilton branded hotels and properties such as Hilton Garden Inn, Waldorf Astoria, and DoubleTree by Hilton.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Isabelle Louise Ord, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission St., Ste 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-0922 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 E-mail: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com - and - Oliver M. Kiefer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B St. Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 699-2781 E-mail: oliver.kiefer@us.dlapiper.com HP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pattison Suit Due April 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY PATTISON, on behalf or herself and all others similarly situated, v. HP INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02752-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend deadlines in connection with class certification. The Plaintiff to disclose expert reports as to class certification by April 22, 2026. The Plaintiff to file motion for class certification by April 22, 2026. The Defendant to disclose expert reports as to class certification by July 22, 2026. The Defendant to file Daubert motion and opposition to class certification by July 22, 2026. The Plaintiff to file reply re class certification and opposition to Daubert by Sept. 1, 2026. The Defendant to file reply re Daubert motion by Sept. 29, 2026. Hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's Daubert motion re the Plaintiff's class certification expert continued to Oct. 23, 2026. HP is an American manufacturer of software and computer services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ROaqrU at no extra charge.[CC] HP INC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY PATTISON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HP INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02752-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the briefing deadlines for class certification and Daubert challenges as follows: The Plaintiff to disclose expert reports as to class certification by April 22, 2026. The Plaintiff to file motion for class certification by April 22, 2026. The Defendant to disclose expert reports as to class certification by July 22, 2026. The Defendant to file Daubert motion and opposition to class certification by July 22, 2026. The Plaintiff to file reply re class certification and opposition to Daubert by Sept. 1, 2026. The Defendant to file reply re Daubert motion by Sept. 29, 2026. Hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's Daubert motion re Plaintiff's class certification expert continued to Oct. 23, 2026. HP is an American tech company focused on personal computers (PCs), printers, and related supplies. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0t9P9J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 E-mail: john@kristensen.law - and - Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com - and - David E. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW PLLC 1800 Bering Dr., Suite 1075 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 227-8835 E-mail: dwynne@wynnepllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Stortz, Esq. Rachel Berman, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 HUMANA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 5 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kousiry v. Humana Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01663 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 28, 2025), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time. The deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification is extended to Oct. 5, 2026. The order does not affect any other deadlines, and 25 the case management and scheduling order otherwise remains in full effect. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Humana is a U.S. health insurance company.[CC] ICONTAINERS USA: Mahmoud Seeks to Seal Unredacted Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 request directing the Clerk of Court to seal the Plaintiffs' unredacted motion to certify class and corresponding Exhibits 2, 3 & 8 until the Court decides whether the Material should remain sealed from the public. The Exhibits contain Defendants' confidential material related to its proprietary business and financial information and is subject to the Parties' stipulated confidentiality and protective order. The Plaintiffs disagree that any of this information should be hidden from the public. iContainers provides online freight forwarding services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDKGKb 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 INDEBTED USA: McKee Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ----------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN MCKEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDEBTED USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00220-SCR-DCK (W.D.N.C., Dec. 26, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Susan C Rodriguez, and referred to Magistrate Judge David Keesler. InDebted USA, Inc. provides financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Randolph Emory, Esq. THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C. 11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102 Charlotte, NC 28262 Telephone: (704) 371-4333 Facsimile: (704) 371-3015 Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com INSIGHT FOUNDATION: Case Management Order Entered in McCullough --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MCCULLOUGH, etc., v. INSIGHT FOUNDATION OF HILLSIDE, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00644-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Pearson entered a case management conference order: 1. On or before Feb. 18, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding mediation, which shall include (1) whether the parties would like to utilize the Court's ADR Program or private mediation again, and (2) a date by which the mediation should be completed. 2. Fact Discovery shall be completed on or before Dec. 1, 2026. 3. Either a stipulation to class certification or the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be served and filed on or before Dec. 15, 2026. A Response shall be filed by Jan. 14, 2027, and Reply by Jan. 28, 2027. 4. The cutoff for filing dispositive motions is March 31, 2027. Responses shall be filed by April 30, 2027, and Replies by May 14, 2027. 5. The next Status Conference will be held on Aug. 5, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Noon. Insight is a hospital or facility that provides health-related, social and/or vocational services to disabled persons. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kdGFuW at no extra charge.[CC] INTELLICHECK INC: Perez Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- OCTAVIO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLICHECK, INC.; and AUTHID, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00449 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2026) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful collection, obtainment, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. The Defendants violated BIPA by collecting and disclosing biometric data without compliant consent, harming the Plaintiff and the Class Members. Intellicheck, Inc. develops application software. The Company provides identity authentication and validation solutions for banks, credit card issuers, retail, hospitality, law enforcement, defense, transportation, and other sectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com JACKSON WALKER: Faces EJS Suit Over Improper Legal Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ EJS INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID R. JONES; ELIZABETH CAROL FREEMAN; JACKSON WALKER, LLP; KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP; KIRKLAND & ELLIS INTERNATIONAL, LLP; BROWN RUDNICK, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00334 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 15, 2026) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in mass corruption in the Houston Bankruptcy Court. David R. Jones, the now resigned U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge, plotted with his live-in girlfriend and former clerk Elizabeth Freeman, her former law firm, Jackson Walker, and lead counsel in most cases Kirkland (hereinafter "RICO Defendants"), to prey upon distressed entities for their own considerable financial and reputational benefit. They leveraged the secret relationship between judge and key restructuring partner to obtain employment opportunities, collect large fees, and control mega-bankruptcy outcomes, while evading the scrutiny that would have come with notice of the disqualifying conflict. As a result of the conduct of all the Defendants, the Plaintiff has sustained significant damages, says the suit. Jackson Walker LLP is a law firm. The Firm's practice areas include aviation, antitrust, bankruptcy, energy, environmental, entertainment, health care, immigration, insurance, intellectual property, international, labor and employment, real estate, and tax law. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mikell A. West, Esq. Robert W. Clore, Esq. BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C. 555 Carancahua Street, Suite 1200 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 698-5200 Facsimile: (361) 698-5222 Email: mwest@bandaslawfirm.com rclore@bandaslawfirm.com JOHN RISCASSI: Class Cert Bid Filing in Fuselier Suit Due July 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fuselier v. RisCassi, Case No. 1:25-cv-00268 (S.D. Miss., Filed Aug. 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Halil S. Ozerden entered an order that the parties will conduct class certification-related discovery which shall end May 26, 2026. The deadline for filing any motion to conditionally certify collective action is July 10, 2026, with the response and reply due in accordance with the Local Uniform Civil Rules. If a motion is not filed on or before said date, the Court will reconvene the case management conference. The nature of suit states Violation of Civil Rights.[CC] JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit Over Surcharge in Health Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBYN D. CARMICHAEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00305 (Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health and other insurances provided by Defendant. Such surcharges violate the ERISA and its anti-discrimination provisions by unfairly targeting employees based on their health status, such as tobacco use, says the suit. JPMorgan Chase & Co. provides financial and retail banking services. The Company provides services such as investment banking, treasury and securities, asset management, private banking, card member, commercial banking, and home finance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole M. Cvercko, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 559-9952 Email: ncvercko@gmail.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM, PLLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 592 Boca Raton, FL 33498 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 Email: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WN 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com -and- Seth J. Bloom, Esq. BLOOM LEGAL LLC 825 Girod Street, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 599-9997 Email: sjb@bloomlegal.com JW LEE: Seeks Leave to File Conditional Cert Supplemental Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. J.W. LEE, INC., D/B/A SCARLETT'S CABARET, Case No. 1:25-cv-20367-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a supplemental response to the Plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and issuance of court authorized notice. On May 15, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. On June 11, 2025, Scarlett's filed its Response to the Motion. On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her Reply in support of the Motion. JW Lee operates a chain of adult nightclubs. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZWQ0RR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Ryan Glover, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com rglover@theleachfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Gary S. Edinger, Esq. BENJAMIN, AARONSON, EDINGER & PATANZO, P.A. 305 N.E. 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 E-mail: GSEdinger12@gmail.com - and - Casey T. Wallace, Esq. Benjamin W. Allen, Esq. Avery L. Larson, Esq. WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP 440 Louisiana, Ste. 590 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-1744 Facsimile: (713) 600-0034 E-mail: cwallace@wallaceallen.com ballen@wallaceallen.com alarson@wallaceallen.com KALSHIEX LLC: Hallman Sues Over Online Betting Platform ------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER HALLMAN; JEREMY KRAVETZ; DANIEL GREENBERG; NATHANIEL BEE; and ABHIJN GUTTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KALSHIEX LLC; KALSHI, INC.; KALSHI KLEAR INC.; KALSHI KLEAR LLC; and KALSHI TRADING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00317 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful operation of an illegal, unlicensed sports betting platform and related deceptive and misleading business practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants operates an illegal and unlicensed sportsbook under the guise of a "prediction market" by offering illegal sports "events contracts." Kalshi deceives sports betting users on its platform by ignoring well established consumer protection provisions to encourage sports gambling on its platform. Kalshi's platform encourages higher-risk groups, including, youth, to trade, rewards impulsive engagement, exploits anticipation, and diminishes user perception of financial risk, presenting the platform as if a user is not participating in a highly addictive, and illegal, behavior. Kalshiex LLC regulated prediction market in the U.S., allowing users to trade on the outcome of real-world events, including economics, weather, and, controversially, politics and sports. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron Schwartz, Esq. Clara P. Abramson, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Email: ASchwartz@kaplanfox.com CAbramson@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew George, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Email: LKing@kaplanfox.com MGeorge@kaplanfox.com KATE MCLEOD: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KATE MCLEOD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00561 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.katemcleod.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Kate Mcleod, Inc. manufactures and supplies beauty and skin care products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com KLAVIYO INC: Bid to Strike Nguyen Class Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NGUYEN v. KLAVIYO, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-06551 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Eumi K. Lee entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to strike. The Defendant argues that the proposed class definition is inherently overbroad and includes individuals who may have consented or who were uninjured. The Court finds that these arguments are premature and are best resolved after some discovery and during class certification. During the hearing, counsel acknowledged the potential challenges in managing the case under the current class definition. These challenges should be addressed proactively through the discovery process. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury.[CC] KROEHLER FURNITURE: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- HERBERT FINGER III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KROEHLER FURNITURE MFG., CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00011 (W.D.N.C., Jan. 16, 2026) alleges Defendant's violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, seeking to recover up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Kroehler Furniture Mfg., Co. was founded in 1969. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of upholstered furniture. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Katharine Batchelor, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 855-496-7500 Email: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com kbatchelor@leesegui.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Can File Class Cert Opposition Brief ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM L. BURRELL JR., et al., V. LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01891-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mariani entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file a brief in opposition exceeding word limit. Th Defendant Lackawanna County may file a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification not to exceed 8500 words. Lackawanna processes commingled recyclables (like plastic, glass, paper, metals) from Lackawanna County municipalities. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DkNxoZ at no extra charge.[CC] LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks Redaction of Certain Docs in Ostenfeld ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-10667-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request for the sealing or redaction of certain documents attached to the: (1) Declaration of Ronald Y. Rothstein in Support of Defendant The Laundress, LLC's Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and (2) Omnibus Declaration of Ronald Y. Rothstein in Support of Defendant The Laundress, LLC's Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of Gareth Macartney and Motion to Strike the Declaration of Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification These materials contain confidential, proprietary business information and sensitive personal data, the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm and infringe on privacy interests. The Laundress has limited its sealing and redaction requests to information that contains confidential business information, the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm. This includes trade secrets, internal strategies, and sensitive commercial data. Accordingly, the confidentiality of the exhibits and excerpts identified herein is justified and necessary to prevent competitive injury. The Defendant provides laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IcYgNQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr., Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: rrothste@winston.com LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks to Strike Fearon's Declaration in Ostenfeld ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC et al., (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-10667-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants move the Court for an order striking the declaration of Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. In support, Defendant submits its Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Strike the Declaration of Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, or, in the Alternative, Disqualify Counsel and Compel His Deposition, which is being filed contemporaneously herewith. Laundress provides laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LQpvCL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. Jared R. Kessler, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr., Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: rrothste@winston.com jrkessler@winston.com LEADPOINT INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rush Suit Due August 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER RUSH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. LEADPOINT, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-03331-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Wimes entered a class certification order as follows: 1. This matter is set for a telephone conference on Dec. 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. to schedule a trial date and related deadlines. 2. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification on or before Aug. 12, 2026. 3. The parties shall amend all pleadings and add parties on or before June 15, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff shall designate any class certification-related expert witness on or before May 14, 2026. The Defendant shall designate any certification-related expert witness on or before June 15, 2026. Any rebuttal expert witness, if any, shall be designated on or before June 29, 2026. 5. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and related to Class Discovery shall be completed on or before July 13, 2026. Leadpoint was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of products by television, catalog, and mail-order. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2JJiL at no extra charge.[CC] LIDESLAMBOUS INC: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Braxton" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jalisha Braxton, Keith Sample, Hannah Morgan, Zach Portillo, and Robert Hamrick, Plaintiffs, v. Lideslambous, Inc., George Pitsilides, and Sharon Pitsilides, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-119 (E.D. Va.), Judge Jamar K. Walker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class and collective certification. The Plaintiffs are former servers at Captain George's Seafood Restaurant in Williamsburg, Virginia who worked during the three-year period prior to October 9, 2024. They received an hourly wage of $2.13, the tip credit rate, and tips. The restaurant is owned and operated by George and Sharon Pitsilides, who are registered agents and officers of Lideslambous, Inc. The Plaintiffs brought federal and state claims alleging that certain policies rendered the Defendants ineligible to take the tip credit under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2), and therefore owe the full statutory minimum wage. The Plaintiffs advanced four theories: an invalid tip pooling arrangement; failure to retain earned tips due to paying for walkout tabs; impermissible deductions for lost or damaged property; and performing non-tip-producing labor exceeding 20 percent of work time or 30 continuous minutes. Regarding the improper tip pool allegations, the Court denied the amendments because the Plaintiffs failed to establish good cause. Evidence showed the Plaintiffs possessed information about which employees were included in the tip pool by at least April 2025, when the Defendants provided initial disclosures including a Tip Credit Notice document. The Court stated the Plaintiffs endeavored to mislead the Court into believing this is newly discovered information when they had possessed it all along. Regarding the walkout policy, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to add that three managers had actual knowledge of the policy. The Court found the Plaintiffs met their burden to establish good cause because they acted within a reasonable time after learning of the managers' knowledge during depositions and moved to amend sixteen days later. The amendment would not prejudice the Defendants because it did not raise a new legal theory but merely converted constructive knowledge into direct evidence of actual knowledge. The Court also granted leave to remove references to overtime claims, correct addresses, and implement other minor revisions. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the improper tip pool claims with prejudice. Under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2)(A), an employer may not take a tip credit unless employees retain all tips except when participating in a tip pool with employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. The Court found the Plaintiffs insufficiently pleaded their claim. The second amended complaint merely stated that busboys and cleaners were customarily non-tipped employees without alleging facts showing these employees did not have more than de minimis interaction with customers, the applicable test from the Fourth Circuit. Because the Plaintiffs failed to establish good cause to add that these employees had little or no contact with customers, the Court did not consider this information. Regarding the tip out policy requiring servers to contribute between $25 to $75 in cash at shift end, the Court found nothing in the Fair Labor Standards Act or 29 C.F.R. Section 531.54 prohibits tip pool contributions based on a percentage of gross sales, insofar as contributions do not exceed tips actually received. The Plaintiffs failed to assert that contributions ever exceeded earned tips ultimately paid or that their cash wage plus tips fell below the statutory minimum wage. The Court stated that whether the Plaintiffs contributed from cash tips received during the shift or from cash previously obtained is a distinction without a difference under the FLSA. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the non-tipped labor claims with prejudice. The Plaintiffs claimed they are owed full minimum wage for time performing untipped work exceeding 20 percent or 30 continuous minutes, based on the Department of Labor's 80/20/30 Final Rule. The Court explained that nothing in the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from taking the tip credit when tipped employees perform untipped duties. Access to the credit is based on whether an employee is "engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips" under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(t). The distinction between tipped and untipped duties exists only in the 80/20/30 Final Rule, not in the statute itself. The Court found Congress did not delegate to the Department of Labor the authority to define engaged in an occupation. Looking to dictionary definitions, the Court determined that none place time limits on engaged that could be squared with the Final Rule's specificity. The Court agreed with the Fifth Circuit in Restaurant Law Center v. U.S. Department of Labor, 120 F.4th 163 (5th Cir. 2024), that being engaged in an occupation cannot be twisted to mean being engaged in duties that directly produce tips or in duties that directly support such tip-producing duties (but only if those supporting duties have not already made up 20 percent of the work week and have not been occurring for 30 consecutive minutes. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument for Skidmore deference to the Department of Labor's expertise, stating it would only defer if the Court needed the agency's help to determine the best reading of the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, the statute's text is unambiguous and does not include the timing requirements in the 80/20/30 Final Rule. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims against Sharon Pitsilides. The Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia Minimum Wage Act define employer to include any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. The Fourth Circuit applies the economic reality test focusing on whether the alleged employer had power to hire and fire, supervised work schedules or conditions, determined payment rates and methods, and maintained employment records. The Court found the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Sharon Pitsilides "often actually" exercised the power to hire and fire employees, oversees and is closely familiar with the restaurant's operations, established the server cash-requirement practices and uniform tipping practices and policies, had power to completely control payroll practices, and established uniform payroll policies, plans and practices governing the tracking and recording of compensation. Therefore, Sharon Pitsilides shall remain as an individual defendant. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective. Regarding class certification, the Court found the proposed class is not readily ascertainable under EQT Production Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014). The Plaintiffs demonstrate all class members were subject to the policies but do not show that all or most were actually made to pay cash for walkouts, uniforms, or other restaurant property. The Court cannot find an objectively defined group of workers with an alleged injury in common. To determine class membership, the Court would have to take evidence on what type of harm, if any, each individual suffered. Regarding conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective, the Court found the Plaintiffs do not demonstrate members are similarly situated as to harm suffered under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The mere existence of an illegal policy, without more, is not enough. At most, the Plaintiffs show there have been multiple occasions on which the walkout policy was enforced and that several servers were made to pay for walkouts, without proving how many people or whether that constitutes a majority. The Plaintiffs provide evidence the uniform and property policies were enforced against only two people. The trial and pretrial conference dates were vacated, and all deadlines were stayed. The parties were ordered to schedule a settlement conference. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sI2UP6 from PacerMonitor.com The defendants are represented by Lideslambous, Inc., George Pitsilides, and Sharon Pitsilides, all represented by Hannah Rose Spring and Christopher Alan Abel of Willcox & Savage P.C. The plaintiffs—Jalisha Braxton, Robert Hamrick, Hannah Morgan, Zach Portillo, and Keith Sample—are jointly represented by Adam Michael Hawks and James Harrell Shoemaker, Jr. of Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, L.C. Several parties have been terminated from the litigation: Captain George’s of South Carolina LP, Pitsilambous, Inc., and Captain George’s of South Carolina Inc. were terminated on January 22, 2025; Thomas Long and Pitsilides Management, LLC were terminated on January 28, 2025. Representation for the terminated defendants included Christopher Alan Abel of Willcox & Savage P.C. and James Richard Theuer of James R. Theuer, PLLC LITTLE CAESAR: Class Certification Bid Hearing Moved to June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting tenth joint stipulation modifying class certification schedule: 1. The Motion for Class Certification hearing, previously set for June 2, 2026, will be conducted via Zoom at 1:30 p.m. on June 30, 2026; 2. Responses are due by March 10, 2026; and 3. Replies are due by May 29, 2026. All counsel shall participate in the hearing remotely to accommodate geographical locations of all involved parties. The Court expects all participants to adhere to courtroom decorum during the remote hearing. Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MeUpmj at no extra charge.[CC] LOVE ALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Love All Little Ones Inc., d/b/a Lalo, Case No. 1:26-cv-00170-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., Jan. 27, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.meetlalo.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying Plaintiff and other 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 Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to individuals who meet the legal definition of blindness, in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some individuals who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. Love All Little Ones Inc. owns the website taht provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law Telephone: (463) 777-4196 MAH GROUP: Filing for Class Cert. in Wilson Due June 29 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. MAH GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00855 (D. Or., Filed May 19, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order granting the parties' Joint Motion for Extension. Rebuttal expert disclosures are due May 28, 2026. Discovery closes May 29, 2026. Dispositive motions and motions for class certification are due June 29, 2026. Joint ADR Report and Pretrial Order are due 30 days after dispositive motions are ruled on, or July 29, 2026, if no dispositive motions are filed. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Mah Inc was founded in 1976. The company's line of business includes operating of bars, night clubs, and other locations that sell alcoholic drinks.[CC] MAREX GROUP: Michaella Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAELLA G. KATZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. MAREX GROUP PLC, IAN THEO LOWITT, and CRISPIN ROBERT JOHN IRVIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-08368-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring actions to Magistrate Judge Aaron for the following purpose: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Specific Non-Dispositive Motions/Dispute Cross-Motion for Consolidation Motion by Michaella G. Katz for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel (Case No. 25-CV-8368) Motion by Ali Shahsavanpour and Jaimin Patel for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel (Case No. 25-CV-8393), and Class certification motions, if any. Marex is a financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y2X5Ge at no extra charge.[CC] MAREX GROUP: Narayanan Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAVISHANKER NARAYANAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAREX GROUP PLC, IAN THEO LOWITT, and CRISPIN ROBERT JOHN IRVIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-08393-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring actions to Magistrate Judge Aaron for the following purpose: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Specific Non-Dispositive Motions/Dispute Cross-Motion for Consolidation Motion by Michaella G. Katz for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel (Case No. 25-CV-8368) Motion by Ali Shahsavanpour and Jaimin Patel for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel (Case No. 25-CV-8393), and Class certification motions, if any. Marex is a financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z2nIF9 at no extra charge.[CC] MARIO BADESCU SKIN CARE: McGee Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc. The case is styled as Aniyah McGee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mario Badescu Skin Care, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00526-UA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mario Badescu -- https://www.mariobadescu.com/ -- is a trusted skin-care authority, renowned for its effective, results-driven formulas since 1967.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 22 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their class certification reply and rebuttal expert reports; any opposition(s) to Meta's Rule 702 motions; and any affirmative Rule 702 motions by March 11, 2026; 2. Meta shall file replies in support of its Rule 702 Motions by April 14, 2026; 3. Meta shall file responses to the Plaintiffs' Rule 702 Motions by April 28, 2026; 4. The Plaintiffs shall file replies in support of their affirmative Rule 702 Motions by May 26, 2026; 5. The parties shall participate in an ADR mediation session no later than May 26, 2026; 6. Subject the Court's calendar and convenience, the parties request that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and the parties' Rule 702 motions shall take place on June 10, 2026. Meta is the American multinational technology company, formerly known as Facebook. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8YN8dv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com META PLATFORMS: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification deadlines: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their class certification reply and rebuttal expert reports; any opposition(s) to Meta's Rule 702 motions; and any affirmative Rule 702 motions by March 11, 2026; 2. Meta shall file replies in support of its Rule 702 Motions by April 14, 2026; 3. Meta shall file responses to the Plaintiffs' Rule 702 Motions by April 28, 2026; 4. The Plaintiffs shall file replies in support of their affirmative Rule 702 Motions by May 26, 2026; 5. The parties shall participate in an ADR mediation session no later than May 26, 2026; and 6. Subject the Court's calendar and convenience, the parties request that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and the parties' Rule 702 motions shall take place on June 10, 2026. Meta is the American multinational technology company, formerly known as Facebook. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c9mQlP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Kristin Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com MILLIMAN INC: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in Healy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses a partial grant of summary judgment in the lawsuit styled JAMES HEALY, Plaintiff - Appellant v. MILLIMAN, INC., Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 24-3327 (9th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01473-JCC, John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Sidney R. Thomas, Daniel A. Bress, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges. Judge Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court. Reversing the district court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Milliman, Inc., and remanding in an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Panel held that, following class certification, both named and unnamed class members in a money damages suit must present evidence of standing at summary judgment, but the usual summary judgment standards apply. Named plaintiff James Healy alleged that Milliman's inaccurate consumer reports violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b). The district court certified an "inaccuracy class." Milliman sought partial summary judgment, arguing that Healy needed to demonstrate class-wide standing for the inaccuracy class. The district court granted Milliman's motion, holding that, under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), Healy had to present at least some direct evidence of concrete injury on a class-wide basis but failed to do so. Healy filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Agreeing with the district court, the Panel concluded that the logic of TransUnion requires both named and unnamed members of a certified class for money damages to demonstrate standing at summary judgment. The Panel held, however, that the Plaintiffs could use either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence and did not need to show that a jury necessarily would find in their favor. The Panel remanded for the district court to consider whether Healy had presented enough circumstantial evidence that a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that there was class-wide standing. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrtm2xcu from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew W.H. Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- Gabriel Chess -- gabe@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Jessica Garland -- jessie@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER LLP, in San Francisco, California; Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Jennifer R. Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Adrienne D. McEntee -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, in Seattle, Washington; James A. Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Lauren K.W. Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. Nathaniel Garrett -- ngarrett@jonesday.com -- Eric A. Nicholson -- eanicholson@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, in San Francisco, California; Adam W. Wiers -- awwiers@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, in Chicago, Illinois; Daniel A. Brown -- dbrown@williamskastner.com -- Jeffery M. Wells -- jwells@williamskastner.com -- Rodney L. Umberger -- rumberger@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER, in Seattle, Washington, for the Defendant-Appellee. Erik R. Zimmerman -- ezimmerman@rbh.com -- Zachary A. Johnson, ROBINSON BRADSHAW AND HINSON PA, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Jennifer B. Dickey -- Jdickey@uschamber.com -- Jonathan D. Urick -- jurick@uschamber.com U.S. CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, in Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Consumer Data Industry Association. MONROE UNIVERSITY: Rosario Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ROSARIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONROE UNIVERSITY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00450 (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2026) is a class action against Monroe University for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal protected health information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated students that was entrusted to Monroe. Between December 9 and December 23, 2024, Monroe experienced a cyberattack on its computer network. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and roughly 320,972 other individuals. According to the complaint, Monroe failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by Monroe's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the suit. As such, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Monroe University, Ltd. is a private, for-profit university with campuses in Bronx, New York; New Rochelle, New York; and St. Lucia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Martinek Suit Over Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN MARTINEK v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP Case No. N26C-01-442 MON (Jan. 27, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k 2 herbicide, and Roundup Original II Herbicide. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Grace Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gilbert Grace, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-297 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Gucik Sues Over Wrongful Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------ Thaddeus Gucik, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-306 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hildebrandt Sues Over Negligent Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Hildebrandt, Jr. on behalf of the estate of Kathleen Hildebrandt, on behalf of the estate of James Anderson, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-298 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Richard Hildebrandt, Jr. is a natural person and is the Representative of Kathleen Hildebrandt, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Kulibaba Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Nuedlae Kulibaba, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-303 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lafleur Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Lafleur, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-305 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Shamberg Sues Over Negligent Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- David Shamberg, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-300 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com NAKED WHEY INC: Wood Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Naked Whey, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00357 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://nakednutrition.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Wood's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Wood seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of health and fitness supplements, including protein powders, collagen, creatine, fiber supplements, vitamins, minerals, and other products for performance and recovery, offered in multiple formulations and flavors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: chan@ealg.law NATIONAL FREIGHT: Bid to Certify Class Remains Terminated --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kolev, et al., v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107 (D.N.J., Filed Aug. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class shall remain administratively terminated pending further order of the court. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. National Freight provides logistics services. The Company offers warehousing, intermodal, brokerage, goods distribution, cross docking, and management.[CC] NATIONAL MENTOR: Crawley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Crawley, and those similarly situated v. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, INC d/b/a SEVITA HEALTH, a Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 4:26-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., Jan. 21, 2026), is brought pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. Notwithstanding its agreement and promise to pay Plaintiff overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, Defendant failed to do so. Instead, while Plaintiff regularly was asked to and did perform work in excess of 40 hours per week, Defendant virtually never paid her any overtime compensation, in breach of the Parties' contract. The Plaintiff was not properly compensated, as required by the Parties' contract, for the hours over 40 that she worked each week, in most, if not all, workweeks. However, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. the Plaintiff should have been, and should be compensated at the rate of one and one half times Plaintiff's regular rate for those hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the Parties' contract, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt Program Services Clinical Coordinator from September 8, 2018, through April 11, 2023. The Defendant operates a home and community-based specialty healthcare for adults and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Washington Class Cert Bid Tossed as Premature ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Washington, et al., v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01392 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Aug. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge Charles Esque Fleming entered an order denying as premature the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Court will not determine class certification issues outside class certification briefing The Court finds that an order establishing that the class size is numerous such that joinder is impracticable would require the Court to make an advance determination of an element which Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing at the class certification stage. The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract. Nationstar is the legal entity for Mr. Cooper, a major U.S. non-bank mortgage servicer and lender. [CC] NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE: Clas Cert Filing in Williams Due Oct. 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APLONDA WILLIAMS, v. NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01285-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on January 20, 2026, and indicated their preference that the Court issue a Preliminary Pretrial Order without a conference. Accordingly, the January 26, 2026, preliminary pretrial conference is vacated. The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by Feb. 3, 2026. Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than April 20, 2026. The motion for class certification, if any, must be filed no later than Oct. 20, 2026. Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by July 20, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by Aug. 20, 2026. All discovery shall be completed by Sept. 20, 2026. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her, and a class or collective group of other employees, overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standard Act, the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio’s Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff additionally alleges violations of Ohio's Civil Liability for a Criminal Act Statute and unjust enrichment. The Defendant denies the Plaintiff's allegations and asserts that this case is inapposite for a class action due to lack of numerosity. The Defendant provides home health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hOtfhx at no extra charge.[CC] NESTLE USA: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Falcone Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the order certifying a class in the lawsuit titled MARIE FALCONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellee v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant - Appellant, Case No. 24-7707 (9th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB, M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judges. Judge Clifton wrote a dissenting opinion. Marie Falcone argues that Nestle's "Cocoa Plan" and sustainability representations on packaging misled consumers, as the cocoa was sourced from West African plantations using child slave labor. Falcone alleges Nestle claims its chocolate products were "sustainably" or "responsibly" sourced, implying that they were produced free of child labor and deforestation. The Appellees assert false-advertising claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Nestle USA, Inc., challenges the district court's order certifying two state-based classes. The Panel reviews the district court's order certifying the class for abuse of discretion. The Panel affirms, finding that the district court did not err in certifying the Appellees' injunctive relief class because Marie Falcone, the named Plaintiff, has Article III standing. Falcone repeatedly testified that she loves Nestle products and that she would like to purchase these products in the future but that she stopped purchasing them when she learned about child labor and environmental damage. Although she described one of Nestle's current labels as having a "perfect placement," she also testified that she does not trust Nestle's reporting in its Cocoa Plan. Reviewing Falcone's deposition testimony in full, the Panel finds this is sufficient to confer Article III standing. Thus, the district court properly found that Falcone has Article III standing. The Panel also finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual inquiries for the damages class. All the class members were exposed to the misrepresentation because it was on the products' packaging and, by definition, class members must have bought the products at issue to be part of the class; in labeling fraud cases, this is all that is required. Thus, the Panel says, exposure is a common question that predominates over individual inquiries. The Panel further finds, among other things, that, as the district court correctly found, the Plaintiffs need not prove materiality at the class certification stage. For Rule 23(b)(3) purposes, the relevant question is not whether Falcone has successfully proven materiality, but rather whether the materiality inquiry is a common question susceptible to common proof that helps to establish predominance. Thus, the Panel holds, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding commonality and predominance to certify the damages class. Finally, the Panel finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Falcone's full refund theory of liability stems from her theory of deception, and the calculation of the refund is possible on a class-wide basis. Thus, as the district court correctly found, Falcone's theory of restitution stems from Nestle's liability-creating actions and whether the products are worthless is a merits issue not decided at class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3k77ew from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. NORDSTROM INC: King Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Heidi King, individually and for others similarly situated v. NORDSTROM, INC., Case No. 30-2025-01532137-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00121. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains eight causes of action for unpaid overtime, unpaid hours worked (also alleged as unpaid minimum wages), unlawful withholding or deductions, unreimbursed business expenses, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to maintain accurate records, and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy K. Todd, Esq. Mariela Romo, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Amy.Todd@jacksonlewis.com Mariela.Romo@jacksonlewis.com - and - Kelli M. Dreger, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Kelli.Dreger@jacksonlewis.com NORTH ATLANTIC STATES: Buzzanga Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ercole Buzzanga, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NORTH ATLANTIC STATES CARPENTERS BENEFIT FUND d/b/a NASCBF, Case No. 1:26-cv-10137-IT (D. Mass., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its employees and consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its employees and consumers' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received confirmation via Defendant's hotline on December 23, 2025, that his data was compromised. The Defendant is a large Multi-Employer, ERISA-regulated benefit fund that provides comprehensive retirement, health and welfare, and other benefits to active and retired participants and their families of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters across all New England states and New York State, excluding New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Patton Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- TRACIE PATTON, individually and as a representative of a Class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the O'Reilly Automotive Profit Sharing and Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE PROFIT SHARING AND SAVINGS PLAN, O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE 401(K) PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-03015-DPR (W.D. Mo., January 15, 2026) is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Defendants for: (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) violation of prohibited transaction rules; and (3) violation of anti-inurement provision. According to the complaint, instead of prudently and loyally evaluating how to allocate plan expenses and best deploy plan assets that had been forfeited by departing Plan participants, the Defendants instead reflexively and exclusively used those forfeitures to benefit Company, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by applying over $24.1 million of Plan forfeitures to offset Company's contractual obligations to make Non-discretionary Matching Contributions to the Plan between 2019-2024, while only using $46,000 to defray Plan expenses. The Defendants' unconsidered decision to use the lion's share of Plan forfeitures to benefit Company resulted in Plan participants paying around $14.3 million in Plan expenses to the Plan's third-party service providers, both directly and indirectly, that should never have come out of (or reduced the value of) their accounts. Even more egregious, during the class period the Plan Fiduciaries allowed an average of around $2.4 million dollars to sit in the unallocated forfeiture account at the end of each year that Defendants could have used to defray virtually all of the Plan's direct expenses (an average of around $2.3 million dollars) for the preceding or subsequent plan year even after the Plan Fiduciaries used forfeitures to offset an average of around $4 million in Company contributions each year, contends the suit. The Plaintiff was previously employed by Company during the class period, and was a participant in the Plan during the class period. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. is an American automotive part retailer that provides automotive parts, tools, supplies, equipment, and accessories to professional service providers and do-it-yourself customers. Founded in 1957 by the O'Reilly family, the Company operates more than 6,400 stores in 48 states, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Jane Hunt, Esq. KENNEDY HUNT P.C. 4500 W Pine Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63108 Telephone: (314) 872-9041 Facsimile: (314) 872-9043 E-mail: sarahjane@kennedyhuntlaw.com - and - Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com OCEAN REEF MEDIA: Sundstrom Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jaxene Sundstrom, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OCEAN REEF MEDIA, LLC; THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; MAPLE COVERAGE, LLC; CURB SURE LLC, and DOES 1-10, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Clark County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05036-DGE. On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff served the State of Washington Office of Insurance Commissioner (the "Commissioner") with a Summons directed to State Farm and a Complaint, asserting five theories under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and related theories under Washington's Consumer Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and Washington's Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven D. Jensen, Esq. Benjamin J. Roesch, Esq. JENSEN MORSE BAKER PLLC 520 Pike Street; Suite 2375 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: Steve.jensen@jmblawyers.com Benjamin.Roesch@jmblawyers.com OLD DOMINION: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, individually and for others similarly situated, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00066 (M.D.N.C., January 16, 2026) arises from Old Dominion's straight-time overtime pay policy that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rodriguez worked for Old Dominion as a dock worker from approximately September 2023 to May 2025 in San Antonio, Texas. Like the Putative Class Members, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But Old Dominion did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead, Old Dominion paid Rodriguez and the Putative Class Members straight time for overtime, says the suit. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. is a North Carolina-based corporation that provides freight transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bert J. Miano, Esq. MIANO LAW PC 301 South McDowell Street Suite 125, Box 1352 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 275-7199 E-mail: bmiano@mianolaw.com - and - Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal OLIVARES DELIVERY: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Osvaldo Arsenio Jorge Rodriguez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. OLIVARES DELIVERY LLC, and JOSE OLIVARES GONZALEZ, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-00424 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"). Throughout his employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week, yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that did not include overtime premiums for the hours that Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of forty, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked the Defendants for as a delivery driver from early-2021 to September 18, 2025. The Defendants is a New York limited liability company that operates a frozen food delivery business in New York, as well as the entity's owner and day-to day overseer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Ryan S. Riger, Esq BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 OS RESTAURANT SERVICES: Slack Sues to Recover Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Steven Slack and Nikki Lepa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a CARRABBA'S ITALIAN GRILL, Case No. 2:26-cv-00040-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 13, 2026), is brought against Defendant, who was their employer, in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1939 ("ELSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (the "Ohio Wage Act") and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"). The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant for whom Defendant required to participate in a tip pooling arrangement that requires employees to pool tips and share them with supervisors or managers while relying on the "tip credit" provisions of the FLSA and applicable Ohio Wage Laws. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs were also required to pay tips they earned from sales of non-alcoholic drinks and food to employees designated as "server's assistants." These server's assistants were not scheduled to work or, if they were scheduled to work, they were not assigned to perform tip-related work assisting the Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs but still received a portion of the tips that the Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs received during their, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as hourly non-exempt servers. OS Restaurant Services, LLC is a foreign limited liability company registered to do business in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Doren, Esq. BAREAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 2214221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com adoren@barkanmeizlish.com OTTER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bids Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Button, et al., v. Otter Products, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00969 (D. Colo., Filed March 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter the joint motion to stay discovery, class certification briefing, and consideration of pending motion to dismiss filed by Troy Button, Brandy Sanders, Eric Semple, Demetrius McKinnon, Jonathan Davis, Kentricia Burton, Tresha Davenport, Mike Ryan, Daren Olson, Ian Scheil, Sheriva Shed, and Joseph Tkocs. The nature of suit states Diversity-Product Liability. Otter is an American privately owned consumer electronics accessory company.[CC] OTTER PRODUCTS: Stay of Class Certification Briefing Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY BUTTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., v. OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00969-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion for a temporary stay of discovery, a stay of class certification briefing, and a deferral of the Court's consideration of the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss while the Parties pursue mediation. Following the conclusion of mediation or within 90 days of the Court's order issuing a stay, whichever occurs first, the Parties will promptly submit a joint status report to the Court regarding the status of mediation; if the mediation concludes without an agreement to resolve the case, the Parties will also file with their joint status report a proposed amended scheduling order A temporary stay will promote efficiency and conserve the resources of the Parties and the Court. Proceeding with those obligations while mediation is underway would impose significant expense and burden that may prove unnecessary if the case resolves. The requested stay will also promote judicial economy. Resolution through mediation could obviate the need for further discovery, class certification proceedings, expert disclosures, and judicial resolution of pending or anticipated motions. The Parties are not aware of any non-parties whose interests would be adversely affected by a temporary stay, and the public interest favors an efficient and just resolution without unnecessary expenditure of party or judicial resources. Otter is an American privately owned consumer electronics accessory company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t3XleS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin S. Hannon, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1641 N. Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 704-6028 Facsimile: (303) 861-8855 E-mail: khannon@singletonschreiber.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER, GRAIFMAN, PERLMUTTER & CARBALLO, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth A. Och, Esq. Trenton H. Norris, Esq. Joseph R. O'Connor, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 899-7300 E-mail: elizabeth.och@hoganlovells.com trent.norris@hoganlovells.com joe.oconnor@hoganlovells.com PAUL ATKINS: Davidson Suit Seeks to Certify U.S. Investors Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK DAVIDSON, JOHN RESTIVO, & NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH, v. PAUL ATKINS, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00197-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion for class certification in its entirety: "All U.S. investors, including U.S. citizens, U.S. residents and persons domiciled in the U.S., for whom the CAT database contains any securities transaction information, or any personally identifiable information, that refers or relates to the investor or to a securities account associated with the individual." The Plaintiffs further move for Erik Davidson and John Restivo to be appointed class representatives, and for their counsel, the New Civil Liberties Alliance to be appointed class counsel. The case was filed on April 16, 2024, and is fast approaching two years without resolution or even meaningful progress. The Plaintiffs promptly sought preliminary relief and have adhered to the Court's scheduling orders throughout. The Plaintiffs also opposed the over six-month stay, and oppose the current motion for abeyance, because there is nothing SEC can do that can possibly cure the core legal infirmities of the CAT, namely that its operations violate -- and continue daily to violate—the core Fourth and Fifth Amendment civil liberties of millions of Americans. Paul Atkins is an American businessman who has served as chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since April 2025. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2oBoP0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margaret A. Little, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Christian Clase, Esq. Andreia Trifoi, Esq. NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 869-5210 Facsimile: (202) 869-5238 E-mail: Peggy.Little@ncla.legal Caitlin.Moyna@ncla.legal Andreia.Trifoi@ncla.legal Christian.Clase@ncla.legal - and - Mark D. Siegmund, Esq. CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES PLLC The Roosevelt Tower 400 Austin Avenue, 9th Floor Waco, TX 76701 Telephone: (254) 732-2242 Facsimile: (866) 627-3509 PEET'S COFFEE: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Munoz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAL MUNOZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated v. PEET'S COFFEE, INC., Plaintiff, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00499 (N.D. Cal., January 16, 2026) challenges Defendant's egregious violations of consumer privacy and breach of consumer trust under the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendant's ecommerce website, www.peets.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 "Preferences" button. Contrary to users' express rejection of cookies and tracking technologies, the Defendant caused cookies, including the Third Parties' cookies, to be sent to Plaintiff and other visitors' browsers, stored on their devices, and transmitted to the Third Parties along with user data. These cookies permitted the Third Parties to track and collect data in real time regarding website visitors' behaviors and communications, says the suit. The Defendant falsely told website users that it respected their privacy choices and would refrain from tracking and data sharing when uses rejected cookies. Despite receiving clear notice of users' lack of consent, the Defendant ignored those choices and violated state statutes and tort duties owed to Plaintiff and those similarly situated website users, the suit asserts. Peet's Coffee, Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Emeryville, California. The Company provides non-alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 PEPSICO INC: Davis Sues Over Pepsi Beverage Sales Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC. and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00405 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Pepsi and Walmart entered into a scheme (the "Scheme") to prevent wholesale and retail competition for Pepsi Beverages, thereby ensuring that both companies can charge supracompetitive prices. Pepsi agreed to inflate its wholesale prices above competitive levels for Pepsi Beverages to its wholesale customers other than Walmart. Pepsi's wholesale customers purchase Pepsi Beverages directly from Pepsi or Walmart and compete with Walmart in selling those products at retail. The resulting wholesale price inflation enabled Walmart to elevate its retail prices for Pepsi Beverages above competitive levels and forced Walmart's competitors to charge higher prices at retail than they otherwise would have. The Scheme caused direct purchasers of Pepsi Beverages from Pepsi or Walmart, like Plaintiff, to pay higher prices than they otherwise would have, alleges the suit. PepsiCo, Inc. operates foods and beverages businesses. The Company manufactures markets and sells a variety of grain-based snacks, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, and foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Burnett, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM, LLP 1050 30th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Email: dburnett@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Raymond S. Levine, Esq. Braden R. Leach, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM, LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com mweiler@schneiderwallace.com rlevine@schneiderwallace.com bleach@schneiderwallace.com PINCH A PENNY POOL: English Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert English, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PINCH A PENNY POOL PATIO SPA (dba) POOL PINCH, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, CHRIS OGOZALY, individually, and KELLIE OGOZALY, individually, Case No. 0:26-cv-60109-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, because defendant's violations lacked a good faith basis. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff consistently worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff regularly worked between 40 and 60 or more hours per workweek. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek throughout his employment, Plaintiff was never paid overtime premium compensation as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff's work in excess of 40 hours per workweek was necessary to complete his assigned duties and service routes. The Defendants benefited from Plaintiff's work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a pool technician from 2021 through January 5, 2026. POOL PINCH INC ("PPI") is a Florida Profit Corporation with Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com PINCHO HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINCHO HOLDINGS, LLC; and SAVORY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC D/B/A PINCHO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20201 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://pincho.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. PINCHO Holdings, LLC is a Miami-born, fast-casual restaurant chain specializing in Latin-inspired burgers, skewers, and rice bowls. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Telephone: (305) 264-9090 Facsimile: (305) 809-8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (786) 290-1963 Facsimile: (305) 824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com PNC BANK N.A.: Birdsall Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leslie Birdsall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. 25-2-13660-0 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00078. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"), and invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: NickC@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Justin J. Kontul, Esq. Christopher R. Brennan, Esq. Alex G. Mahfood, Esq. Sarah H. Loy, Esq. REED SMITH LLP Reed Smith Centre 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-288-3131 Fax: 412-288-3063 Email: jkontul@reedsmith.com cbrennan@reedsmith.com amahfood@reedsmith.com sloy@reedsmith.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Simmons Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ RANDOLPH SIMMONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00434 (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2026) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the websites, www.oralb.com and www.vicks.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff relies on screen-reading software, including NVDA for Windows, to access websites. He attempted to use Defendant's consumer-facing websites on multiple occasions to research and purchase oral-care devices, over-the-counter medications, and related consumer-health products. However, persistent accessibility barriers -- including missing alternative text, empty headings, duplicate IDs, inaccessible forms, non-descriptive links, improper HTML structure, low-contrast elements, broken links, incorrect MIME types, and server errors documented in independent SortSite audits -- prevented him from navigating or transacting on the Websites without assistance, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to adopt, implement, and maintain accessible web design practices consistent with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 AA. The Procter & Gamble Company markets, promotes, and sells oral-care devices, dental-health products, over-the-counter medications, cold-and-flu treatments, and related consumer-health goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 QUEEN TRANSPORTATION: Ross Balks at Layoff Without Prior Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW ROSS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUEEN TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00010 (W.D.N.C., January 16, 2026) is a civil action for the collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of a plant closing ordered by Defendant. The Defendant employs over 100 employees and is liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days advance written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members bring claims for violations of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay wages due, says the suit. Specifically, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on December 6, 2022 as a diesel mechanic. He was terminated as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by Defendant on December 25, 2025. Queen Transportation, LLC is a privately-held company that operates in the freight transportation industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Harman, Esq. HARMAN LAW, PLLC 10224 Hickorywood Hill Ave, Ste 202 Huntersville, NC 28078 Telephone: (704) 885-5550 Facsimile: (704) 885-5551 E-mail: michael@harmanlawnc.com RAHIMALI VAKALIAY: Labib Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Wael Labib and Salwa Naeim, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Rahimali Vakaliay, Pasadena Five Star Inc., Erzan Enterprise, Inc., Galveston C-Store, Inc., Hikmat Enterprise, Inc., Iman 786 LLC, Izha Enterprise Inc., Mannat 786 LLC, Moon Enterprise Inc., Muskan Business, Inc., Niyamat Ventures Inc., Rahil Enterprises, Inc., and Rahim Enterprise, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00620 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 27, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant owns and/or controls numerous companies that own and run convenience stores in the Houston, Texas area. According to the complaint, through these companies, Vakaliay carries out his business plan that includes paying non-exempt hourly employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, even the hours that they work over 40 per workweek. Vakaliay's and his companies' failure to pay the overtime premium required by law allows them to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices, the suit says. The Defendants hired the Plaintiffs as hourly employees and did not pay them overtime when they worked more than 40 hours per week.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM PO Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com RED MCCOMBS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Feliciano Claims --------------------------------------------------------- RALPH FELICIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED MCCOMBS HYUNDAI NORTHWEST GP, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00200-JKP (W.D. Tex., Jan. 16, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Red Mccombs Hyundai Northwest GP, L.L.C. is an automobile dealership engaged in the sale of vehicles and automotive services to consumers, based out of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RELATION INSURANCE: Terriquez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marcela Caro Terriquez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. RELATION INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; RELATION INSURANCE, INC., an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV029531 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00128-DC-CKD. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code Section 2802; Violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard L. Gillespie, Esq. Michael W. Nelson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: rgillespie@littler.com mwnelson@littler.com REMEDY WHOLESALE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Wood Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMEDY WHOLESALE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00376 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.remedyliquor.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Remedy Wholesale, LLC is a business based in Glendale, CA that specializes in providing a range of wholesale products to retailers and businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law RETRIEVER MEDICAL: Martin Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- SIDNEY MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETRIEVER MEDICAL/DENTAL PAYMENTS LLC; and CRANIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-00298 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2026) allege violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's privacy rights by disclosing the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and non-public personal health information to third parties without consent. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and the Class, the platform incorporated online tracking technology that automatically transfers patients' online communications with the platform to a third-party provider of the tracking technology, says the suit. Retriever Medical/Dental Payments LLC doing business as Rectangle Health, provides healthcare payment solutions. The Company offers payment technology and merchant services to healthcare providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 849-8060 Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com RICHARD'S RESTAURANT: Lontz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Madison Lontz, Jessicia Williams and Maxwell Mendes Baltazar on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated v. Richard's Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Richard's Rendezvous, Case No. 3:26-cv-00035-DJN (E.D. Va., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for: failing to pay their employees, unpaid minimum wages, and nonpayment of wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Virginia Minimum Wage Act ("VMWA") and the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"). The Plaintiffs were compensated almost exclusively through tips from Defendant's customers and a portion of the sales that they made. In addition to not paying Plaintiffs minimum wage, Defendant also deducted fees every shift that Plaintiffs worked. Effectively, Plaintiffs had to pay to work for the Defendant. As set out in the Entertainer Work Agreement, all entertainers at Richard's were required to pay a "house fee," which is a mandatory $10.00 amount that Plaintiffs and those similarly situated had to pay in order to work a shift. The Plaintiffs were also subject to various monetary fines if they were late to a shift or wore the wrong outfit. Pursuant to the FLSA, Defendant is obligated to pay minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendant's pay practices were intended to deprive Plaintiffs of the minimum wage pay that they were entitled to under the FLSA. Therefore, Defendant willingly violated, and acted with reckless disregard for, Plaintiffs' rights under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as performers and entertainment employees. The Defendant operates an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Richmond, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com ROBERT LUNA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing in Stewart Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Stewart et al., v. Robert Luna et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' request to continue the hearing on their motion to certify class. The Defendants' "preemptive" objection and request to strike the Plaintiffs' reply is denied as it is not a proper vehicle to seek relief. Nevertheless, the Court sua sponte declines to consider the Plaintiffs' untimely Reply. In a declaration accompanying this filing, Jeff Dominic Price states that he agreed with Defendants' counsel to "set the hearing for Feb. 2, 2026, not thinking about the fact that Jan. 19, 2026, was a holiday, and mistakenly overlooked that the Reply would be due on a holiday." Aside from counsel missing the deadline to file the Reply, he provides no meaningful explanation for his request. Thus, the Plaintiffs' counsel fails to show good cause to continue the hearing. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8cXKG4 at no extra charge.[CC] ROBINSON AVIATION: Singles Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey Singles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Robinson Aviation, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00061-JD (W.D. Okla., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), against the Defendant because of Defendant's failure to properly calculate the regular rate of pay when paying overtime to Plaintiff. While working as Air Traffic Controllers, the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, are scheduled to work 40 hours a week as their regular schedule. The Defendant fails to include these payments in the calculation of the regular rate of pay of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pursuant to a systematic, company wide practice. All Air Traffic Controllers employed by the Defendant who received such differentials and premium payments pursuant to the CBA for the relevant time period are similarly situated and routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but were denied proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 because Defendant fails to include these payments in the regular rate of pay upon which the Plaintiff's and those similarly situated Air Traffic Controllers' overtime rate is based, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as an Air Traffic Controller. The Defendant currently operates 102 towers, and employs over 600 air traffic controllers, through the FAA Contract Tower Program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Dowdell, Esq. Mid-Continent Tower 401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 2500 Tulsa, OK 74103 Phone: (918) 200-9626 Email: mdowdell@bondgill.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 Email: gkm@mselaborlaw.com mae@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com RTX CORPORATION: Jacob Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA JACOB, THOMAS MILLER, V. RTX CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01389-LMB-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Brinkema entered an order: -- granting Defendants' motion to dismiss; -- dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint; and -- denying as moot the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment for Class Counsel. RTX is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5aYjYV at no extra charge.[CC] RUBY INVESTMENTS: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People ---------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA FENDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUBY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00055-SGC (N.D. Ala., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial establishment known as Dora Chevron and Convenience Store located at 2241 Hwy 78, Dora, Alabama, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Ruby Investments, Inc. was founded in 2002. The Company invests in commodity contracts, tax liens, venture capital companies, and other miscellaneous investing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward I. Zwilling, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD I. ZWILLING, LLC 4000 Eagle Point Corporate Dr. Birmingham, AL 35242 Telephone: (205) 822-2701 Email: edwardzwilling@zwillinglaw.com RUSSELL ROAD: Moore Wins Bid for Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joselyn Moore, on behalf of herself, as an individual, and those similarly situated, v. Russell Road Food and Beverage LLC, d/b/a/ Crazy Horse 3 Gentlemen's Club, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02341-CDS-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Cristina D. Silva entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification: "All adult Entertainers who worked for the Defendants during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit." The Court also entered an order authorizing notice in the form and manner requested; require the defendants to produce within fourteen days a list of all adult entertainers who worked in the past three years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, e-mail address, and last four digits of their social security number; fix the bar date of sixty days from the date on which notice and opt-in forms are first mailed, for individuals to join the lawsuit; and toll the statute of limitations in this matter, nunc pro tunc to the date this order is entered. All three requirements for an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action are met. That is, the plaintiffs (1) claim a violation of the FLSA, (2) are similarly situated, and (3) have opted in to the litigation, the Court says. Joselyn Moore was an entertainer at Crazy Horse from October 2021 through September 2023. Crazy Horse is a gentlemen's club in Las Vegas, NV, A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JhtltL at no extra charge.[CC] SAED ENTERPRISES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People ---------------------------------------------------------- JESUS GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAED ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Hook's Fish & Chicken; and Z&A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20209-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' restaurant located at 15850 NW 27th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33054, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Saed Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates commercial establishments in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com SAIA INC: Mills Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Mills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAIA, INC., a Delaware corporation,, Case No. 25-2-13660-0 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05033. The Complaint asserts eight claims for relief: Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of RCW 49.46.130; Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled in Violation of RCW 49.46.090; Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave in Violation of RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620; Unlawful Deductions and Rebates in Violation of RCW 49.52.060 and WAC 296-126-028; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination in Violation of RCW 49.48.010; and Willful Refusal to Pay Wages in Violation of RCW 49.52.050.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Farron Curry, Esq. Elisabeth Read, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-600-6650 Email: farron.curry@bclplaw.com elisabeth.read@bclplaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ramnath Alleges Defective Galaxy Smartphones ----------------------------------------------------------------- NADIA RAMNATH and MICHAEL GUZMAN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:26-cv-00462 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2026) ) alleges that Samsung failed to disclose to consumers that the Galaxy Devices were susceptible to critical and potentially fatal defects and failed to take appropriate steps to warn users or to halt the 6.1.1 Update in a timely manner and has refused to provide affected consumers with meaningful remedies, such as free repairs or data recovery support. According to the complaint, Samsung's unfair and deceptive business acts and practices had led owners of the Galaxy Devices, including Plaintiff, to suffer ascertainable losses. Samsung's conduct was aggravated by its refusal to offer a recall, refund, or meaningful support, despite widespread and immediate user complaints. Had the Plaintiffs and other Class Members known the Galaxy Devices were susceptible to critical and potentially fatal defects resulting from software updates, design, manufacturing, workmanship and/or materials defects prior to purchase, or about the Update Defect at the time of purchase or prior to installing the update, they would not have purchased the Galaxy Devices or would have paid significantly less for them, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks damages (including actual, consequential, and statutory damages), restitution injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest. Samsung manufactures and sells the Galaxy S22, S22+, and S22 Ultra mobile phone which are three of its best-selling smartphone devices.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP The Foundry Building 1050 30th St., N.W. Georgetown, Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: Byagman@sshhzlaw.com SCOTT SEMPLE: Pagan Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pagan v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01951 (D. Conn., Filed Dec. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice because Mr. Pagan has not complied with Judge Farrish's Order. Any motion to reopen must be accompanied either by payment of the filing fee or by documentation to comply with Judge Farrish's Order, the Court says. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Mr. Pagan is advised that pro bono counsel has appeared in one of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. The Court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If the class certification motion is granted, Mr. Pagan may qualify as a member of the class. If a class certification motion is not filed or is denied, Mr. Pagan must pay the filing fee or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis to reopen his case. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] SHADY OAK: Lear Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA & PMWA ---------------------------------------------------------- CHASTIDY LEAR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHADY OAK ENTERPRISES, INC. (d.b.a. Premier Finance Adjustors), Case No. 2:26-cv-00521 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 27, 2026) seeks unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff's FLSA claim is asserted as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), while her PMWA claim is asserted as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Defendant is in the business of "repossessing" vehicles, boats, motorcycles, RVs, ATVs, and other property from consumer debtors. The Defendant operates throughout Pennsylvania and in parts of Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio, and, possibly, West Virginia. Some of Defendant's employees work, in whole or in part, in the "Camera Car" or "Spotter Car" job position. These employees are responsible for locating vehicles and other property eligible for repossession by the Defendant's agents and are commonly referred to as "spotters." The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant and primarily works as a spotter.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Westchester Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al. (re SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:24-cv-00334 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certify a class action; (2) appoint the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) appoint Motley Rice LLC and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. The Class's claims are all premised on the same factual circumstances. Thus, the Class's claims will be proven through evidence common to the entire Class. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the following "Class": "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Shoals Technologies Groups, Inc. ("Shoals" or the "Company") between May 16, 2022, and May 7, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including those purchasers of Shoals Common Stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's December 2022 secondary public offering (the "December 2022 SPO")." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and members of their respective families, any entity of which any of them has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party. The Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Shoals is a manufacturer of balance of systems products for photovoltaic systems. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l5kStB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. Debra J. Wyman, Esq. Matthew I. Alpert, Esq. Joseph J. Tull, Esq. Ashley G. Pyle, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com debraw@rgrdlaw.com malpert@rgrdlaw.com jtull@rgrdlaw.com apyle@rgrdlaw.com - and - Gregg S. Levin, Esq. William S. Norton, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com bnorton@motleyrice.com jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert D. Klausner Sean M Sendra KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON, P.A. 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com sean@robertdklausner.com SIX MOON: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIX MOON DESIGNS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00559 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.sixmoondesigns.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Six Moon Designs, Inc. sells high quality, affordable, ultralight shelters (tents and tarps), durable, suspension backpacks and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Tel: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com SLICKDEALS LLC: Cheung Sues Over Data Privacy Violations -------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW CHEUNG; and NINA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SLICKDEALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00519 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2026) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the conduct of allowing the Tracking Entities to unlawfully intrude into the Plaintiffs' Sensitive Information, private communications, invade Plaintiffs' fundamental right to privacy, and fraudulently misrepresented the Website's data collection practices. The Defendant implemented and utilized the Tracking Tools to intercept, read, disclose, and record Users' Sensitive Information. The Website does not provide notice of, or obtain consent for, these practices, says the suit. Slickdeals, LLC provides online shopping services. The Company offers grocery, video games, electronics, apparel, health, and beauty products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Yufei Wang, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, California 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com ywang@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Christopher V. DeVivo, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com cdevivo@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com SMART DIGITAL: Faces Dixit Suit Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- PARIJAAT DIXIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMART DIGITAL GROUP LIMITED; YUNTING CHEN; QIONGSHAN HUANG; SAM WAI HONG; ENROME LLP; US TIGER SECURITIES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00296 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SDM securities between May 5, 2025, and September 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against SDM, Yunting Chen, Qionshan Huang, Sam Wait Hong, Enrome LLP, and US Tiger Securities, Inc., as well as unidentified John Does 1-100, (the "Defendants"), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in the securities. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) SDM was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals; (2) insiders and/or affiliates used and intended to use offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping of shares during a price inflation campaign; (3) SDM's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of realized risk of fraudulent trading or market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; (4) as a result, SDM securities were at unique risk of a sustained suspension in trading by either or both of the SEC and NASDAQ; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On September 26, 2025, the Company's stock price collapsed 86.4% to close at $1.85 per share following an intraday halt by the NASDAQ Stock Market (the "NASDAQ") for volatility just minutes after the market opened, says the suit. Smart Digital Group Limited operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides event planning and execution services, which consist of drafting event planning proposals, customizing event marketing strategies, and engaging event sponsors, as well as offers business planning and consulting, internet media, and software marketing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Patrick Donovan, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: kaufman@whafh.com guiney@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com SMITHFIELD FOODS: Tapscott Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Tapscott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., a corporation and SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP, a corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-00044 (E.D. Va., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their payment structure. For example, Defendants paid employees shift differential pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay and other remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, he and Defendants' Hourly Employees earned shift differential pay and other remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendants' Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Powerhouse/Ammonia Technician. Smithfield Foods is a Delaware corporation, registered with Virginia's State Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A Annadale, VA 22003 Phone: (703) 256-1800 Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. Sommers Schwartz, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Isaacson Balks at Unlawful Junk Fee Revenues ------------------------------------------------------------------- JACKSON ISAACSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SONESTA INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-10351 (D. Mass., Jan. 26, 2026) seeks a class action under the Massachusetts General Law to stop Sonesta from falsely advertising hotel room rates and to force Sonesta to pay back the tens of millions of dollars in unlawful Junk Fee revenues it has taken from consumers together with statutory penalties and punitive damages. Starting around 2021, Sonesta began systemically cheating consumers out of tens of millions of dollars each year by falsely advertising its hotel room rates. Rather than disclosing the full cost of its hotel rooms upfront, Sonesta instead advertised a certain rate, then added on last-minute "destination fees," "resort fees," and other similar charges that were really part of the nighty room rate, says the suit. The goal of Sonesta's false advertising was to convince consumers shopping for a hotel room that a Sonesta room was cheaper than it was. These fees -- commonly called "Junk Fees," including by the Federal Trade Commission-- have been the subject of national media attention, including during President Biden's 2023 State of the Union Address, the suit alleges. Sonesta owns or operates hotel, resort, and cruise properties in Bermuda, the Caribbean, Egypt, Italy, Peru, and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Robert M. Devling, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com rdevling@tzlegal.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 333 H Street, Suite 5000 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Telephone: (510) 254-6810 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT VASCULAR: Travers Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Marie Travers, Melissa Bello, Michelle Lockery, and Christine Cali-Brophy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southern Connecticut Vascular Center, LLC d/b/a The Vascular Experts, Case No. NNH-CV26-6164843-S (Conn. Super. Ct., New Haven Cty., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"), which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. In May 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network server and stole Plaintiffs and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII and PHI stored therein (collectively, "Private Information"), causing widespread injuries to Plaintiffs and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiffs and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal patients' Private Information from Defendant's care. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former patients of Defendant who, in order to obtain healthcare services from Defendant. The Defendant is "the largest group of Board-certified vascular surgeons in the country."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main St., 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Fax: (860) 520-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (215) 888-3214 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Seeks Denial of Mikha Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMA MIKHA, INC. (d/b/a NEWPORT WINE & SPIRIT); M&Y FAMILY, INC. (d/b/a MIKE'S LIQUOR & MARKET), v. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01187-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on March 19, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order granting the Defendant's motion to deny class certification. The Defendant submits this Motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) based on Plaintiffs' agreement to binding class action waivers when they each created an account on Southern's digital customer portal, "Proof." In short, the Plaintiffs' desire to represent a class in this case violates their agreement not to pursue a class action against Southern. To enforce its bargained-for contractual rights, and for the sake of judicial efficiency, Southern raises this discrete issue now in an effort to avoid (both for the convenience of the parties and the Court) unwarranted class discovery, inevitable class discovery disputes, and burdensome class certification briefing. The Court should enforce the class action waiver and grant Southern's motion to deny class certification. At bottom, the Plaintiffs are sophisticated commercial businesses that voluntarily agreed to binding class action waivers contained in a valid and enforceable arbitration provision, and thus contracted away their ability to participate in a class action against Southern. To conserve party and judicial resources, and to enforce bargained-for rights between sophisticated commercial parties, this Court should preemptively deny class certification. On Jan. 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint against Southern, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of California retail customers. Both Plaintiffs, however, agreed to binding class action waivers when they created their accounts on Southern's digital customer portal, "Proof." Plaintiffs are barred from pursuing claims on behalf of a class, and the Court should preemptively deny class certification. The Defendant is a nationwide distributor for wine and spirits. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jS3BKX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Tammy A. Tsoumas, Esq. Matthew B. Summers, Esq. T.J. McCarrick, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 2049 Century Park East, Ste. 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4200 Facsimile: (310) 552-5900 E-mail: tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com matthew.summers@kirkland.com tj.mccarrick@kirkland.com SP PLUS LLC: Valdes Sues to Recover Wrongfully Retained Tips ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Valdes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SP PLUS LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00093 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FISA") to recover wrongfully retained tips by Defendant by its operation of an illegal tip pool, liquidated damages, and unpaid wages owed to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was required to contribute all tips received from customers for valet parking services to a tip pool. Each day, all valet attendants deposited their tips in a central box. At the end of the work day, Defendant distributed the tips based on hours worked. The Defendant routinely and as a matter of policy, openly distributed the tips from the tip pool each day among all valet parking attendants, and importantly, to supervisors and managers who do not customarily and regularly receive tips. The Defendant is aware that its tip pooling policy violates the FLSA, as several valet parking attendants have voiced their concern With the policy. Despite these objections, Defendant has refused to change its tip pool policy. As a result of Defendants willful violation of the FLSA's tip pool provisions, Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated valet attendants throughout the state, have been wrongfully denied tips they have earned and to which they are rightfully entitled to, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a valet attendant from January 2021 to October 23, 2025 at the Moffit Cancer Center complex in Tampa, Florida. SP Plus LLC, delivers mobility solutions that enable the efficient and time-sensitive movement of people, vehicles, and personal travel belongings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN | GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Phone (727) 254-5255 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 Email: mbouzas@floringray.com wflorin@floringray.com SSP AMERICA: Carr Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natasha Carr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SSP America, Inc.; SSP America, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, Case No. 2:25-cv-00911-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following classes with the Plaintiff appointed as class representative and Martin & Bonnett and Frankel Syverson appointed class counsel: Class 1: "All participants in the Plan as of Oct. 3, 2022." Class 2: "All Plan participants who were active employees participating in the Plan and who on and after Jan. 1, 2024, had at least one payroll period where employee Plan contributions were not timely deducted and transmitted to their investment accounts in accordance with their payroll elections." The Plaintiff's Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal law establishing minimum standards for private-sector, employer-sponsored re ERISA claims are tailor-made for class certification because they arise from Defendants' uniform actions in violation of their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and the SSP America, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan ("Plan"), harming all class members in the same way. SSP acquires, manages, and operates airport concessions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WdpgjB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com STARBUCKS CORP: Williams Sue Over "Ethically Sourced" Coffee Label ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER WILLIAMS, and DAVID STRAUSS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00112 (W.D. Wash., January 13, 2026) assert claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of consumers under Washington and New York consumer protection statutes and for common law fraud, seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to stop Starbucks from continuing to market its coffee as "100% ethically sourced" or that Starbucks is "Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing" unless and until that claim is truthful and adequately qualified. According to the complaint, Starbucks has built substantial consumer trust by presenting itself as an ethical leader in the coffee industry. This case seeks to hold Starbucks accountable for telling consumers it guarantees the ethical nature of coffee supply chain, when the facts on the ground show otherwise. This case also seeks to have Starbucks disclose to consumers the existence of volatile organic compounds such as benzene, toluene and methylene chloride in Starbucks' decaffeinated coffee beans. The complaint further notes that Starbucks relies on a series of deceptive claims to create a net impression of the current status of its ethical coffee sourcing leadership. First, Starbucks prints the term "Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing" in a highly prominent location on all of its Starbucks Coffee Products where it is most likely to be seen by consumers. Second, Starbucks persistently invokes its Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices program as the "cornerstone of our ethical sourcing approach to buying coffee" -- and even displays the C.A.F.E. logo at the point of sale -- to imply to consumers that its supply chains are backed by an effective, functioning system of ethical oversight. Third, Starbucks refers to its partnership with the non-profit environmental organization Conservation International to amplify the credibility of Starbucks' ethical sourcing and verification claims. Finally, Starbucks includes the use of the term "100%" to reasonably convey that Starbucks promptly and meaningfully investigates and remediates any ethical violations in its supply chain. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiff rely on these representations and their net impression in deciding whether to purchase Starbucks coffee or what to pay for it, alleges the suit. Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com catherineg@hbsslaw.com - and - Ani Zotti, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3051 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: ani.zotti@hbsslaw.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com STREAMEX CORP: Solak Sues Over Classified Board Structure Amendment ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SOLAK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of STREAMEX CORP., Plaintiff v. STREAMEX CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0075 (Del. Ch., January 16, 2026) is an action, brought by the Plaintif, directly on behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of Streamex Corp. against the Company seeking declaratory relief invalidating an amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation that established a classified board structure. Pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law, in order to effectuate the Classified Board Amendment, Streamex needed the affirmative vote of at least a majority of its outstanding stock entitled to vote, which equated to 15,840,739 affirmative votes. At the Special Meeting, the Classified Board Amendment only received 15,424,979 affirmative votes, well short of the amount required for approval. Nonetheless, the Company unlawfully deemed the Classified Board Amendment approved, and implemented the Amendment by filing a Certificate of Amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State on November 19, 2025. Then the Company immediately divided its Board into three classes, and sought the election of just one class of directors at the Company's 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on December 30, 2025, says the suit. On November 21, 2025, two days after Streamex unlawfully effectuated the Classified Board Amendment, the Plaintiff sent a demand letter to the Board, explaining that the Amendment was not properly approved and demanding its invalidation. The Company never responded to the Demand Letter, necessitating the filing of this lawsuit. Streamex Corp. is a Winter Park, Florida-based technology firm focused on tokenizing real-world commodities (gold, silver) onto the blockchain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Stephen C. Childs, Esq. PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP 600 Mamaroneck Ave., Suite 400 Harrison, NY 10528 Telephone: (212) 725-1000 SUNNYLIFE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blinds, See Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sunnylife, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00169-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 27, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.sunnylife.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Plaintiff See is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. He uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to individuals who meet the legal definition of blindness, in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some individuals who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. 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 Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Sunnylife, LLC operates the website that provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, and other programs.[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 SUNPATH LTD: Parties Directed to Engage in Mediation ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales, et al., v. Sunpath Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01376 (D. Del., Filed Oct. 09, 2020), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order that the parties shall jointly hire an agreed-upon mediator and shall engage in mediation in good faith. The parties shall file a joint status report advising as to the status of the scheduling of mediation on or before Feb. 12, 2026, the Court says. On Nov. 21, 2025, the parties advised that Plaintiffs would be seeking interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has now denied Plaintiffs' Petition for Leave to Appeal (Case No. 25-8038 D.I. 17). The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). SunPath Ltd. (often referenced in relation to SunPath Funding) is a Braintree, Massachusetts-based company established in 2012 that functions as a vehicle service contract administrator.[CC] TAKUMI STAMPING: Ulloa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ulloa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TAKUMI STAMPING, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00042-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 15, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to Plaintiff employed by Defendants; for unpaid wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the OPPA; for compensatory and punitive damages and for unjust enrichment. The Defendant violated federal and state law by failing to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, including time and one-half for all of her hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendant improperly failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him for all hours worked. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay its hourly employees for all hours worked and/or overtime wages earned, in violation of the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were/sare deprived of wages and other damages due to them under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendants from April 11, 2024, through August 8, 2025. Takumi Stamping, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of small stamped steel components and assemblies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Corey Asay, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 318-4496 Email: casay@hkm.com TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his application to redact portions of his motion for class certification and file portions of supporting evidence under seal. The Plaintiff seeks to seal exhibits that contain personally identifying information of non-parties and confidential commercial information, including proprietary survey methodology and non-public technical information regarding website accessibility testing. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect categories of information that courts routinely permit to be sealed. The Defendant's counsel advised that the Defendant opposes this Application. Tapestry is a multinational fashion holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KdOtQs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com cbowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com TAPESTRY INC: Merrell Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 30, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will move for an order granting class certification, on the grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied. The Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes: Nationwide Class "All legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen-reading software from January 2022 up to and including final judgment in this action." California Subclass "All California residents who are legally blind, including those who use screen readers, who, between Jan. 1, 2022 and July 31, 2023, visited coach.com using a screen reader and tried to interact with store‑linked website functionality that provides store‑specific information or initiates, modifies, or completes in‑person transactions or services at Coach physical stores." Tapestry is a multinational fashion holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=urcogH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com cbowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com TDS MANAGEMENT ZIMBA: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TDS MANAGEMENT ZIMBA, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00353 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought against the Defendant (or "Dose Daily"), for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://shopzimba.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. TDS MANAGEMENT ZIMBA, LLC, operates the Shop Zimba online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal THREE BULLS: Musacchia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage ---------------------------------------------------- Daniel Musacchia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THREE BULLS, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:26-cv-00056 (M.D.N.C., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for violations of the minimum wage and retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and the wage deduction provisions of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (the "NCWHA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees were not compensated at the applicable federal or state minimum wage. The Plaintiff's and the putative Collective Action Members' tips have also been misappropriated by Defendant because of their wage violations. The Defendant knows or should have known that their policies and/or practices violate the FLSA and Defendant has not made a good faith effort to comply with the FLSA. Rather, Defendant knowingly, willfully, and/or with reckless disregard of the law carried and continue to carry out their illegal pattern and/or practice regarding their tipped employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Server from November of 2023 until March of 2024. The Defendant, in the ordinary course of business, maintains a website at https://www.threebullssteakhouse.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob J. Modla, Esq. CROMER BABB AND PORTER, LLC 1418 Laurel Street, Suite A (29201) PO Box 11675 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: 803-799-9530 Email: jake@cromerbabb.com TIREHUB LLC: Nelson Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case KRIS NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIREHUB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01529219-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Dec. 1, 2025) was removed from Orange County Superior Court of the State of California to the United States District Court Central District Of California on Jan. 26, 2036. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00190 to the proceedings. The complaint alleges the following causes of action failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide paid rest breaks and pay missed rest break premiums, and failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums. TireHub is a national wholesale tire distributor. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Penny Chen Fox, Esq. Zain Zubair, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552 5000 Facsimile: (310) 552 5001 E-mail: penny.fox@klgates.com zain.zubair@klgates.com TOMOCREDIT INC: Geagley Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM GEAGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOMOCREDIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00435-SK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2026) alleges violation of the California Automatic Renewal Law; Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law Business and Professions Code; and Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, TomoCredit operates a website, www.TomoCredit.com and www.TomoBoost.com, on which it markets, advertises, and sells a product called TomoBoost – a product and service that helps people build credit and build better credit. However, as a result of the Defendant's obstructive and non-functional cancellation process, Plaintiff was deprived of a simple, cost-effective, and timely means of cancelling his automatic renewal subscription. The Plaintiff was charged for one month of TomoBoost service. Had Plaintiff known prior to enrollment that the TomoBoost credit boosting service would not work as represented and would not provide a meaningful or measurable improvement to his credit score, Plaintiff would not have subscribed to TomoBoost or authorized recurring charges. Had the Plaintiff known prior to enrollment that Defendant's cancellation process would be ineffective, obstructive, or non-functional, Plaintiff would not have subscribed to TomoBoost or authorized recurring charges. Defendant did not clearly and conspicuously disclose, prior to Plaintiff's purchase, that cancellation would be difficult, delayed, or require extraordinary steps to stop recurring charges, says the suit. TomoCredit Inc. develops a financial platform. The Company offers AI platform tools that delivers and disputes financial credit loans score with tracking subscriptions and instant personalized answers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plz. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (314) 662-2836 Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - Joseph Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 9210 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Cheese Products Contains Metal, Crow Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY CROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC; and GREAT LAKES CHEESE CO. INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00429 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 14, 2026) alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in deceptive and misleading practices of the Defendants with respect to the manufacturing, marketing and sale of Defendants' Shredded Cheese products for personal or household use throughout the state of Illinois and throughout the country. The Defendants have improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products may contain metal, says the suit. Topco Associates, LLC operates as a strategic sourcing company. The Company provides procurement, quality assurance, packaging, and other services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY 979 Green Bay Rd. Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@brysonpllc.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com TRANSUNION LLC: Butler Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Butler, individually and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00365 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in August 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant recently experienced a cyber incident involving a third-party application serving its U.S. consumer support operations.2 The unauthorized access resulted in the exposure of consumers Private Information. Upon information and belief, the following types of Private Information may have been impacted as a result of the Data Breach: names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and addresses. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a global credit reporting agency, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon Kevin M. Cox THE LYON FIRM. ALC 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com kcox@thelyonfirm.com TRANSUNION LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Christopher Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FONDTINA CHRISTOPHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00388 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2026) is class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in August 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. Trans Union LLC operates as a global information and insights company. The Company offers various credit monitoring, risk management, marketing, and other related solutions. Trans Union serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Britany Kabakov, Esq. Lucas Coughlin, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com britany@almeidalawgroup.com luke@almeidalawgroup.com TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS: Justice Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Keven Justice, Ashley Justice, Thomas Evans, Betty Evans, Vickie Hamilton Downs, William Wolford, Kcathy Wolford, and Donald Lewis, each individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated victims v. TRANSWOOD LOGISTICS, INC., and HAROLD DAVID CASTO, Case No. 25-C-1446 was removed from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Jan. 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00029. The Plaintiffs allege that they bring a class action against Defendants for the alleged improper recording of Plaintiffs and their conversations while some plaintiffs worked as CDL drivers for TransWood. The Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for invasion of privacy, violation of the West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew F. Maunz, Esq. Chandler L. Cleveland, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 232-0404 Email: andrew.maunz@jacksonlewis.com chandler.cleveland@jacksonlewis.com TRINITY SERVICES GROUP: Cruz Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Marvell Hill, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation; KEEFE GROUP, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company; TKC HOLDINGS, INC., an unknown business entity; COURTESY PRODUCTS, L.L.C., a Missouri limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG05247 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00315-HBK. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 10 causes of action for: violation of California Labor Codes and violation of California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff's second cause of action alleges that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members with legally compliant meal periods. The Plaintiff's third cause of action alleges that Defendants failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to take legally compliant rest breaks. The Plaintiff's fourth cause of action alleges Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked. The Plaintiff's fifth cause of action alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class members who are no longer employed by Defendants compensation due upon termination. The Plaintiff's seventh cause of action alleges that Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members with accurate wage statements in compliance with Labor Code. The Plaintiff's ninth cause of action alleges that Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for necessary business related expenses in compliance with Labor Code .[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Hazel U. Poei, Esq. Sheereen Javadizadeh, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com sheereen.javadizadeh@jacksonlewis.com - and - Yvonne Arvanitis-Fossati, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: yvonne.fossati@jacksonlewis.com TRULY CLEAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- LUZ ELENA CHITAS RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRULY CLEAN LLC; AFFINITY WINDOW CLEANING LLC; and ELIO M. FLORO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00235 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a washer. Truly Clean LLC offers cleaning services for offices and commercial buildings, assisting clients in maintaining spotless commercial properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TWO JINN: Lowe Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KELLI LOWE and HEIDI MEREDITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWO JINN, INC. d/b/a ALLADIN BAIL BONDS, a California corporation, Case No. 25-2-38050-5 KNT (Filed Dec. 17, 2026), was removed from the Washigton Superior Court for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 27, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00306 to the proceedings. The Plaintiffs, former employees of Defendant, on behalf of themselves and other putative class members, allege that Defendant violated Washington State wage and hour laws, including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay regular and overtime hours worked. The Defendant provides consulting services. The Company offers bail bond, payment options, and other legal services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Eric R. Nusser, Esq. Eden B. Nordby, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 1015 Second Avenue, 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98104-1001 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com eric@terrellmarhsall.com enordby@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily J. Harris, Esq. Kristen F. Barnhart, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Avenue | Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 625-8600 Facsimile: (206) 625-0900 E-mail: eharris@corrcronin.com kbarnhart@corrcronin.com UNITED STATES: Bourque Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE BOURQUE, RENEE BAUTISTA, MELISSA MIRABELLO, RON POZNANSKY, and JAMES WOODMANSEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated¸ v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order re: requests for production nos. 26-27 and class certification and order: Accordingly, the Defendants will not rely on Plaintiffs' lack of the information requested by RFPs No. 26 and 27 for purposes of opposing class certification. Should the Court certify a class or one or more subclasses, the Defendants will produce the information requested by RFPs No. 26 and 27 to the extent necessary to provide class notice and/or to facilitate a claims submission process. Such production will be limited to members of a designated class or subclass and will only occur following an appropriate Court order consistent with the Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs in this case seek to certify a class consisting of: "All individuals who paid the $60 expedited passport fee (EPF) since Oct. 4, 2018, and have not, to date, received a refund of that fee." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wcEj6G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Madelyn Petersen, Esq. Rachael Flanagan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC  1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005  Telephone: (202) 408-4600  Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com  mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com  rflanagan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Charles Reichmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN  16 Yale Circle  Kensington, CA 94708-1015  Telephone: (415) 373-8849  E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com  Mariel LaSasso, Esq. LASASSO LAW GROUP PLLC 30 Wall St., Eighth Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 421-6000 E-mail: mariel@lasassolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jessica Lundberg, Esq. Kathryn Wyer, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-1865 Facsimile: (202) 514-8640 E-mail: jessica.a.lundberg@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Detention Conditions ----------------------------------------------------------------- L.T., SEVAK MESROBIAN, JOSE MAURO SALAZAR GARZA, AND J.M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS, Plaintiffs v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; JAIME RIOS, Acting Director of Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 5:26-cv-00322 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2026) seeks to end the inhumane and illegal conditions faced by immigrants detained at Adelanto ICE Processing Center, one of the largest immigration detention centers in the United States. Since the federal government launched its sweeping dragnet of immigration raids in the Central District of California, it has apprehended thousands of people and detained them for days, weeks, or months in inhumane conditions. Individuals are often first taken to a temporary holding facility in downtown Los Angeles and then transported to a for-profit detention complex in the middle of the Mojave Desert where they are mistreated and denied basic human dignity. At the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, detained individuals face dangerous conditions and pervasive abuses -- disease and illness are rampant, mold grows on the walls, and detained individuals are denied sufficient food, clean drinking water, proper medical care, and disability accommodations, the lawsuit says. Adelanto is a detention complex located in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County. The compound is owned by one of the largest for-profit prison and detention companies in the U.S., GEO. The Defendant ICE contracts with GEO to run Adelanto and detain immigrants there. CHIRLA is a nonprofit organization with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. ICE is a component agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvaro M. Huerta, Esq. Alison Steffel, Esq. Carson Adrianna Scott, Esq. MMIGRANT DEFENDERS LAW CENTER 634 S. Spring St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 634-0999 E-mail: ahuerta@immdef.org asteffel@immdef.org cscott@immdef.org - and - Adam Reese, Esq. Carl Bergquist, Esq. COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 2351 Hempstead Road Ottawa Hills, OH 43606 Telephone: (310) -279-6025 E-mail: cbergquist@chirla.org areese@chirla.org - and - Nicholas Reddick, Esq. Alyxandra Vernon, Esq. Jacob Karim, Esq. WILKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 333 Bush St., 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 858-7400 E-mail: nreddick@willkie.com avernon@willkie.com jkarim@willkie.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Neblock Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Neblock and Antonyo Wyche, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00261-DWL (D. Ariz., January 14, 2026) is a class action against the University of Phoenix for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated person's name and Social Security number from hackers. On December 22, 2025, University of Phoenix filed an official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. The University of Phoenix's investigation revealed that between August 13, 2025, and August 22, 2025, an unauthorized party had access to certain company files containing the Private Information that University of Phoenix stored on behalf of its students. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of University of Phoenix's negligent conduct as the private information that University of Phoenix collected and maintained on behalf of its students is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach, says the suit. University of Phoenix, based in Phoenix, Arizona, is an online institution of higher education that serves thousands of students nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert T. Mills, Esq. Sean A. Woods, Esq. MILLS + WOODS LAW, PLLC 5055 North 12th Street, Suite 101 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (480) 999-4556 E-mail: docket@millsandwoods.com swoods@millsandwoods.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Ste. 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com VIRGINIA: Faces Class Suit Over Discrimination Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- LUCINDA LC and JUNE WHEATLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JAY JONES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00252 (E.D. Va., Jan. 27, 2026) claims for injunctive and declaratory relief based on violations of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff Wheatley, a dedicated VA-licensed real estate salesperson and manager of her family's rental properties, owned by Plaintiff Lucinda LC for the benefit of her aging father, has long strived to provide safe, affordable homes for hardworking tenants. But when a mercenary "tester" from an activist organization posed as a prospective renter only to ensnare her in a discrimination complaint for politely declining federal Section 8 vouchers -- a voluntary program under federal law -- Wheatley found herself thrust into a nightmarish battle against abusers of Virginia's Fair Housing Law. At stake are her family's finances, her real estate license, and her professional reputation. The Arlington, Virginia, Public Housing Authority (where Plaintiffs' rental properties are located) participates in the Section 8 program and administers vouchers under its local HCV program. Eligible tenants rent apartments on the private market using HCVs as payment, which have a capped dollar amount based on factors like the apartment's location and comparable rents in the area. Section 8 tenants can rent in excess of the HCV's capped dollar amount, but they cannot exceed 40 percent of monthly adjusted "income" on rent. When a prospective Section 8 tenant finds an Arlington apartment they'd like to rent, the landlord then signs a lease agreement with the tenant and a HAP agreement with the Arlington PHA. On June 10, 2025, Plaintiff Wheatley was contacted by Kenyon Cavendar, a housing "tester" from the non-profit Housing Rights Initiative. HRI, like similar organizations, has activists pose as prospective renters and call available properties to see if their management/rental teams will accept a renter based on certain legally protected characteristics, and then brings litigation that it finds to be financially lucrative. The Defendants include KEMPER FUNKHOUSER, CAVELLE MOLLINEAUX, JEREMY DALPIAZ, AEKTA CHAWLA, RENE FONSECA, PIERI BURTON, BERNICE TRAVERS, RAJESH PATEL, and KIT HALE, in their official capacities as Members of the Virginia Real Estate Board, and BARRY MOORE, BRIAN REAGAN, MORTON MARKS III, AMANDA BUYALOS, ANGELA WEST, STANLEY REID, SHION FENTY, STUART GILCHRIST, JAY SOM, STEVEN RIVERA, JOHN SCOTT and ANGELO PHILLOS, in their official capacities as Members of the Virginia Fair Housing Board, and ANIKA COLEMAN, in her official capacity as Executive Director of both the Virginia Fair Housing Board (VFHB) and the Virginia Real Estate Board (VREB).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerome P. Friedlander, II, Esq. FRIEDLANDER AND FRIEDLANDER PC 1364 Beverly Road, Suite 101 McClean, VA 22101 Telephone: (703) 893-9600 Facsimile: (703) 893-9650 E-mail: jpfriedlander@friedlanderpc.com - and - Theodore H. Frank, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (703) 203-3848 E-mail: ted.frank@hlli.org - and - Max A. Schreiber, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 5868 E. 71st Street, Suite E709 Indianapolis, IN 46220 Telephone: (401) 408-9370 E-mail: max.schreiber@hlli.org VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS: Eller Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAN ELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.; SHAWN K. SINGH; and JOSHUA PRINCE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00427 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2026) is an action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Vistagen common stock between April 1, 2024 and December 16, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on December 17, 2025, when Vistagen issued a press release announcing that the PALISADE-3 Phase 3 study of intranasal fasedienol for the acute treatment of social anxiety disorder did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement on the primary endpoint of change on the Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS). In pertinent part, the Defendants announced the trial did not achieve its primary endpoint and there was no treatment difference between fasedienol and placebo for the secondary endpoints. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Vistagen's revelation. The price of Vistagen's common stock declined dramatically from a closing market of $4.36 per share on December 16, 2025 to $0.86 per share on December 17, 2025, a decline of more than 80%, the suit asserts. Vistagen Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company develops medications for patients with diseases and disorders involving the central nervous system. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Email: aapton@zlk.com WFS EXPRESS INC: Foster Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shawanda Foster and Cory Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WFS EXPRESS, INC. a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25-2-38078-5 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00141. The Complaint purports to state causes of action for: Violations of RCW 49.12 et. seq. and WAC 296-126-092 (Failure to Compensate for Noncompliant Meal and Rest Periods); Violations of RCW 49.46 et. seq. (Failure to Compensate for Off-the-Clock Work); Violations of RCW 49.46.130 (Failure to Pay Overtime).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory Hendershott, Esq. Matthew J. Macario, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-2308 Email: ghendershott@fisherphillips.com mmacario@fisherphillips.com WU'S HOUSE INC: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Youngren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wu's House, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00379 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://wushouse.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services the 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 the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to explore a wide variety of Japanese and Asian cuisine, including sushi, sashimi, hibachi, noodles, fried rice, appetizers, and drinks, offering online ordering and private hibachi experiences for events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law YESCARE CORP: Class Cert Hearing in Darpoh Suit Set for March 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRIETTA DARPOH, et al., v. YESCARE CORP., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00072-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam B. Abelson entered an order setting a hearing on Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 10:00 A.M. ET in Courtroom 7D of the Edward A. Garmatz United States Courthouse, 101 W Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. YesCare is a correctional healthcare provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OP1MZS at no extra charge.[CC] ZNERGEN OPERATING: Zepeda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Vidal Zepeda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZNERGEN OPERATING LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00023-H (N.D. Tex., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek while working for Defendant paid on a hourly basis. The Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly rate of approximately $25.00 per hour for all hours worked irrespective of whether Plaintiff had already worked 40 hours in a workweek. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each and every workweek. the Plaintiff was entitled to overtime premium pay for all weeks in which he worked overtime, which occurred frequently as Plaintiff often worked a schedule of at least 100 hours of work per week on average, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a truck driver in connection with Defendant's wastewater hauling business operations from March through August of 2024. The Defendant is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***