260203.mbx

260203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 3, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 24 Headlines 168-170 SOUTH CLINTON: Jean Failures to Maintain Residential Unit 2900 WILSHIRE LLC: Park Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. 3750 BROADWAY BCR: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York A SUB ABOVE LLC: Prieto Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ABBOTT DIABETES CARE: Shroff Files Suit in N.D. California ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Time to File Memo in Opposition Extended ACCELLION INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule in Brown ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Hollins Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York ADAMS MANUFACTURING: Recalls Patio Chairs Due to Safety Hazards ADOREME INC: Upton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging AMARAMEDICAL HEALTH: Backscheider Sues Over Unpaid Overtime AMERICAN AIRLINES: Greve Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois AMERICAN DREAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Robocalls AMERICAN ECONOMY: Wins Summary Judgment in "Stanley" ANYTIME TOWING: Court Dismisses "Moore" Minimum Wage Claim APPLE INC: Fisher Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ASSOCIATED RADIOLOGISTS: Myers Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. AT AND T: Class Certification Order Entered in Sample Lawsuit AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Nannery Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging BARIC HARBORVIEW: Green Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BATON CORP: Judge Denies Motion for Sanctions in "Aguilar" BDB CALIFORNIA: Reyes-Perez Suit Removed to S.D. California BEIS LLC: Huong Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BEIS LLC: Pou Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BETTERMENT LLC: Goehst Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information BETTERMENT: Huff Files Suit in S.D. New York BH NBV NORTH OWNER: Wohlstein Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BQ EXPRESS INC: Mathews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BRIDGE IT INC: Waller Files Suit in N.D. Georgia BURNT FINGER: Fagnani Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website C.S.I. PATROL SERVICE: Lang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA ENERGY: Abitbol Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CALIFORNIA LOCAL LLC: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAMELBACK ADMINISTRATIVE: Whittington Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah CAN I HAVE MONEY: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CAPITAL RUBBER & GASKET: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAREMERIDIAN LLC: Scriven-Dixon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARES COMMUNITY HEALTH: Carucci Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CERNER CORPORATION: Peterson Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHARLIE FOX: Sanders Files Suit in S.D. Indiana CHECKR INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Misreported Criminal Records CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Feds End Effort to Get Trans Patients' Records CIRCLE K: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hughes Suit Due April 27 CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Zahn Says CLEAN PEOPLE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges CONAIR LLC: Must File Class Cert Opposition in McCabe by March 12 CONSTELLIS LLC: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California CORSAIR MEMORY INC: Vazquez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California COVE RISK: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Information, Casper Says COVENANT HEALTH INC: Chuba Files Suit in D. Massachusetts COVENANT HEALTH INC: Hall Files Suit in D. Massachusetts COVENANT HEALTH INC: Walder Files Suit in D. Massachusetts CROWDVEST LLC: Shammam Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CSP-PERMIAN: Carlos Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages CVS HEALTH: Mitchell Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Louisiana DAMERON HOSPITAL: Nieves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DANUBENET INC: Fernandez Files Suit in D. New Jersey DASHING DIVA: Tesch Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DIN TAI FUNG (ANAHEIM): Bravo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DIRECT FUNDING NOW: Cordero Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida DOMINIQUE MANAGEMENT: Nicholson Sues Over to Recover Minimum Wage DOT FOODS INC: Diop Files Suit in C.D. Illinois DR BROWN'S: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Alleges DUKE UNIVERSITY: Court Awards $775K Attorneys' Fees in "Franklin" EASTERN METAL RECYCLING: Heaney Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ELLAFI FEDERAL: Members File Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach EMERITUS CORPORATION: Adame Suit Removed to N.D. California EMM LOANS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lehrbach Due March 13 FADA GROUP: Class Cert Bid Replies Due Feb. 17 in Yan Lawsuit FAMILY CENTERS: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Chiaramonte Says FANDOM INC: Agrees to Settle GameSpot Privacy Suit for $1.2-Mil. FCA US: Faces Class Action Over 2025 Data Breach FEDERAL EXPRESS: Carson Suit Removed to C.D. California FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS: McNutt Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi FLAWLESS NATURALS: Stupar Suit Removed to C.D. California FLOOR & DECOR OUTLETS: Aleman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FREEDOM DEBT: Hanson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls GAMESTOP: Wilder Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Deceptive Advertising GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Chung Suit Removed to W.D. Washington GATEWAY FIRST BANK: Jones Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Harrison Due June 25 GENWORTH LIFE: Class Certification Bid Filing in Fox Due April 27 GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Bid for Class Certification Tossed GR. JANUARY CORP: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages GRANITE WELLNESS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $725,000 GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Booth Sues Over Data Security Incident GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Canejo Says HARD ROCK: Mondragon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HEWITT'S GARDEN CENTERS: Marx Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime HFS FINANCIAL: Bradford Sues Over Unlawful Credit Denial HILTON WORLDWIDE: Ferrer Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia HITACHI RAIL: Court OKs Bid for Protective Order in "Turgut" HOLLEY INC: Fort Lauderdale Employees Seek to Certify Class Action HOME SERVICE: Must File Class Cert Response in Gomez by Feb. 6 HUEL INC: Vasquez Sues Over Deceptive and Unlawful Surveillance HURSH GROUP LLC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Osborne Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida INSURIT LLC: Dinh Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval INTERO GROUP: King Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation IRON RAMEN USA: Meza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages IVANA'S COFFEE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages J.M. SMUCKER: Humphrey Wins Class Cert Bid JAMES MACKAY: Sutter Securities Suit Removed to S.D. New York JAY'S SPANISH: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages JOHN O'BANNON: King Wins Bid for Class Certification KB CUSTOM: Delgado Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification KC LUCKY BASTARD: Chaffin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages KIND LLC: Burnett Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Advertising KUREHA ENERGY: Rich Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LAKESIDE TITLE: Eisenhardt Files Suit Over Data Breach LAURA HERMOSILLO: Court Grants Relief in Immigration Case LENS CENTER: Yuventina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ward Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes LIFE SURGE: Dessauer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation LIMBLE SOLUTIONS: Touani Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation LPA-NEVADA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Desai Suit Due Dec. 21 LYFT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Priority Pickup Option MAO IZAKAYA: Lowe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Bellissimo Sues Over Inadequately Storing of PII MARYLAND EYE CARE CENTER: Neher Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland MATTHEW MORRISON BATES: Klingler Files Suit in D. Utah MDL 2873: Two AFFFs Product Liability Suits Transferred to D.S.C. MDL 3010: Three Digital Ads Antitrust Row Transferred to S.D. N.Y. MDL 3108: Two Data Breach Litigations Transferred to D. Minn. MDL 3114: McDiarmid v. AT&T Transferred to N.D. Tex. MELINDA EDDY: Burnside Loses Class Cert Bid MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property MIDLAND NATIONAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition MIELLE ORGANICS: Knowles Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MONROE UNIVERSITY LTD.: Shor Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MONROE UNIVERSITY: Rivera Files Suit in S.D. New York MONSANTO COMPANY: Ahern Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Ash Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Brousseau Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Wins Bid for Class Certification NEWELL BRANDS INC: Corbett Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NEWELL BRANDS INC: Elwood Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NEWELL BRANDS INC: Martin Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NEWREZ LLC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Hodges' HELOC Suit NOON DELIVERY SERVICES: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORLITE LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition NURA PLLC: Neitzel Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. OBSIDIAN DEVELOPMENT: Mcfarland Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Denisenko Files Suit Over Data Breach PENNEY OPCO LLC: Pou Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida PET FOOD EXPERTS: Ballah Suit Removed to W.D. Washington POWERPRO SERVICE CO: Such Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. PRODIGY INSURANCE: Dungey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida RENAISSANCE OF RICHFIELD: May Sues Over Unpaid Wages ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over RESPA Violations ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Inflating Home Practices ROCKET MORTGAGE: Unlawfully Discloses Sensitive Info, Fedoroff Says ROXUL USA INC: Pittman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SAI ORAL SURGERY: Putnam Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. SAINT GORGE: Owner Pleads Guilty in $54-MM Radiology Fraud Scheme SAPUTO CHEESE USA: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California SEAL SKIN: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertises Discounts SENIORS IN SERVICE: Higgins Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay SENTRY INSURANCE: Fashion Nova Sues Over Unfair Business Practices SKYWATER TECHNOLOGY: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to IonQ, Inc. SLT LENDING: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SNAP INC: Settles Social Media Mental Health Suit in Calif. Super. SONY CORPORATION: Rudnick Files Suit in S.D. California SONY ELECTRONICS INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ST. JOHN'S RIVERSIDE: Singleton Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. STEVE REAMS: Otto Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Klein Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois SVP SEWING BRANDS: Benson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan T-MOBILE USA INC: Burrise Suit Transferred to E.D. California TAXITY LLC: Abitbol Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California THURSDAY BOOT: Court Narrows Claims in "DeMarco" Suit TRANSUNION LLC: Moore Files Suit in N.D. Illinois TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION: Inguil Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. TRUIST FINANCIAL: Jarrell Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida UNITED SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Late Fees Class Action for $5MM VILLAGE OF FREEPORT ASSESSORS: Penguin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. VITAC CORP: Class Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Initial Nod VOLODIMIR NIKITYUK: Jiminez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. W&N-1 LLC: McShall Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. WEX HEALTH INC: Ashley Suit Removed to S.D. California WHLR-SUNSHINE SHOPPING: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property WILLIAM C. SMITH: Smith Files Suit in D. Columbia WILLIAM C: Bobo Sues for Breach of Duty to Protect Personal Info WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Filing for FLSA Conditional Cert. Due April 3 WORKDAY INC: Class Cert Bid in Mobley Suit Due July 16 WORLDREMIT CORP: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Egahi" ZEALTHY INC: Henderlight Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ********* 168-170 SOUTH CLINTON: Jean Failures to Maintain Residential Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gena N. Jean, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. 168-170 SOUTH CLINTON, LLC; WEST OF HUDSON PROPERTIES, LLC; AMIR BEN-YOHANAN; ABC CORPS. 1 to 10; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10; Case No. ESX-L-009698-25 (N.J. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Dec. 22, 2025), is brought arising from injuries sustained by Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ negligence and repeated failures to maintain a residential unit and apartment building in a habitable state after being noticed of unsafe and hazardous conditions, as well as Defendants’ pattern of fraudulent and retaliatory actions against Plaintiff, in violation of the New Jersey State Housing Code (“NJSHC”), New Jersey State Public Health Regulations (“NJPHR”), the Code of the City of East Orange (“CCEO”), the implied warranty of habitability, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), the New Jersey Rent Security Deposit Act (“RSDA”) and common law. The Defendants rented the Apartment to Plaintiff and continued to demand and accept payment under the lease agreement, despite the Apartment’s dilapidated, hazardous, and uninhabitable condition. The Plaintiff repeatedly noticed Defendants of the defects and required repairs; however, Defendants often failed to effect repairs within a reasonable time or provided meager cosmetic repairs that failed to mitigate the hazardous conditions. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of the implied warranty of habitability and Plaintiff’s constructive eviction, Plaintiff is entitled to set off/abatement in the amount of all rent payments made to Defendants since January of 2024. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to damages compensating her for the destruction and/or damage to her personal property, and all expenses arising therefrom, due to Defendants’ unlawful acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement with the Defendants to rent Unit B8 at the Property on December 22, 2023. South Clinton is a New Jersey limited liability company that owns the residential property located in East Orange, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Jack W. Groshen, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone & Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com jgroshen@kimlf.com 2900 WILSHIRE LLC: Park Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2900 WILSHIRE, LLC. The case is styled as Ye Eun Park, Mignon Ngai Man Xu, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 2900 WILSHIRE, LLC, Case No. 25STCV37791 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." 2900 WILSHIRE, LLC is an apartment tower ready for move-ins in Koreatown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Shakouri, Esq. GOODKIN LAW GROUP, APC 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1420 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4143 Phone: 310-552-3322 Fax: 310-943-1589 Email: mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com 3750 BROADWAY BCR: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3750 Broadway BCR, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kimmarie Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3750 Broadway BCR, LLC doing business as Bo's Bagels, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00357-RA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3750 Broadway BCR, LLC doing business as Bo's Bagels -- https://bosbagels.com/ -- offers a genuine taste of NYC with their freshly baked bagels and bialys, prepared daily to satisfy your carbohydrate cravings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Phone: (516) 783-9662 Fax: (646) 435-4376 Email: james@civilrightsny.com A SUB ABOVE LLC: Prieto Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Sub Above LLC. The case is styled as Gerardo Prieto, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. A Sub Above LLC doing business as: Jersey Mike's Subs, Case No. 2:26-cv-00377-RAO (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. A Sub Above, LLC doing business as Jersey Mike's Subs -- https://www.jerseymikes.com/ -- is an American multinational submarine sandwich chain headquartered in Manasquan, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com ABBOTT DIABETES CARE: Shroff Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., et als. The case is styled as Bijoy Shroff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 3:26-cv-00351 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Abbott's Diabetes Care -- https://www.diabetescare.abbott/index.html -- is continually developing new and innovative products to reduce the discomfort and inconvenience of blood glucose testing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (626) 550-1250 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: ekim@lcllp.com ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Time to File Memo in Opposition Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glenn v. Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00198 (M.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order granting the Defendants' second unopposed motion for extension of time to file memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on or before Feb. 2, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The Defendant is a debt buyer.[CC] ACCELLION INC: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule in Brown -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Davila entered 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. 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 is a technology company that develops and markets software products for securely transferring sensitive files and data. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BeEvgy 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 ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Hollins Files FCRA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accurate Background, LLC. The case is styled as Tamie Hollins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accurate Background, LLC, Case No. 7:26-cv-00423 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accurate -- https://www.accurate.com/ -- is the largest privately held, minority-owned global provider of employment background screening services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ADAMS MANUFACTURING: Recalls Patio Chairs Due to Safety Hazards --------------------------------------------------------------- Adams Manufacturing is recalling about 6,100 Adams RealComfort and StyleWell Adirondack Patio Chairs. Why: The chairs can crack and collapse, posing injury and fall hazards. Where: The recall is effective in the United States. Adams Manufacturing is recalling approximately 6,100 Adirondack-style patio chairs due to potential safety risks. The chairs, sold under the Adams RealComfort and StyleWell brands, may crack and collapse, leading to possible injuries. The recall, announced on Jan. 15, involves resin chairs with slat backs and seats available in various colors, including blue, dark gray, navy blue, taupe, light blue, lime green and teal. These chairs, marked with "ML837-15" and a manufacture date of August 2025, were sold at Lowe's and The Home Depot stores nationwide from August 2025 through October 2025 for about $25. According to the recall notice, the chairs' structural integrity is compromised, which can lead to unexpected collapses. "The recalled chairs can crack and collapse, posing injury and fall hazards," the recall says. Consumers advised to stop using recalled Adirondack patio chairs Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the Adirondack patio chairs and to be vigilant for any signs of cracking or instability in the chairs. They can return the patio chairs to any Lowe's or Home Depot store for a full refund or discard the items. The chairs were manufactured by Adams Manufacturing Corp., based in Portersville, Pennsylvania, and were produced in the United States. For more information about the recall, consumers can contact Adams Manufacturing toll-free at (866) 546-1806 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Additional details are available on their website at www.adamsmfg.com/recalls. Adams Manufacturing says it has not received any reports of injury related to the recall so far. The company is not currently facing legal action over the recall, but Top Class Actions follows recalls closely as they sometimes lead to class action lawsuits. [GN] ADOREME INC: Upton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ------------------------------------------------------- Melinda Upton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADOREME, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00468-JLR (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who received multiple text messages from the Defendant. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation whose principal office is located in the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. New York Bar No. 4995130 156W56th St #902 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 101 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com AMARAMEDICAL HEALTH: Backscheider Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Backscheider, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMARAMEDICAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00054-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 2026), is brought to challenge policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), for failure to timely pay employees for all compensable work, including unpaid overtime. The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees routinely worked more than 40 hours per workweek. Because Defendant failed to compensate for all hours actually worked, including off-the-clock intra-day travel and work-related tasks. The time reflected in payroll records often appeared to total only 40 hours, concealing the fact that additional compensable time had been worked. The Defendant kept records of hours worked or otherwise had the ability to accurately track hours worked through Defendant's hardware, software, and/or systems, by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. However, because of Defendant's policies, Defendant failed to accurately track, keep, or transmit the hours worked each day by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The Defendant willfully and intentionally did not correctly record and pay all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and violated the FLSA's recordkeeping requirements. As a result, Defendant intentionally failed to accurately record and compensate the Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including their job-to-job travel, which resulted in Defendant not paying for all overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee in 2020 to 2021, and then again for 6 to 12 months in 2023 and 2024. The Defendant provides home health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Adam M. Lubow, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com alubow@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Greve Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Nicholas Greve and Jeffrey Nissen, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 2025CH12227 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00626. The Plaintiffs claim that American "caused them to work more than 40 hours per week without proper overtime compensation" under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar Danielle M. Sweet, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Ste. 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com dsweet@stephanzouras.com - and - David R. Markham, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul Bateman, Esq. Yara Mroueh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 795-3263 Email: pbateman@littler.com ymroueh@littler.com - and - Mark W. Robertson, Esq. Charles J. Mahoney, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 326-2059 Facsimile: (212) 326-2226 Email: mrobertson@omm.com cmahoney@omm.com AMERICAN DREAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Robocalls --------------------------------------------------------- Anthony G. Attrino of NJ.com reports that a woman in the Midwest has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against a New Jersey-based business, claiming she received multiple unwanted AI robocalls offering to sell her an extended vehicle warranty. Stacy Lea Borden, of Wichita, Kansas, states in court papers she received four unsolicited "artificial voice" calls from American Dream Auto Protect Inc. between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Dec. 29, 2025. Borden was called even though her cell number has been on the federal Do Not Call registry since March 6, 2025, according to the suit, filed Jan. 11 in U.S. District Court. Borden could tell the calls were delivered using an artificial voice because the speaking began "only after a noticeable delay and the voice sounded like an artificial voice attempting to trick the consumer," the complaint states. The lawsuit claims American Dream Auto Protect deployed a fully operational outbound dialer system that includes the "use of AI agents who have conversational capabilities." A representative of the business did not immediately respond to a call and email seeking comment. Borden says she received a voicemail from American Dream Auto Protect's Edison phone number on Dec. 29, 2025, asking, "Hi, is this Robert? This is American Dream Auto Protect." Borden does not know a person named "Robert," the suit states. The suit claims the company's robocall calls didn't stop even after Borden called the company and complained to a human, who allegedly became confrontational. "The employee argued, explaining that (American Dream Auto Protect) was calling Robert to sell him an extended vehicle warranty plan and that they were calling the correct number," the suit says. The lawsuit says the unauthorized calls have harmed Borden in the form of "annoyance, nuisance and invasion of privacy." They occupied her phone line and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone. The calls also "wasted" Borden's time, as she called the company back twice to ask for the calls to stop, the suit says. The suit alleges the business violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which allows consumers to receive up to $500 in damages each time they are called while on the registry. If a court finds that a company's misconduct was "willful and knowing," consumers on the registry can receive up to triple damages, the suit says, citing federal law. The lawsuit seeks class-action status, noting that there are "hundreds, if not thousands" of U.S. citizens receiving unwanted robocalls. Borden is also seeking an injunction requiring American Dream Auto Protect to stop making unsolicited calls. According to the complaint, the Federal Communications Commission has received an increasing number of complaints about unwanted calls. There were 150,000 complaints in 2016, 185,000 in 2017 and 232,000 complaints in 2018, according to the suit. More than 4.1 billion robocalls were placed in December 2025, at a rate of 132.6 million per day, according to lawsuit, which cites figures from the online robocall tracking service YouMail. [GN] AMERICAN ECONOMY: Wins Summary Judgment in "Stanley" ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Roy Stanley and Gail Stanley, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Economy Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10622-DJC (D. Mass.), Chief Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Stanleys own a residence in Texas that was insured by the Defendant. Their residence sustained damage for which they timely submitted an insurance claim. On October 28, 2022, the Defendant paid the Stanleys an actual cash value payment based upon an estimate prepared by a claims handler. Of the amount depreciated from their payments, the Defendant withheld $3,583.60 in estimated future repair labor. After receiving these payments, the Stanleys made repairs and requested the replacement cost value of their claim. On January 19, 2023, the Defendant issued the Stanleys a final payment. Upon careful examination, the court verifies the class action status as the Stanleys filed this lawsuit individually and on behalf of others similarly situated alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief,. To prove a breach of contract under Texas law, a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) the plaintiff performed; (3) the defendant breached or tendered performance as the contract required; and (4) the plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the breach. According to the court, the Stanleys allege the Defendant owed them a contractual duty to pay the actual cash value of their claims and breached this duty by withholding labor costs in the absence of an express permissive form. The court turns to whether the policy allows the Defendant to depreciate labor costs and finds the policy language is ambiguous as to whether deductions for wear and tear encompass labor. Therefore, the court affirms this ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured. The court concludes the policy did not permit the Defendant to depreciate labor costs, and hence the Stanleys established that the Defendant breached its contractual duty,. The court further examines whether the Stanleys sustained damages as a result of the breach. The Stanleys argue they incurred damages in the form of labor depreciation withheld plus interest. According to the court, the argument that the payment should first satisfy accrued prejudgment interest necessarily fails because there was no prejudgment interest to be satisfied in the absence of a judgment. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the Stanleys cannot use statutory damages available under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act to satisfy the damages element of their breach of contract claim. According to the Court, because the Stanleys do not allege any contractual damages aside from the depreciated labor costs which the Defendant repaid at the replacement cost stage, they have not met their burden. Accordingly, the breach of contract claim failed as a matter of law. Regarding the claim for declaratory relief, the Defendant argued the claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim. According to the court, a claim is duplicative where it relies upon the same facts and legal arguments and provides the plaintiff with no further remedy. Therefore, the court affirmed the legal and factual bases for the declaratory judgment claim are identical to the breach of contract claim. The court concluded that rendering a declaration would not be of any practical assistance where resolving the breach of contract claim settled the principal legal issue. Hence, the court declined to exercise its discretion to entertain the declaratory judgment claim. For these reasons, the court allowed the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated January 26 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e1uSzJ from PacerMonitor.com ANYTIME TOWING: Court Dismisses "Moore" Minimum Wage Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brian Moore, individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. Anytime Towing & Recovery, LLC, Defendant, No. 3:20-CV-540-TAV-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Thomas A. Varlan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on January 27, 2026. The Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's minimum wage claim but denied summary judgment on the overtime claim, which remains pending. Plaintiff brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at the required minimum wage and overtime rates. Defendant is a Department of Transportation (DOT) registered motor carrier engaged in vehicle towing and recovery services. Defendant employed Plaintiff as a tow truck driver from November 24, 2019, to February 29, 2020, and October 6, 2020, to November 24, 2020. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he and those similarly situated were not paid at least at the FLSA required minimum wage rate pay of $7.25 per hour and one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours over 40 per week. Plaintiff also pleaded that he and other similarly situated individuals drove snatch trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than five tons. Defendant contends that Plaintiff exclusively operated vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. Regarding the minimum wage claim, Defendant contends that, had it paid Plaintiff in strict compliance with the FLSA, Plaintiff would have earned $2,772.27; however, since Defendant pays tow truck operators on a commission basis, Plaintiff earned $6,477.97. The Court found that Plaintiff did not coherently describe his weekly work schedule such that a rational juror could find that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated. Although Plaintiff need not recall his schedule with perfect accuracy, Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find for him. The Court noted that Defendant provided evidence of a tow-book log showing that Defendant paid Plaintiff $6,477.97 during his employment, exceeding the amount of $2,772.27 required under strict FLSA compliance. Since Plaintiff has not met his burden and Defendant responded with evidence of FLSA-compliant compensation, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Plaintiff's minimum wage violation claim, which the Court dismissed. Regarding the overtime claim, Defendant contended that Plaintiff's overtime compensation claim fails because Plaintiff is subject to the motor carrier exemption. Specifically, Defendant asserted that: (1) it is a DOT-registered motor carrier engaged in towing and recovery services; (2) Plaintiff was employed as a truck driver whose duties included driving, securing, and transporting vehicles using heavy-duty trucks; (3) Plaintiff exclusively operated vehicles with GVWRs of more than 10,000 pounds; and (4) Plaintiff's assignments routinely involved the transportation of vehicles as part of a chain involving interstate movement. Plaintiff argued that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is exempt under the motor carrier exemption. Plaintiff's affidavit stated that within the regular scope and course of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff did not travel across state lines to complete a tow job. Moreover, the regular course and scope of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant was performing road-side tows for non-commercial vehicles, and the vehicles Plaintiff routinely drove were not a part of a logistical chain involving interstate commerce. The Court found that Plaintiff's testimony is sufficient to create a genuine dispute as to whether Plaintiff's duties affect the safety of motor vehicles in commerce. The Court noted that even assuming the motor carrier exemption applies, the small-vehicle exception only applies to employees who perform duties on motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less. While Plaintiff testified that he operated a vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds on a weekly basis, Walter Parker, Defendant's owner, testified that Plaintiff exclusively operated vehicles with a GVWR rating of more than 10,000 pounds. Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, a reasonable factfinder could find that Plaintiff operated trucks weighing less than 10,000 pounds in the course of his employment. Therefore, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to Plaintiff's FLSA overtime violation claim. Plaintiff also requested leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment. The deadline for filing dispositive motions has passed. The Court found that the delay is significant. The initial summary judgment deadline was July 18, 2025, and Defendant timely filed its motion on that date. Plaintiff did not file his request for leave until December 17, 2025, about five months after the initial deadline. The Court found that the delay was within Plaintiff's reasonable control and that there is no evidence that Plaintiff acted in good faith. Based on the record, Plaintiff has not shown good cause or excusable neglect sufficient to modify the scheduling order. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff's FLSA minimum wage claim, and that claim is dismissed. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiff's overtime claim, which remains pending. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pYn3xH from PacerMonitor.com The defendant in the action is Anytime Towing & Recovery, LLC. The plaintiffs are Brian Moore, Steven E. Eddy, and William J. Marshall, all of whom are represented by the same legal team from Jackson Shields Yeiser & Holt. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes Nathaniel Andrew Bishop (601-454-1848; nbishop@jsyc.com, Gordon E. Jackson (901-754-8001; gjackson@jsyc.com, Joseph Russ Bryant (901-754-8001; rbryant@jsyc.com and Robert Emmett Turner, IV (901-754-8001; rturner@jsyc.com APPLE INC: Fisher Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gabriel Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-38053-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00204. The Complaint asserts a cause of action under RCW 49.62.070 on a class-wide basis on behalf of all current and former employees of Apple who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from December 17, 2022, through the date notice is provided to the class.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alice R. Hoesterey, Esq. Kathryn G. Mantoan, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101-2668 Phone: +1 206 839 4300 Facsimile: +1 206 839 4301 Email: ahoesterey@orrick.com kmantoan@orrick.com - and - Jessica R. Perry, Esq. 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Phone: +1 650 614 7400 Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401 Email: jperry@orrick.com - and - Simon Cohen, Esq. 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Phone: +1 415 773 5700 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 Email: simon.cohen@orrick.com ASSOCIATED RADIOLOGISTS: Myers Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Radiologists of the Finger Lakes, P.C. The case is styled as Rosemary Myers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Associated Radiologists of the Finger Lakes, P.C., Case No. 2026-5087 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Chemung Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action)." Associated Radiologists of the Finger Lakes, P.C. -- https://www.arfl.com/ -- offer radiology services including diagnostic radiology, MRI, CAT Scan, mammography, interventional procedures, nuclear medicine, and ultrasound.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com AT AND T: Class Certification Order Entered in Sample Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER SAMPLE, v. AT AND T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10000-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order re motions for class certification: Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix. The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). The briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as follows: A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than thirty-five (35) days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. AT&T provides wireless voice and data communications services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bnKgFt at no extra charge.[CC] AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Nannery Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging -------------------------------------------------------------- Julia Nannery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00470 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who received multiple text messages from the Defendant. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation headquartered in the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. New York Bar No. 4995130 156W56th St #902 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 101 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com BARIC HARBORVIEW: Green Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Green and Robert Lee, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BARIC HARBORVIEW, LLC, a Michigan limited liability corporation; BARIC FAIRPLAIN, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and BARRY CHERNAWSKY, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-00209 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 20, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by Plaintiffs known and unknown, arising from Defendants' willful violations of the FLSA due to the Defendants' unpaid overtime wages. The Defendants maintained a common unlawful policy of failing to pay hourly employees for overtime premiums – in clear violation of the FLSA. Chernawsky instructed his property managers that he did not want to pay any of his employees overtime premium wages. Consequently, the paystubs of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' other hourly employees regularly reflect exactly 80 hours worked (to the second) in their two-week pay periods, even though the employees work more than 80 hours. The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, litigation costs, and all other relief that is deemed due and recoverable, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are both former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendants. Chernawsky is the owner of several residential apartment buildings including "Baric Harbor View" and "Baric Village at Fairplain."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Phone: (734) 234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com BATON CORP: Judge Denies Motion for Sanctions in "Aguilar" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Diego Aguilar, Kendall Carnahan and Michael Okafor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Baton Corporation Ltd., d/b/a Pump.fun, Alon Cohen, Dylan Kerler, Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale, Solana Labs Inc., Solana Foundation, Anatoly Yakovenko, Raj Gokal, Dan Albert, Austin Federa, and Lily Liu, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00880-CM (S.D.N.Y.), Judge McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. At the January 13, 2026 conference, counsel for Defendant Pump.fun represented that if Mr. Burwick calls in the future about a token on Baton that he thinks constitutes a threat to him, counsel will relay that to the client and will see that if it is in fact threatening and violates the site's terms and conditions, if it's something the Court would want to see taken down, it will be taken down. The Court stated it will hold the Defendants to that representation. The Plaintiffs filed a formal motion for sanctions based on the same conduct previously raised and addressed by the Court. The motion does not allege any new misconduct of the type discussed at the January 13, 2026 conference that is attributable to the Defendants or to any person shown, on this record, to be acting on their behalf. The Plaintiffs pointed to a post on X/Twitter made by Defendant Cohen dated January 17, 2026 that he was prepared to go to war. The Court does not construe that remark, standing alone, as sanctionable conduct because, while intemperate, it is rhetorical and non-specific, lacks any nexus to harassment or obstruction of the judicial process, and does not repeat or escalate the conduct previously addressed by the Court. The Plaintiffs also pointed to a post on X/Twitter dated January 14, 2026 that includes a digitally altered, humiliating image of the Plaintiffs' counsel Max Burwick. The Plaintiffs have not made a showing on the present motion that the post is attributable to any Defendant or to anyone acting at the Defendants' direction. Accordingly, it does not constitute post-conference recurrence of the conduct previously addressed by the Court. The Court noted that neither of the foregoing instances of post-conference conduct involves content posted on the Pump.fun platform. Therefore, neither can supply a basis for sanctions against Pump.fun predicated on a recurrence of platform-based conduct addressed by the Court on January 13, 2026. The Court stated that sanctions under the Court's inherent power are reserved for conduct that constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, and are not warranted absent a showing of bad-faith conduct that meaningfully interferes with the Court's ability to manage the proceedings before it. Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is denied, without the need for the Defendants to file opposition papers, because the Plaintiffs have not adduced evidence that the conduct addressed by the Court at the January 13, 2026 conference has recurred. The denial is without prejudice to renewal should the Plaintiffs contend, based on new post-conference conduct attributable to the Defendants or their agents, that similar harassment has resumed. Any renewed motion must be predicated on misconduct occurring after January 13, 2026 and not previously presented to or addressed by the Court. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 23 is available at https://tinyurl.com/58rd2u9v from PacerMonitor.com The consolidated action is led by Plaintiff Kendall Carnahan, who is represented by Max Burwick of Burwick Law and Chet Barry Waldman of Wolf Popper LLP, with contact details on file, and also includes Plaintiff Diego Aguilar, represented by the same counsel. The defendants named in the matter are Austin Federa; Anatoly Yakovenko; Solana Labs, Inc.; Solana Foundation; Brian Smith; Lily Liu; Jito Labs, Inc.; Jito Foundation; Raj Gokal; Lucas Bruder; Dan Albert; Dylan Kerler; Alon Cohen; Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale; and Baton Corporation Ltd., doing business as Pump.Fun. Defendants Dylan Kerler, Alon Cohen, Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale, and Baton Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Pump.Fun are represented by Kyle P. Dorso, Daniel Sachs, and Stephen D. Palley of Brown Rudnick LLP. The movants include Michael Okafor, represented by Matthew Tucker Insley-Pruitt of Wolf Popper LLP and Max Burwick of Burwick Law, and Aaron Kvenild, represented by Joshua Wolf Ruthizer of Wolf Popper LLP. BDB CALIFORNIA: Reyes-Perez Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessie Reyes-Perez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. BDB CALIFORNIA LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU067237C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00341-JES-AHG. The Plaintiff asserts the following class claims in the State Court Action: Failure to Pay All Wages Owed; Untimely Payment of Wages; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition Law violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren R. Presser, Esq. Briana M. Antuna, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Lauren.Presser@jacksonlewis.com Briana.Antuna@jacksonlewis.com - and - Rebecca Kim, Esq. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 630-8277 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Rebecca.Kim@jacksonlewis.com BEIS LLC: Huong Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lilli Huong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEIS, LLC, Case No. 25-2-37931-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00207. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending an email to Washington consumer with a false and misleading subject line. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. She seeks this relief on behalf of herself and a proposed class of all Washington residents who received the email.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tyler S. Weaver, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO LLC 701 Pike Street, Suite 625 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-703-4810 Email: tylerw@angelicalfo.com BEIS LLC: Pou Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beis, LLC. The case is styled as Patricia Pou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beis, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-20318-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Beis, LLC -- https://beistravel.com/ -- is an online retailer. The Company offers travel bags, luggage, and accessories. Beis serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BETTERMENT LLC: Goehst Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Goehst, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BETTERMENT LLC, and BETTERMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00500 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of over a hundred thousand current and former Betterment customers. On January 12, 2026, Betterment experienced a cyberattack, which resulted in the breach of various forms of customer information, including but not necessarily limited to names, email addresses, physical addresses, phone numbers, and birthdates (this personally identifiable information is defined herein as the "Private Information"). Betterment, as a substantial business, had the resources available to take seriously the obligation to protect private information. However, Betterment failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. The actions of Betterment related to this Data Breach are unconscionable. Upon information and belief, Betterment failed to implement practices and systems in order to mitigate against the risks posed by Betterment's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Betterment. Betterment LLC provides automated investing, retirement, and cash management solutions to retail investors, small businesses, and financial advisors.[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 Phone: (212) 350-8850 Email: 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 Phone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com BETTERMENT: Huff Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betterment. The case is styled as Randell Huff, Brittany Grimseley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Betterment, Case No. 1:26-cv-00364 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Betterment -- https://www.betterment.com/ -- is an American financial advisory company which provides digital investment, retirement and cash management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com BH NBV NORTH OWNER: Wohlstein Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BH NBV North Owner LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Wohlstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BH NBV North Owner LLC doing business as: Wake Biscayne Bay, Case No. 1:26-cv-20283-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. BH NBV North Owner LLC doing business as Wake Biscayne Bay -- http://www.wakebiscaynebay.com/-- has recently gone through a multi-million dollar building renovation and is now leasing brand new luxury apartment homes in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BQ EXPRESS INC: Mathews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BQ Express, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kevin Mathews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BQ Express, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV000968 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." BQ Express, Inc., founded in 2007, is a transportation company, often operating as a FedEx delivery partner, primarily employing drivers for delivery routes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. Bradley Grombacher LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Email: bsweeney@bradleygrombacher.com BRIDGE IT INC: Waller Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridge It, Inc. The case is Wilfreda Waller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bridge It, Inc. doing business as: Brigit, Case No. 1:26-cv-00206-ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Bridge It, Inc., doing business as Brigit -- https://www.hellobrigit.com/ -- is a fintech company offering a personal finance app designed to help users with cash advances, credit building, budgeting, and overdraft protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper Todd Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: hsegui@leesegui.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP -NY 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: mreese@reesellp.com BURNT FINGER: Fagnani Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. BURNT FINGER BBQ LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv- 617 (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January, 12, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Holiday Gift Box - Large from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MYKAYLA FAGNAN is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant BURNT FINGER BBQ LLC operates the Burnt Finger BBQ online retail store, as well as the Burnt Finger BBQ interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: bbq recipes and products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212.228.9795 Facsimile: 212.982.6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal C.S.I. PATROL SERVICE: Lang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.S.I. Patrol Service, Inc. The case is styled as Brooke Lang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.S.I. Patrol Service, Inc., Case No. 25STCV37759 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." C.S.I. Patrol Services -- http://csipatrol.com/-- is a licensed private security company based in Long Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rachmann, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Email: mike@frontierlawcenter.com CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Cemetery and Funeral Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Griselda Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. alifornia Cemetery and Funeral Services LLC, SCI Shared Resources LLC, Service Corporation International, Case No. 26STCV01766 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau Homepage is designed to help Californians become informed consumers by learning their rights and protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CALIFORNIA ENERGY: Abitbol Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Energy Builders, Inc. The case is styled as Debby Abitbol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Energy Builders, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00556 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. California Energy Builders, Inc. -- https://caenergybuilders.com/ -- are a Solar and Energy Storage Solutions Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CALIFORNIA LOCAL LLC: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Local LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sage Smith, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. California Local LLC doing business as California Surf Club, Case No. 26STCV02008 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." California Local LLC doing business as California Surf Club -- https://www.casurfclub.com/ -- is a unique coastal restaurant compound located in the Redondo Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com CAMELBACK ADMINISTRATIVE: Whittington Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camelback Administrative Group, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Whittington, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Camelback Administrative Group, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00009-PK (D. Utah, Jan. 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Camelback Administrative Group, Inc. -- https://www.camelbackadmin.com/ -- is an active foreign profit corporation based in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW OFFICE 1887 N 270 E Orem, UT 84057 Phone: (801) 845-2581 Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com CAN I HAVE MONEY: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Can I Have Money LLC. The case is styled as Erica Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Can I Have Money LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00335-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Can I Have Money LLC -- https://canihavemoney.com/ -- offers long-term, low-interest loans backed by the Small Business Administration to support business growth and expansion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com CAPITAL RUBBER & GASKET: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Rubber & Gasket, Inc. The case is styled as Rogelio Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Capital Rubber & Gasket, Inc., Singer Equities Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000436 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Capital Rubber & Gasket -- https://capitalrubberco.com/ -- is California's leading supplier of industrial equipment & rubber supply products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com CAREMERIDIAN LLC: Scriven-Dixon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caremeridian, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Twilla M. Scriven-Dixon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caremeridian, LLC, Mentor Management, Inc., Case No. 26CV001141 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." CareMeridian provides a continuum of high quality, cost-effective post-acute care and rehabilitation options to people of all ages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com CARES COMMUNITY HEALTH: Carucci Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cares Community Health. The case is styled as Scott Carucci, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cares Community Health d/b/a One Community Health, Case No. 26CV001036 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Cares Community Health doing business as One Community Health -- https://onecommunityhealth.com/ -- is a primary healthcare and specialty care clinic dedicated to improving the health and well-being of our community in Sacramento.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024-3807 Phone: 424-254-0441 Email: chris@frostllp.com CERNER CORPORATION: Peterson Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dora Peterson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., Hamilton Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00320 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Jan. 14, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00033-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Federal Trade Commission Act. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW. Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 928-4479 Email: dwirth@alonsowirth.com jalonso@alonsowirth.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Laura E. Powell, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 663-6294 Email: laura.powell@wilmerhale.com - and - Donald MacKaye Houser, Esq. Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD 1201 W. Peachtree St. Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: (404) 881-4749 Fax: (404) 881-7777 Email: donald.houser@alston.com kristy.brown@alston.com CHARLIE FOX: Sanders Files Suit in S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charlie Fox, et al. The case is styled as Ulysses Sanders, similarly situated individuals, et al. v. Charlie Fox, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00082-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. CHECKR INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Misreported Criminal Records ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Natasha Davis filed a class action lawsuit against Checkr Inc. Why: Davis claims Checkr misreported criminal records on her consumer report. Where: The Checkr class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Checkr misreported criminal records on consumer reports. Plaintiff Natasha Davis' Checkr class action lawsuit claims the company wrongfully and misleadingly reported criminal records on her consumer report that were not properly associated with her. Davis argues the alleged wrongful reporting resulted in her suffering defamatory harm to her reputation and considerable stress and anguish while impeding her ability to gain employment. "Because of the inaccurate and misleading information provided to her potential employer by Defendant, Plaintiff was defamed and suffered significant distress as a result of the precarious situation that Defendant's failures caused," the Checkr class action lawsuit says. Davis seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who, within the past two years, received a Checkr consumer report that incorrectly included criminal case records belonging to someone else. Davis claims Checkr violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory, actual and punitive damages for herself and all class members. Checkr allegedly failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure report accuracy Davis claims Checkr failed to maintain and employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer information it provides to employers, thus violating the FCRA. The Checkr class action lawsuit alleges that the company "knowingly and willfully maintains deficient procedures" because reporting more information is more profitable, even when that information is "plainly unassociated with the consumer." According to the complaint, Checkr prioritizes including more data rather than risking leaving information off a consumer report. Davis argues Checkr failed to use sufficient identifiers to ensure the criminal record information it included in its consumer reports was correctly associated with the consumer on whom the report concerned. In a related case, a Georgia woman sued Walmart, claiming the company rescinded a job offer after obtaining a consumer report without providing her a copy as required by the FCRA. The plaintiff is represented by Joseph Kanee of Marcus & Zelman LLC. The Checkr class action lawsuit is Davis v. Checkr Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-60088, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Feds End Effort to Get Trans Patients' Records ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ana B. Ibarra of Cal Matters reports that transgender patients of Children's Hospital Los Angeles secured a win this week after the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to end its efforts to obtain personal and medical information of more than 3,000 young patients. Last summer, the federal Justice Department announced that it sent subpoenas to more than 20 medical providers that offered gender-affirming care for minors. At the time, the department said it was doing so to investigate "healthcare fraud" and "false statements." Seven families whose children have received gender-affirming services at Children's Hospital Los Angeles sued in November to quash the subpoena to protect their information. The department never provided evidence of fraud, said Khadijah Silver, director of Gender Justice & Health Equity at Lawyers for Good Government, one of the firms representing families in the class action lawsuit. The hospital did not not turn over the requested documents. "It was basically a fishing expedition," Silver said. "Without any probable cause, they did not have the authority to be seeking medical information." The DOJ and Children's Hospital Los Angeles did not immediately return requests for comment. The department subpoena demanded the hospital provide a large range of documents, including patient intake forms, insurance claims and "documents sufficient to identify each patient (by name, date of birth, social security number, address, and parent/guardian information) who was prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy," court documents show. Under the agreement, filed in federal court Thursday, January 22, the Justice Department will withdraw requests for documents that identified patients or their families through 2029. Attorneys representing patients and their families have moved to dismiss the case. "This is one piece of a large, very important puzzle, but it does allow our clients to hold on to their basic legal right to medical privacy," Silver said. The settlement unfolded the same week that a judge in Baltimore rejected the Trump administration's request to subpoena the same information from Children's National Hospital in Washington D.C. The subpoena is not the only federal action that has targeted transgender patients and their providers. Last year, the Trump administration issued an executive order that threatened to pull federal funding from medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care. Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the summer seeking to block the order. The federal government has also issued orders that recognize only two biological sexes and prevent transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports. A third order threatens federal funds for schools that support transgender youth. After federal actions escalated, Children's Hospital Los Angeles closed the doors to its Center for Transyouth Health and Development last July, leaving about 3,000 young patients in limbo. Other providers in the state have also scaled back gender-affirming services. "The shutdown came despite efforts my office took over recent months to assure (Children's Hospital Los Angeles) that they were protected and required to provide gender-affirming care," Bonta said at the time. Bonta's office has filed amicus briefs opposing the Trump administration's attempts to subpoena medical records of gender-affirming care at other hospitals including University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Children's Hospital Colorado. Bonta did not intervene in the case settled this week. [GN] CIRCLE K: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hughes Suit Due April 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMISIAH HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01071-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows: Close of Class Discovery: March 27, 2026 The Plaintiff expert disclosures: March 20, 2026 The Defendant's expert disclosures: April 6, 2026 Class certification: April 27, 2026 Fact discovery completion: 90 days after ruling on class certification The Court previously modified the operative scheduling order on Sept. 26, 2025. Since that time, the parties have been engaged in substantial and productive discussions that may lead to a resolution of the case. The parties believe granting the modifications to the scheduling order will also be productive to these discussions. Circle K is an American chain of convenience stores. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BIPmGl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 E-mail: croberts@butschroberts.com The Defendant is represented by: Tyler R. Andrews GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 732-6500 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 E-mail: Tyler.Andrews@gtlaw.com CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Zahn Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AIDAN ZAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLACKAMAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00144-JR (D. Or., January 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former students' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, student record information, government identification numbers, tax identification numbers, passport numbers and financial account information (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")) and protected health information ("PHI") including medical information. The complaint relates that Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide Defendant with their Private Information and/or the Private Information of their family members. Because of this, Clackamas has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Clackamas's duty to safeguard Private Information, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on September 10, 2025, Defendant identified suspicious activity tied to a user account and quickly reset the account. On October 24, 2025, additional suspicious activity was identified, and Defendant worked to contain its network and prevent a widespread operational impact. Despite learning about the breach in October of 2025, Clackamas waited until January of 2026 to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access. The complaint alleges that 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. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Aidan Zahn is a resident and citizen of the State of Oregon and Data Breach victim. Defendant Clackamas Community College is a public community college that provides post-secondary education, workforce training, and related academic services to students in Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com CLEAN PEOPLE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Clean People, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-00555 (D. Minn., January 22, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.getcleanpeople.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant The Clean People, LLC is a Texas Company the offers detergents and cleaning supplies for sale including, but not limited to, laundry detergents, laundry detergent sheets, dishwasher detergents, cleaning products, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CONAIR LLC: Must File Class Cert Opposition in McCabe by March 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCabe v. Conair LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05594 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply on consent re Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant's Opposition to be served by March 12, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply to be served by March 26, 2026. Per the Court's bundling rule, each party will file its respective Motion, Opposition, and Reply on ECF and provide courtesy copies to the Court on March 26, 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Conair operates as an online retailer.[CC] CONSTELLIS LLC: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ruben Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CONSTELLIS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; OMNIPLEX WORLD SERVICES CORPORATION, a Virginia Corporatio Case No. 25STCV36658 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00568. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted 6 purported causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Complaint Meal Periods or Pay Premium Wage in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Complaint Rest Periods or Pay Premium Wage in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Pay Wages Timely Upon Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Andrew W. Russell, Esq. Charles J. Urena, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com arussell@mcguirewoods.com curena@mcguirewoods.com CORSAIR MEMORY INC: Vazquez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corsair Memory Inc. The case is styled as Luis Alfredo Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Corsair Memory Inc. doing business as Corsair, Case No. 1:26-cv-00268-CDB (E.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. Corsair Memory Inc. doing business as Corsair -- https://www.corsair.com/ -- is a leading global developer and manufacturer of high-performance gear and technology for gamers, content creators, and PC enthusiasts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com COVE RISK: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Information, Casper Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN CASPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVE RISK SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10323 (D. Mass., January 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former members' ("Class Members") sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, state issued identification numbers, health insurance information, and financial account information (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")) and protected health information ("PHI") including medication information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide Defendant's Clients with their Private Information. Because of this, CRS has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite CRS's duty to safeguard the Private Information, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on May 3, 2025, an unauthorized party gained access to CRS's information systems. After CRS discovered the Data Breach on or about May 5, 2025, it conducted an investigation which concluded that "certain information within our systems was subject to unauthorized access or acquisition." CRS waited until December 11, 2025 to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access. According to the complaint, the Private Information impacted by the Data Breach includes a wide swath of highly sensitive information belonging to CRS's Client's current and former members, as well as certain of their family members, including their names, dates of birth, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, state issued identification numbers, health insurance information, medical information, and financial account information. 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. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Karen Casper is a resident and citizen of the State of Massachusetts and is a victim of the Data Breach.. Defendant Cove Risk Services, LLC operates as an insurance brokerage and risk management firm for six self-insurance groups that provide workers' compensation coverage to more than 4,000 businesses throughout Massachusetts and New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Leviton, Esq. Brendan Jarboe, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP 240 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com brendan@blockleviton.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com COVENANT HEALTH INC: Chuba Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covenant Health, Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Chuba, individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Covenant Health, Inc., St. Joseph Healthcare Foundation, Case No. 1:26-cv-10171-WGY (D. Mass., Jan. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Covenant Health -- https://covenanthealth.net/ -- is a community-owned integrated healthcare delivery system dedicated to improving quality of life.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com COVENANT HEALTH INC: Hall Files Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covenant Health, Inc. The case is styled as Alex Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Covenant Health, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-10146 (D. Mass., Jan. 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Covenant Health -- https://covenanthealth.net/ -- is a community-owned integrated healthcare delivery system dedicated to improving quality of life.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com COVENANT HEALTH INC: Walder Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covenant Health, Inc. The case is styled as Keirsten Walder, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Covenant Health, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-10155-ADB (D. Mass., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Covenant Health -- https://covenanthealth.net/ -- is a community-owned integrated healthcare delivery system dedicated to improving quality of life.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, Ste. 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com CROWDVEST LLC: Shammam Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crowdvest, LLC. The case is styled as Quintin Shammam, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Crowdvest, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00263-WQH-DDL (S.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Penney Opco LLC doing business as JCPenney -- https://www.jcpenney.com/ -- is an American department store chain founded in 1902 by James Cash Penney.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Guinn Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 Email: dan@shaylegal.com - and - Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com CSP-PERMIAN: Carlos Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ Carlos Carlos, individually and for others similarly situated v. CSP-PERMIAN, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00005 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for hours over 40 in a week. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees "per diems," based on the number of days and hours the Hourly Employees actually work, but the Defendant excludes these "per diems" from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "per diem pay scheme"). The Defendant's per diem pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a front-end loader operator from December 2020 until June 2025. CSP touts that it provides a "reliable, regional supply of high-quality regional sand, strategically located for fast, efficient supply to Permian Basin well sites."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com CVS HEALTH: Mitchell Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Amanda Wells Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS Specialty Pharmacy, Case No. 2:26-cv-00080-NJB-EJD (E.D. La., Jan. 14, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CVS Health Corporation -- https://www.cvshealth.com/ -- is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Loren Diane Shanklin, Esq. SHANKLIN SOSA, L.L.C. 1737 Oakdale Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70810 Phone: (225) 223-6333 Fax: (225) 612-1582 Email: loren@smithshanklin.com - and - Eric J. O'Bell, Esq. O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC 3500 N. Hullen St. Metairie, LA 70002 Phone: (504) 456-8677 Email: ejo@obelllawfirm.com - and - Marcus Joseph Plaisance, Esq. Mark David Plaisance, Esq. PLAISANCE LAW, LLC PO Box 1123 Prairieville, LA 70769 Phone: (225) 775-5297 Fax: (888) 820-6375 Email: marcus@plaisancelaw.com mark@plaisancelaw.com DAMERON HOSPITAL: Nieves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dameron Hospital Association. The case is styled as Margarita Nieves, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Dameron Hospital Association, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000370 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Dameron Hospital -- http://www.dameronhospital.org/-- is a fully accredited, non-profit, 200+ bed community hospital providing acute and tertiary level care to San Joaquin County residents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com DANUBENET INC: Fernandez Files Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DanubeNet, Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DanubeNet, Inc. d/b/a Driving School Software, The Next Street, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00570 (D.N.J., Jan. 19, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DanubeNet -- https://www.danubenet.com/ -- specializes in providing web-based solutions tailored for small businesses, including scheduling systems and online quizzes for educational institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com DASHING DIVA: Tesch Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Dashing Diva USA Corp., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-91 (N.D. Ind., January 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://dashingdiva.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Tesch and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Tesch's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Tesch has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On October 7, 2025, Tesch was searching for trendy, easy-to-use nail products to enhance her personal style. While researching online, she discovered Defendant's website, Dashingdiva.com, which offers a variety of nail strips and related nail care products designed for simple application and long-lasting wear. After reviewing the company's offerings and reading positive customer reviews praising the products' durability, vibrant designs, and ease of use, Tesch decided to purchase nail strips directly from the Website. However, multiple accessibility barriers impeded her ability to complete the purchase. The complaint alleges that the Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Tesch, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in the State of Indiana and throughout the United States. 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. Tesch seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Ashley Tesch is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Dashing Diva USA Corp. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of nail products and accessories, including gel‑cured and semi‑cured nail strips, press‑on nails, gel polishes, nail care tools such as lamps, adhesives, removers, and maintenance supplies, starter kits, and bundles.[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 DIN TAI FUNG (ANAHEIM): Bravo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DIN TAI FUNG (ANAHEIM) RESTAURANT LLC, et al. The case is styled as Julieanna Bravo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DIN TAI FUNG ANAHEIM RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG BREA RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG CENTURY CITY RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG DEL AMO RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG GLENDALE RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG IRVINE RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG MANHATTAN LLC; DIN TAI FUNG SANTA ANITA RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG SANTA MONICA RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG SF RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG SOUTH COAST RESTAURANT LLC; DIN TAI FUNG UTC RESTAURANT LLC, Case No. 26STCV01661 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Din Tai Fung -- https://dtf.com/en-us/ -- is a Chinese restaurant specializing in Xiao Long Bao, or soup dumplings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com DIRECT FUNDING NOW: Cordero Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Funding Now LLC. The case is styled as Douglas Javier Cordero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Direct Funding Now LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00121 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Direct Funding Now -- https://www.directfundingnow.com/ -- is one of the leading providers of small business funding.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com DOMINIQUE MANAGEMENT: Nicholson Sues Over to Recover Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keren Nicholson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DOMINIQUE MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A DOMINIQUE'S AT STONECREEK, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and CHERYL DOMINIQUE, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-00277-MLB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from Defendants minimum wage, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In each workweek during the relevant time period, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at or above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for each hour worked. The Defendants' failure and/or refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff and the class members at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA were willful. The Defendants' retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff and the class members for complaining about Defendants' pay practices was willful, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from approximately February 2025 through June 2025. Dominique's is a bar and restaurant that offers food and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Anthony J. Hall, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (321) 594-7316 Email: jrose@theleachfirm.com ahall@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com DOT FOODS INC: Diop Files Suit in C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dot Foods, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Youssou Diop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dot Foods, Inc., Dot Transportation, Inc. Case No. 3:26-cv-03019-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., Jan. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Dot Foods -- https://www.dotfoods.com/ -- is North America's largest food industry redistributor, specializing in delivering LTL orders to our distributor customers in two to four days.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com DR BROWN'S: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. DR. BROWN'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00596 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January, 12, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Dr. Brown's Travel Bottle Warmer from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MYKAYLA FAGNANI is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant DR. BROWN'S COMPANY operates the Dr. Brown's Baby online retail store, as well as the Dr. Brown's Baby interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: baby bottles and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal DUKE UNIVERSITY: Court Awards $775K Attorneys' Fees in "Franklin" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joy G. Franklin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke University, The Retirement Board for Duke University, and John/Jane Does 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-833 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and a class representative service award. The named plaintiff and class representative, Joy Franklin, is a former employee of Duke University who now receives a pension from the school's employee retirement plan. In her complaint, she alleged that the plan used outdated and unreasonable actuarial equivalency formulas to calculate annuities for participants like her, whose benefits extended through the life of their spouse, and that this violated ERISA. Following extensive litigation and while most of the case was stayed pending an interlocutory appeal, the parties agreed to settle. The settlement awarded the class roughly 17% of the plaintiff's calculated classwide damages. The settlement will take the form of increased annuity payments made to eligible plan participants rather than a lump sum, with a discounted present settlement value of $2,350,000. After granting preliminary approval and holding a fairness hearing, the Court gave final approval to the settlement. Class Counsel and the plaintiff sought an award of attorneys' fees and costs totaling $775,500. This represents 33% of the discounted gross settlement amount. They also sought a service award of $5,000 for Ms. Franklin as the class representative. The defendant did not oppose the motion. Class members were notified that Class Counsel could seek an attorneys' fee of up to one-third, and no class member objected to the settlement or expressed concerns about the fee provision. The Court considered the twelve Barber factors and found that the request for a fee of $775,500, reflecting one-third of the gross settlement fund, is reasonable. To date, Class Counsel spent over 700 hours of attorney and legal professional time on this matter, a significant investment of labor and resources. ERISA litigation is a rapidly evolving and demanding area of law in which new precedents are frequently issued. This, and the significant risk of nonpayment in ERISA matters generally, tend to indicate that recovery requires navigating novel issues and applying specialized skills. That is particularly true of actuarial equivalence cases. Class Counsel credibly testified that taking on this complex class action represented a significant opportunity cost that precluded work on other matters. A one-third fee is consistent with the usual compensation for work done in complex ERISA matters such as this and reflects the customary fee for like work. Class Counsel took this case on a contingency fee basis, so the fee award aligns with their expectations at the outset of the litigation. Class Counsel obtained a meaningful degree of success on behalf of the class. The gross settlement fund amounts to approximately 17% of the plaintiff's estimated classwide damages. That percentage of recovery is slightly lower than other ERISA actuarial equivalence cases, but that lower percentage captures the specific risks that the class's case would have faced at all remaining litigation stages. Class Counsel has skill and experience in litigating sophisticated ERISA class actions. To obtain a successful result for the class here, Class Counsel required not only a deep knowledge of ERISA and how pension plans work but also an understanding of the Federal Arbitration Act and related state law, along with skills in handling appeals. The lodestar cross-check also supports the reasonableness of the requested fee. Class Counsel submitted evidence that in this case they spent approximately 600 hours of attorney time and 100 hours of non-attorney professional time. The lodestar amount, using these hours and rates, comes out to $591,294. Dividing the requested fee of $775,500 by this lodestar amount gives a lodestar multiplier of approximately 1.3. That is a relatively low multiplier in this context, showing the requested fee is not excessive. Class Counsel submitted evidence showing they spent $54,013.54 for reimbursable expenses. This amount includes the costs of hiring actuarial experts; taking depositions; travel, lodging, and parking; communication and filing costs; and mediation and settlement costs, among others. The Court reviewed the expenses and the supporting documentation and found that the expenses were reasonable. Ms. Franklin requested a service award of $5,000 in recognition of her time, effort, and contributions to the success of the case. Class Counsel testified that Ms. Franklin assisted in the investigation of the case, maintaining contact with Class Counsel, reviewing the pleadings, answering Class Counsel's many questions, communicating with Class Counsel during and following the settlement negotiations, and reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The requested award is small relative to the amount of the class recovery, reasonable based on Ms. Franklin's work on behalf of the class, and consistent with other service awards approved in this district and throughout the Fourth Circuit. Accordingly, the Court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and a service award. Class Counsel is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $775,500, to be paid from the settlement fund. A service award of $5,000 shall be paid to the named plaintiff Joy Franklin, also to be paid from the settlement fund. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1w3JT1 from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Joy G. Franklin was represented by Dana Stone Smith, Lisa R. Considine, and Oren Faircloth of Siri & Glimstad, LLP. Defendants Duke University and The Retirement Board for Duke University were represented by Dixie Thomas Wells of Ellis & Winters, LLP, and Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Abbey M. Glenn, and Mary Ann Ferguson McNulty of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. EASTERN METAL RECYCLING: Heaney Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eastern Metal Recycling, L.L.C. The case is styled as Joe Heaney, Robert Niedzinski, Gene Perry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Eastern Metal Recycling, L.L.C.; EMR USA Holdings, Inc.; Duraport Realty One, LLC; Duraport Realty Two, LLC; Duraport Realty Three, LLC; Duraport Rail Terminal, LLC., Case No. L-000213-26 (N.J. Super. Ct., Hudson Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Environmental/Environmental Coverage Litigation." Eastern Metal Recycling LLC -- https://us.emrgroup.com/ -- is a recycling company based in Philadelphia, PA that specializes in processing and repurposing various types of metal materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Matsikoudis, Esq. Derek S. Fanciullo, Esq. MATSIKOUDIS & FANCIULLO, LLC 128 Monticello Avenue, STR 1 Jersey City, NJ 07304 Phone: (201) 915-0407 - and - G. Martin Meyers, Esq. Justin A. Meyers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF G. MARTIN MEYERS, P.C. 35 West Main Street, STE 106 Denville, NJ 07834 Phone: (973) 625-0838 ELLAFI FEDERAL: Members File Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ CU Today reports that a Connecticut resident has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against $175-million Ellafi FCU, alleging the Middletown-based credit union failed to adequately protect member data in a cyber breach that exposed personal information of more than 17,600 people, Hartford Business reported. The complaint, filed Jan. 7 in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, was brought by Joseph Fraulino, identified as a Middlesex County resident and Ellafi member, on behalf of himself and others whose personal information was allegedly compromised. Court filings indicate the plaintiff is seeking at least $5 million in damages on behalf of the proposed class. According to the lawsuit, hackers accessed Ellafi's network on or about Oct. 14, 2025, and exfiltrated data that included names, Social Security numbers, and credit or debit card numbers. The filing states Ellafi discovered the intrusion later that month and completed an internal investigation on Nov. 20. The suit contends that Ellafi did not notify affected members until late December, roughly two months after detecting the breach, leaving individuals unaware their personal information may have been exposed. Fraulino said he received written notice around Dec. 23, and the lawsuit claims Ellafi later reported to the Maine attorney general's office that 17,627 individuals were impacted, Hartford Business explained. In a statement emailed Thursday, January 22, Ellafi said it disputes the allegations and intends to defend itself "through the appropriate legal process." The credit union said it launched an investigation with cybersecurity specialists upon learning of the intrusion, determined certain member information "may have been accessed," notified affected members within required timelines, and provided complimentary credit monitoring services, according to Hartford Business. [GN] EMERITUS CORPORATION: Adame Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Adame, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. EMERITUS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV151619 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00518. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of hourly, non-exempt individuals who worked for Defendants in the State of California, specifically failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to reimburse necessary business expenditures, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages due at separation of employment, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to keep requisite payroll records, and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shannon R. Boyce, Esq. James A. Becerra, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sboyce@littler.com jbecerra@littler.com EMM LOANS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lehrbach Due March 13 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEHRBACH v. EMM LOANS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02040 (D.N.J., Filed March 24, 2025), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order that no later than March 13, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification and approval of the settlement. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. EMM provides mortgage finance services.[CC] FADA GROUP: Class Cert Bid Replies Due Feb. 17 in Yan Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yan, et al. v. Fada Group, Inc. d/b/a Sogo, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02868-JXN-JBC (D.N.J.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending motion deadlines as follows: -- All responses to motions shall be filed by no later than Feb. 9, 2026 (previous due date: Jan. 26, 2026); -- Replies, if any, shall be filed by no later than Feb. 23, 2026 (previous due date: Feb. 9, 2026); and -- All motions shall be formally listed as returnable on Feb. 23, 2026 (previous date Feb. 17, 2026). A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C54noC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd #110, Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 The Defendants are represented by: Samantha E. Hudler, Esq. WHITE, ROSE & HILFERTY, P.C. 757 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 690-8881 Facsimile: (646) 690-8881 E-mail: Hudler@NYCJobAttorney.com FAMILY CENTERS: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Chiaramonte Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE CHIARAMONTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. ____ (Super. Ct., Fairfield Jud. Circ., January 21, 2026) arises 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 complaint relates that in its regular course of business, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains a substantial amount of Private Information and has a resulting duty to ensure that information is safeguarded against unauthorized access and disclosure. On September 15, 2025, the Defendant learned that Plaintiff and Class Members Private Information was accessed by an unauthorized third-party. The unauthorized access was the result of suspicious activity first identified on January 30, 2025. The following types of Private Information were exposed as a result of the Data Breach: name, financial account number, and Social Security number or individual taxpayer identification number. On December 19, 2025 - nearly 11 months after becoming aware of the Data Breach - the Defendant began sending notice letters ("Notice") to impacted individuals. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's 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, adds the complaint. 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, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Lawrence Chiaramonte is a former patient of Defendant and a data breach victim. Defendant Family Centers, Inc. is a private, nonprofit organization offering education, health and human services to children, adults and families in Fairfield County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com FANDOM INC: Agrees to Settle GameSpot Privacy Suit for $1.2-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Fandom Inc. has agreed to a $1.2 million settlement to resolve claims it violated California privacy laws by using trackers on GameSpot visitors' browsers without their consent. The GameSpot settlement benefits individuals who accessed GameSpot.com and its subdomains in California and had their IP address collected by the trackers between Jan. 5, 2023, and Dec. 16, 2025. The class action lawsuit claims Fandom installed three trackers, namely the GumGum Tracker, Audiencerate Tracker and TripleLift Tracker, on GameSpot visitors' internet browsers without consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). Fandom is a gaming company that owns GameSpot, a gaming news and reviews website. Fandom denies it violated any laws but has agreed to the settlement to resolve the GameSpot class action claims. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members who submit a valid claim will receive a proportionate share of the settlement fund. The amount of each payment will depend on the number of class members who file valid claims. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 17, 2026. The final approval hearing for the GameSpot settlement is scheduled for May 19, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 16, 2026. Who's Eligible California residents who accessed GameSpot.com and its subdomains and had their IP address collected by the trackers between Jan. 5, 2023, and Dec. 16, 2025. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 04/16/2026 Case Name Shah v. Fandom Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01062-RFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 05/19/2026 Settlement Website GameSpotSettlement.com Claims Administrator GameSpot CIPA Settlement P.O. Box 6787 Portland, OR 97228-6787 (877) 714-5775 Class Counsel Max S. Roberts BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Ryan Tyz TYZ LAW GROUP P.C. [GN] FCA US: Faces Class Action Over 2025 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that automaker FCA US LLC, which does business as Stellantis North America, failed to adequately protect the data it possessed, alleging that an unauthorized third party was able to access, hold for ransom and then publish customers' sensitive personal information. The 29-page lawsuit claims that, on December 25, 2025, ransomware group Everest breached FCA US's internal systems and extracted a terabyte of customers' personal information -- including names, Social Security numbers (SSNs), dates of birth and addresses, among other data. Per the suit, Everest held the information for a ransom and, after FCA allegedly refused to meet the group's demands, published the highly sensitive data online on January 4, 2026. The complaint argues that FCA US, which operates brands including Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram, should have known that the personal data it collected from customers was a valuable target for cybercriminals and therefore taken greater defensive measures, such as encrypting the data or deleting it when it is no longer needed, to protect customers' information from such attacks as the alleged Everest breach. The types of personal data that were stolen and published during the Chrysler data breach, according to the lawsuit, are frequently targeted, sold, bought and used in a variety of identity theft-related crimes. Per the filing, these crimes can include, but are not limited to: -- Credit card fraud, including taking out new cards or loans in the victim's name; -- Obtaining a driver's license or other government ID in the victim's name with the thief's picture; -- Obtaining government benefits or a job, renting a house or receiving medical services using the victim's SSN and name; -- Filing a fraudulent tax return using the victim's information; -- Bank and financial fraud, including opening a new bank account and writing bad checks or using a debit card number to withdraw funds from the victim's account; -- Changing the victim's billing address; and -- Using the victim's information in the event of arrest or court action. Oftentimes, the complaint argues, these instances of identity theft or related crimes are incredibly difficult to resolve, usually taking at least over a month and sometimes well over a year, and can have disastrous impacts on the victims' lives. The theft of Social Security numbers is especially damaging, the lawsuit says, due to their highly sensitive nature and the fact that replacing them is difficult at best and impossible at worst. The lawsuit argues that Chrysler, despite having such sensitive information in its care, failed to comply with or implement several established cybersecurity standards and practices that have been identified as the most effective ways to protect such valuable information. As such, per the suit, affected FCA customers are now at a substantially increased risk of identity theft. The Chrysler class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States whose personally identifiable information was accessed and disclosed to unauthorized parties as a result of the Chrysler data breach. [GN] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Carson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shainise Carson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 50 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV33961 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00532. The Plaintiff sues FedEx and Does 1-50 for the following causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Accrued Vacation; all in Violation of Cal. Labor Codes and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas J. Moran, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.862.4625 Facsimile: 901.492.5641 Email: thomas.moran@fedex.com FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS: McNutt Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Federal Savings & Loan Association. The case is styled as Rhonda McNutt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, Case No. 1:26-cv-00019-HSO-RPM (S.D. Miss., Jan. 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. First Federal is a locally owned and managed full service financial institution with offices in Shelbyville, Windsor, and Charleston, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Wright Mullins, Sr., Esq. MULLINS LAW FIRM 3712 Tuthill Place Mobile, AL 36608 Phone: (228) 218-3543 Fax: (228) 217-4928 Email: jackfish28@gmail.com FLAWLESS NATURALS: Stupar Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brittany Stupar, on behalf of herself all others similarly situated v. FLAWLESS NATURALS, LLC, Case No. 25STCV34117 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00324. The Complaint purports to assert three causes of action for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq; Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.; and Violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erik Dykema, Esq. TAYLOR DYKEMA PLLC 28 Wootton Road Essex Fells, NJ 07021 Phone: (917) 670-9843 Email: erik@taylordykema.com - and - Avery Horovitz, Esq. TAYLOR DYKEMA PLLC 914 E. 25th Street Houston, TX 77009 Phone: (551) 273-4410 Email: Avery@taylordykema.com - and - Renata A. Guidry, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1104 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 425-7486 Email: rguidry@tarterkrinsky.com FLOOR & DECOR OUTLETS: Aleman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Floor & Decor Outlets of Am., Inc. The case is styled as Francisco Aleman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Floor & Decor Outlets of Am., Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV01790 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. -- https://www.flooranddecor.com/ -- provides flooring products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Fax: 213-232-3125 Phone: 213-232-3128 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com FREEDOM DEBT: Hanson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- JON C. HANSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00708 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for placing prerecorded and/or artificial voice calls, i.e. robocalls, to Plaintiff and the putative class. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets its debt settlement services, in part, through telemarketing, including the placing of phone calls to consumers. Hanson registered his phone number on the DNC List on February 28, 2010, for the purpose of stopping contact by telemarketers/telephone solicitors, including, but not limited to, Defendant. Despite being registered on the DNC List for over a decade and not inquiring of or expressing interest in Defendant's services, Hanson began to receive calls from or on behalf of Defendant. Hanson brings this case to protect his privacy rights; namely, the right to be left alone from unwanted telemarketing communications. Plaintiff Jon C. Hanson is a retired member of the United States Air Force, in which he served nearly twenty-four years. Defendant Freedom Debt Relief, LLC offers debt settlement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kolin C. Tang, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: kctang@millershah.com E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com - and - Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 E-mail: CRoberts@butschroberts.com GAMESTOP: Wilder Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Deceptive Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Roscamp Wilder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GAMESTOP CORP., D/B/A GAMESTOP INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00224-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought concerning GameStop's bait-and-switch deceptive advertising: offering a premium collectible bonus to entice consumers to pre-order the video game Silent Hill F when GameStop never intended to provide the bonus to the vast majority of those customers and continued to advertise and sell pre-orders long after its available supply of bonus gifts was exhausted, in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code ("FAL"); and California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code ("UCL"); and further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and committed fraud in the inducement. The Defendant, GameStop, routinely uses exclusive pre-order promotions to drive early sales and strengthen its position in the marketplace. Pre-orders are a boon to retailers, like GameStop, because customers pay for the product often months in advance, thereby giving the retailer upfront cashflow and the time value of money. For Silent Hill F, GameStop advertised a "GameStop Exclusive Steelbook" as a "bonus" for customers who pre-ordered the game. A "steelbook" is a premium, limited-edition metal case for movies and video games, prized by collectors for its durable, high-quality feel and unique, often exclusive artwork that can feature special finishes like embossing, making it a desirable collectible packaging. GameStop never intended to provide all those consumers with the promised Steelbook, however. GameStop's advertising included a small print disclaimer, "while supplies last," but GameStop continued to advertise the promotion long after the number of pre-orders exceeded the available supply of Steelbooks. As a result of GameStop's advertising and promotional practices, consumers — including Plaintiff — were induced to pre-order Silent Hill F from GameStop based on a promised bonus that GameStop either knew or should have known it could not provide, says the complaint. The Plaintiff pre-ordered and purchased the video game Silent Hill F from GameStop. GameStop is one of the largest specialty video-game retailers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Phone: 866-540-5505 Fax: 866-300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com kctang@millershah.com - and - Timothy N. Matthews, Esq. Dylan Altland, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: 610-642-8500 Fax: 610-649-3633 Email: tnm@chimicles.com dda@chimicles.com GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Chung Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ajani Chung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GARDA CL NORTHWEST, INC., a Washington profit corporation doing business as GARDAWORLD; GARDAWORLD FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; GARDAWORLD SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as GARDAWORLD SECURITY SERVICES; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-37761-0 SEA 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-00147. The Complaint asserted putative class claims for allegedly restricting, restraining, and prohibiting low-wage workers from engaging in lawful practices, trades, and businesses and from accepting or transacting business with customers in violation of RCW 49.62 against GardaWorld and the other defendants in this action.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Harry J.F. Korrell III, Esq. Devin Smith, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Email: harrykorrell@dwt.com devinsmith@dwt.com - and - Seth Tangman, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 560 SW Tenth Avenue, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: (503) 241-2300 Fax: (503) 778-5299 Email: moetangman@dwt.com GATEWAY FIRST BANK: Jones Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Vicky Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GATEWAY FIRST BANK d/b/a GATEWAY MORTGAGE, Case No. 25-C-81 was removed from the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Jan. 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00457. By her original Complaint and Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated certain provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). As a result of these alleged violations, Plaintiff maintains that, among other things, she has been "annoyed, harassed, unable to inspect her mortgage, had to suffer through delay, multiple mailings, and hassle."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq. Dylan J. George, Esq. FBT Gibbons LLP 500 Virginia Street East, Suite 1100 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304.348.2419 Email: azurbuch@fbtgibbons.com dgeorge@fbtgibbons.com GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Harrison Due June 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY HARRISON, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-12927-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered an order extending case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for GM to identify experts Apr. 20, 2026 and serve expert reports in opposition to class certification: Expert discovery for class June 11, 2026 certification completed: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file June 25, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline for GM's opposition to the Aug. 6, 2026 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and GM's daubert motions re: Plaintiffs' class certification experts: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply Sept. 17, 2026 brief in support of class certification, Plaintiffs' opposition to GM's Daubert motions re: Plaintiffs' class certification experts, and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions for GM's class certification experts: The Defendant is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4F24ZI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Dana E. Fraser, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com def@millerlawpc.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Nate Kiyam, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: cody.padgett @capstonelawyers.com abigail.gertner@capstonelawyers.com majdi.hijazin@capstonelaywers.com nate.kiyam@capstonelaywers.com shahin.rezvani@capstonelaywers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoffrey Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com The Defendant is represented by: Susan M. Clare, Esq. Adam Reinke, Esq. J. Franklin Sacha, Jr., Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: sclare@kslaw.com areinke@kslaw.com fsacha@kslaw.com - and - Laura C. Baucus, Esq. Michael P. Cooney, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 203-0700 E-mail: lbaucus@dykema.com mcooney@dykema.com - and - Justin B. Weiner, Esq. Andrew M. Mast, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 W. Big Beaver, Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 822-700 E-mail: weiner@bsplaw.com mast@bsplaw.com GENWORTH LIFE: Class Certification Bid Filing in Fox Due April 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FOX, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01001-WBS-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Shubb entered an order modifying and continuing dates in the pretrial scheduling order: -- The Parties shall disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than April 6, 2026. -- All fact discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony, is left open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be completed by April 6, 2026. -- All motions, except for (a) Defendant’s anticipated motion for summary judgment, and (b) any motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before April 27, 2026. -- Any motion for class certification must be filed by April 27, 2026, with any opposition filed by June 1, 2026, any reply filed by June 22, 2026, and a hearing to be noticed for July 6, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. After the Court reaches a decision on the Motion for Class certification, any motion for summary judgment must be filed by Sept. 14, 2026, with any opposition filed by Oct. 19, 2026, any reply filed by Nov. 9, 2026, and a hearing to be noticed for Nov. 23, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. -- The Final Pretrial Conference is set for Jan. 25, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5. -- The jury trial is set for March 23, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. Genworth offers long-term care insurance and mortgage insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j3ORZm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack B. Winters, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com sball@einsurelaw.com - and - Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Jake W. Schulte, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org jschulte@nicholaslaw.org - and - Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. Michelle M. Myers, Esq. Trent J. Nelson, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com tnelson@singletonschreiber.com The Defendants are represented by: Sandra D. Hauser, Esq. Michael J. Duvall, Esq. Leanna M. Anderson, Esq. Samantha Fahr, Esq. Haley S. Eastham, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa St., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com michael.duvall@dentons.com leanna.anderson@dentons.com samantha.fahr@dentons.com haley.eastham@dentons.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Schelp entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; -- Denying without prejudice the Defendants' motions to exclude testimony; and -- Denying the Plaintiffs' conditional motion for remand. In sum, individuals who paid nothing for their lifesaving TDF medications, which caused them no bodily injury, lack standing. The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition concededly contains individuals who lack standing. The Court therefore cannot certify it. Further, altering the class definition to somehow exclude these individuals—were that even possible—would be to no avail because the Plaintiffs' proposed class suffers from other maladies. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class consisting of: "All persons (as defined by Mo. Rev. Stat section 407.010.5) who purchased any TDF-based drug, including Atripla, Complera, Stribild, Truvada, or Viread, in Missouri, primarily for personal, family or household purposes between July 1, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2015. The Plaintiffs assert that when Gilead sold TDF-based medications as "the safest antiviral HIV drug known to [it]," Gilead violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and was unjustly enriched under Missouri law. Gilead is an American biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bjJQSr at no extra charge.[CC] GR. JANUARY CORP: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Sanchez Juarez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GR. JANUARY CORP. (D/B/A MICHAEL'S RESTAURANT) and ANGELO GEORGIS, Case No. 1:26-cv-00305 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Sanchez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked over 10 hours per day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the diner. The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner, located in Astoria, New York under the name "Michael's Restaurant."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GRANITE WELLNESS: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $725,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Granite Wellness Centers have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought against them regarding a data security incident that occurred on January 5, 2021 (the "Data Security Incident"), in which Plaintiffs alleged the potential exposure of personally identifiable information ("PII"). What does the Settlement provide? GWC will pay $725,000 into a Settlement Fund to settle the class action. The settlement allows Settlement Class Members to request either a pro-rata cash payment estimated to be $750, subject to proration (the "Alternative Cash Payment") or reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses fairly traceable to the Data Security Incident (up to $5,000). California residents can claim an additional $100 statutory cash payment, subject to proration. Am I eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement? You may be eligible to receive a payment if your personal identifying information or personal health information was accessed or acquired without authorization in the Data Security Incident. To learn who the Defendants are, visit www.GraniteWellnessDataSettlement.com. How do I get a payment from the Settlement? You must submit a valid Claim Form by April 26, 2026, to receive a payment from the Settlement Fund. You may access a Claim Form from the website and submit it online or download and mail it to the address on the Claim Form. Claim Forms are also available by calling (888) 995-4054 or emailing Info@GraniteWellnessDataSettlement.com. What are my other options? If you are a Class member and do nothing, you will be bound by the Settlement and will give up any right to sue Granite Wellness Centers in a separate lawsuit related to the legal claims in this lawsuit. If you want to keep your right to separately sue Granite Wellness Centers, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement by March 27, 2026. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object to the Settlement and/or ask for permission to appear and speak at the Fairness Hearing but only if you do so by March 27, 2026. Complete information is available at Info@GraniteWellnessDataSettlement.com. The Court's hearing. The Court will hold a hearing at 8:30 am PT on April 28, 2026, at the Superior Court of California in Placer County, 10820 Justice Center Dr, Roseville, CA 95678 to decide whether to approve the Settlement, grant the requested attorneys' fees of 241,425, reimbursement if costs and expenses of up to $20,000 and service awards of up to $2,000 for each of the five Class Representatives. You or your own lawyer, if you have one, may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own cost, but you do not have to. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the settlement website at https://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/. How Do I get More Information? This notice is only a summary. For more information, including the full Notice and Settlement Agreement, visit www.GraniteWellnessDataSettlement.com, email Info@GraniteWellnessDataSettlement.com, or call (888) 995-4054. Media Contact: Angeion Marketing marketingteam@angeiongroup.com [GN] GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Booth Sues Over Data Security Incident ---------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Booth, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case 4:26-cv-00253 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 13, 2026), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") of individuals whose information was provided to Defendant to receive its business services. On September 27, 2025, Defendant "discovered that an unauthorized third party had gained access to its information systems." The Defendant later discovered that "this unauthorized access came from a successful phishing attack on September 17, 2025." The Defendant began notifying individuals of the Data Breach on or around January 5, 2026. But for Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect these individuals' PII, the Data Breach would not have occurred. The Defendant is well-aware that it is at high risk of attempted cyberattack due to the high value of the sensitive data. Despite Defendant's awareness of both the value and sensitivity of the data it safeguarded and serious risk presented by insufficient security practices, Defendant did not take sufficient steps to ensure that its systems were secure. Defendant knew or should have known about the risk to the data it stored and processed, and the critical importance of adequate security measures in the face of increasing threats. The Data Breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. The Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed because they are at immediate risk of having their personal information used against them. Indeed, they have been at risk well before Defendant even notified Plaintiff of the breach. Plaintiff does not know if his data has been sold, transferred, replicated, or irrevocably disseminated and exposed. Plaintiff has suffered harm in the loss of the value of his data which cannot be easily recovered, if ever, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach on January 12, 2026, informing him that his sensitive information was part of Defendant's Data Breach. The Defendant "operates as a privately held company overseeing close to 150 gas stations and convenience stores, branded as Handi Plus and Handi Stops."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: 415-788-4220 Fax: 415-788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Canejo Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HANNAH CANEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00413 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2026) arises 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 complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant, either directly or indirectly, with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. On September 27, 2025, Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third party had gained access to its information systems during the Data Breach. In response, Defendant launched an investigation which determined that the unauthorized access came from a successful phishing attack on September 17, 2025. The unauthorized third party was able to access servers that hosted personal data and deploy malicious software that encrypted portions of Defendant's network. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, contact information, social security numbers, and drivers' license numbers. On January 5, 2026, Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for: negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data breach on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Hannah Canejo is a citizen and resident of Evans, Georgia. Defendant Gulshan Management Services, Inc. is a gas station and convenience store management company based in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214/744-3000 Facsimile: 214/744-3015 E-mail; jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com HARD ROCK: Mondragon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Geydy Mondragon and Phillip Sabater, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC. d/b/a HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL, SEMINOLE HARD ROCK SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a SEMINOLE HARD ROCK SUPPORT SERVICES, SEMINOLE HARD ROCK ENTERTAINMENT INC. d/b/a SEMINOLE GAMING, HR HOTEL NYC LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK HOTEL NEW YORK, HARD ROCK HOTELS, INC., NYY STEAK LLC, NYY STEAK MANHATTAN, LLC, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, Case No. 1:26-cv-00447 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") seeking from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to off-the-clock work and time shaving, unlawfully retained gratuities, unpaid call-in pay premiums, statutory penalties for wage notice and wage statement violations, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with policies of failing to pay all due regular and overtime wages to Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members, keeping a portion of the tips that Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members earned from customers and/or distributing a portion of the tips to third-party contract workers and managers who are not entitled to receive tips under the FLSA and applicable state wage laws, and failing to pay call-in premiums for shifts lasting 3 hours or less, all in violation of the FLSA and applicable state and local laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants. The Defendants own and operate the following hotels, casinos, and cafes across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 HEWITT'S GARDEN CENTERS: Marx Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Marx, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEWITT'S GARDEN CENTERS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00073-AJB-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter the "FLSA"), the New York Labor Articles 6 and 19, and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 142-2.2 (hereinafter "NYLL") to recover unpaid overtime compensation and for other relief. Throughout Plaintiff's employment Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for any hours that she worked in excess of 40 hours each week. The Defendant was aware of Plaintiff and the Store Manager's work hours but failed to pay them the full amount of wages to which they were entitled for this work time under the law. The Defendant's failures to pay proper wages in a timely manner were made and continue to be made without good faith, willfully, and with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff and other Store Manager's rights, and Plaintiff and other Store Managers have been damaged by such failures, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Store Manager at Defendant's store located in Scotia, New York from 2020 through on August 19, 2024. The Defendant operates 7 retail locations throughout New York state within the counties of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, and Warren.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly A. Magnuson, Esq. HARDING MAZZOTTI, LLP 1 Wall Street Albany, NY 12205 Phone: (518) 556-3402 Email: Kelly.Magnuson@1800law1010.com HFS FINANCIAL: Bradford Sues Over Unlawful Credit Denial -------------------------------------------------------- Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HFS FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00318 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought seeking redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with the specific reasons for the credit denial deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying Plaintiff's loan application. The email contained a letter that provided the reasons for the credit denial ("adverse action letter"). The adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial. On November 28, 2025, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting that Defendant provide more details regarding reason(s) for the credit denial. The Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's letter. Plaintiff was forced to file this action to obtain information he is entitled to under the ECOA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied for a home improvement loan from Defendant in November 2025. The Defendant is an online lender that provides home improvement loans to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com HILTON WORLDWIDE: Ferrer Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexandra Ferrer, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:25-cv-11608 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 Virginia on Jan. 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00091-LMB-WBP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. -- https://www.hilton.com/en/corporate/ -- is an American multinational hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels, resorts, and timeshare properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9156 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Isabelle Louise Ord, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Phone: (415) 836-2500 Fax: (415) 836-2501 Email: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com - and - Ashley Lauren Barton, Esq. Matthew Danaher, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US 4365 Executive Drive Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 677-1400 Fax: (858) 677-1401 Email: ashley.barton@us.dlapiper.com matt.danaher@us.dlapiper.com HITACHI RAIL: Court OKs Bid for Protective Order in "Turgut" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Volkan Turgut, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-cv-10660-AK (D. Mass.), Judge Angel Kelley of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order on January 23, 2026. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that the Defendant violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148, by paying its employees more than six days after termination of the pay period. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been violating the Wage Act since February 2021 and seeks to represent a class of the Defendant's employees who were harmed by the Defendant's actions since February 2021. As part of its written discovery, the Defendant issued a third-party subpoena to Charles Schwab Bank, SSB requesting documents including all bank statements associated with the Plaintiff's Charles Schwab bank account from January 2023 to April 2024, all documents reflecting the dates on which funds from Hitachi Rail were directly deposited, and all documents reflecting how Schwab processes direct deposits from Hitachi Rail. The Plaintiff challenged the relevancy and breadth of Requests 1-7. The Court found that Document Request 1 for all bank statements associated with the Plaintiff's accounts is relevant to assessing damages. The Court stated that even if the Plaintiff is only requesting liquidated damages, the treble damages under the Wage Act must be based upon some underlying amount of lost wages and other benefits. The Plaintiff's bank statements are relevant to assess his lost wages and other benefits. The request is proportional, as it is time-limited to the period during which the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. The Court determined that Document Requests 2-7 seeking information regarding how Schwab processed deposits from the Defendant to the Plaintiff's account are relevant because payment is complete under the Wage Act when the recipient of the funds has some control over the funds. Although the requests are relevant, Requests 3-7 are overbroad because they contain no temporal limitation. The Court ordered that Requests 3-7 shall be limited to the period of time from February 2021 to the present. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. Requests 1 and 2 are permitted as they are. Requests 3-7 shall be temporally limited from February 2021 to the present. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/4z6yytj6 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc. was represented by Zinnia K. Khan and Jeffrey S Shapirofrom Fisher & Phillips LLP. While Plaintiff Volkan Turgut was represented by Eric R. LeBlanc from Bennett & Belfort PC and Ilir Kavaja from Kavaja Law, P.C. HOLLEY INC: Fort Lauderdale Employees Seek to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. HOLLEY INC., f/k/a EMPOWER LTD., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00148-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action; (2) appointing GERS as Class Representative; and (3) appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. Finally, a class action is the superior means for fairly and efficiently adjudicating Class members' claims, and the Class is readily ascertainable. GERS, therefore, seeks appointment as Class Representative and certification of the following Class: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Holley, Inc. securities, between July 21, 2021 and Feb. 6, 2023, inclusive." Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the officers and directors of Holley at all relevant times; and (iii) members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. This securities fraud case should be certified as a class action because it readily satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and is eminently suited for class treatment. This is a federal securities action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Holley manufactures and distributes performance automotive parts. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKsUVj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Robbins, Esq. Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq. Sabrina E. Tirabassi, Esq. Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33423 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com eshonson@rgrdlaw.com stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com arees@rgrdlaw.com akaplan@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com - and - David Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com HOME SERVICE: Must File Class Cert Response in Gomez by Feb. 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOMEZ v. HOME SERVICE NETWORK, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-16093 (D.N.J., Filed Sept. 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order as follows: -- The Defendant shall file any response to the class- certification motion by Feb. 6, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file any reply by Feb. 20, 2026. The Court has reviewed the Defendant's January 22, 2026, letter, which requests that the Court allow Defendant to file opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the advisement that Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's request for the opportunity to oppose the motion. It appearing that Defendant answered the Complaint, and in order to ensure that the Court has the benefit of complete briefing and all relevant positions in order to make a fully informed decision on the merits of the class-certification motion, Defendant's request is granted. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Home is an authorized service provider for Samsung Electronics of America.[CC] HUEL INC: Vasquez Sues Over Deceptive and Unlawful Surveillance --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUEL INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00311 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought for violations New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices statute; violated New York's False Advertising Law; and committed invasion of privacy in violation of N.Y. Civil Rights Law, on behalf of a class of similarly situated users harmed by Defendant's deceptive and unlawful surveillance practices. Like many modern websites, the Website displays a cookie banner and a cookie preferences interface (the "Cookie Preferences Interface") purporting to give users meaningful control over what data the Website collects or otherwise discloses to third parties (the "Tracking Entities") via software-based monitoring systems (the "Tracking Tools") embedded on the Website. Defendant's cookie banner assures users that they may control the sale or disclosure of their personal information, including by deactivating all non essential cookies. The Website's cookie banner and Cookie Preferences Interface materially mislead users about the use and sale of users' data. Defendant lulls users into a false sense of privacy and control while simultaneously enabling third-party Tracking Entities to monitor users' online behavior in real time. The Plaintiff clicked "Cookie Settings," toggled off the sale/sharing of personal information, declined all non-necessary cookies, and selected "Confirm My Choices." In reliance on Defendant's representations, Plaintiff believed that the Website would modify its behavior in honor of Plaintiff's choices. Instead, Defendant continued to provide access to Plaintiff's browsing activity, page interactions, navigation patterns, and identifiers to the Tracking Entities for advertising and analytics purposes. The Defendant's conduct allowed the Tracking Entities to unlawfully intrude into Plaintiff's sensitive information, private communications, invade Plaintiff's fundamental right to privacy, and fraudulently misrepresented the Website's data-collection practices. In doing so Defendant committed intrusion upon seclusion; violated the Federal Wiretap Act; common-law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; violated New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices statute; violated New York's False Advertising Law; and committed invasion of privacy in violation of N.Y. Civil Rights Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website, most recently in 2026, to browse the Website. Huel operates a commercial website, through which users learn about Huel's protein powder products and daily green powder supplements, review nutritional information and health claims, purchase products, enroll in subscription plans, and explore promotional offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary Ishimoto, Esq. Mark Jensen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com mjensen@zlk.com HURSH GROUP LLC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hursh Group, LLC. The case is styled as Trinceton Brown, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Hursh Group, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00185 (D. Colo., Jan. 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. HURSH GROUP, LLC is a government contractor based in Bozeman, MT.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Osborne Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insurance Supermarket Inc. The case is styled as Seaborn Osborne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insurance Supermarket Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-20331-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Insurance Supermarket International -- https://insurance-supermarket.com/ -- is a leading global provider of some of the best life insurance solutions on the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com INSURIT LLC: Dinh Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insurit, LLC. The case is styled as Tina Dinh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insurit, LLC doing business as: Go Insurit, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00167 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Insurit is an independent insurance agency that specializes in the needs of our clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 22, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2024 against the Company and certain officers following the modification of its segment reporting in the first quarter of 2024 to align to its new internal foundry operating model. In August 2024, the court ordered the case consolidated with a second, similar lawsuit, and in October 2024 plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint generally alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements about the growth and prospects of the foundry business and seeking monetary damages on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock or purchased call options or sold put options on its common stock from January 25, 2024 through August 1, 2024. In March 2025, the court dismissed plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs failed to plead any false or misleading statements by defendants. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend, but in July 2025 dismissed plaintiffs' second amended complaint and entered judgment in defendants' favor, again finding that plaintiffs failed to plead any false or misleading statements. Plaintiffs have appealed. Given the procedural posture of the case, including that the plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from the matter. Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer components and related products. The Company major products include microprocessors, chipsets, embedded processors and microcontrollers, flash memory, graphic, network and communication, systems management software, conferencing, and digital imaging products. [BN] INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., and THOMAS A. FRANK, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving settlement, which will provide for: (i) preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement with the Defendants, Interactive Brokers, LLC, Interactive Brokers Group, Inc., and Thomas Frank; (ii) conditional certification of the Settlement Class; (iii) appointment of all Plaintiffs' counsel of record and those identified in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement as Settlement Class Counsel; (iv) appointment of the named Plaintiff as Class Representative of the Settlement Class; (v) appointment of Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; (vi) approval of form and manner of notice to the Class; and setting dates for a Final Fairness Hearing with related deadlines. Interactive is an American multinational brokerage firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xy9xKy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Bloss, Esq. Christopher M. Mattei, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 FAIRFIELD AVENUE BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com cmattei@koskoff.com - and - Jack P. Carroll, Esq. Gilbert I. Low, Esq. ORGAIN BELL & TUCKER, LLP 505 Orleans, Suite 500 Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 838-6412 E-mail: jpc@obt.com mcroshaw@obt.com - and - L. DeWayne Layfield, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD, PLLC Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 832-1891 E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com INTERO GROUP: King Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela King, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. INTERO GROUP HIM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00063-JWD-RLB (M.D. La., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation, and the Louisiana Wage & Hour Act for the recovery of unpaid wages in the form of earned and accrued paid time off (PTO). The Plaintiff's hours varied from week to week during her employment with Defendant, but she and the Collective Members regularly worked more than 0 hours in a workweek. The Defendant manipulated Plaintiff's hourly rate reflected on her payroll records in an effort to disguise Plaintiff's entitlement to overtime wages. The Plaintiff's time spent coding was entered into Defendant's timekeeping software as hours worked. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard of the law, maintained an illegal practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek over the past 3 years. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard of the law, maintained an illegal practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members all wages earned, including overtime, for non-coding work such as completing a production log, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a medical coder from February, 2021 to January 7, 2026. Intero Group HIM Services, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com IRON RAMEN USA: Meza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Omnel Meza, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. IRON RAMEN USA INC. d/b/a IRON RAMEN, and KENNY LI, individually, and JACKEY CHEN, individually, and ALE ZHENG, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-00387 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 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 minimum wage provisions and the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate for those days when their employees' spread of hours exceeds ten in a workday. Throughout his employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL or the minimum wages due to him under the NYLL. Specifically, 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 salary, on a monthly basis, which operated by law to cover only the first forty hours that Plaintiff worked in a week. Thus, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at any rate, let alone at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, or one and one half times the minimum wage rate, if greater, for any hours that Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of forty. Moreover, when calculated on a per hour basis, the amount that Defendants paid Plaintiff fell below the minimum wage that New York law requires per hour of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher and assistant cook, from October 1, 2024, to June 14, 2025. The Defendants is a New York corporation that operates a restaurant located in Stony Brook, New York, and its owners and day-to-day overseer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 IVANA'S COFFEE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Torres Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IVANA'S COFFEE SHOP & GROCERY LLC (D/B/A PLAZA KING COFFEE SHOP), and PETAR NIKILAC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00312 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties. Regardless, at all relevant times, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff at a rate that was lower than the required minimum wage rate. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Plaza king coffee shop from December 2022 until March 29, 2025. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Coffee shop, located in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Plaza King Coffee Shop."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 J.M. SMUCKER: Humphrey Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Humphrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 4, 2022), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting class certification and addressing sealing motions. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. The Defendant is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products.[CC] JAMES MACKAY: Sutter Securities Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sutter Securities, Incorporated, Boustead Securities, LLC, and Sutter Securities Clearing, LLC v. JAMES MACKAY and CHELSEA MACKAY, Case No. 656351/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00340. On January 13, 2026, Defendants filed a Stipulation Extending Time to Answer granting Defendants until February 23, 2026 to answer or move against the Complaint. On January 13, 2026, Sutter Securities, Boustead, and SUTTER SECURITIES CLEARING, LLC (hereinafter "Sutter Clearing") filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William H. Gagas, Esq. DORF NELSON & ZAUDERER, LLP 555 Theodore Fremd Ave Rye, NY 10580 Phone: (914) 381-7600 JAY'S SPANISH: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosmerys Diaz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JAY'S SPANISH RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A JAY'S SPANISH RESTAURANT) and JAY CARMONA, Case No. 1:26-cv-00368 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay The Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she worked over 10 hours per day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond The Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a cashier and cook at the Hispanic restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Hispanic restaurant, located in Bronx, New York under the name "Jay's Spanish Restaurant."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 JOHN O'BANNON: King Wins Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATI ABU KING, et al., V. JOHN O'BANNON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00408-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John Gibney, Jr. entered an order as follows: 1. Granting the motion for class certification, and certifies the following class: "All citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia who are currently, or in the future will be, disqualified from voting under Article II, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution because they were convicted of a crime that was not a felony at common law in 1870." 2. Denying the defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick, and the defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Edward L. Ayers. 3. Denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and grants the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief. 4. Declaring that the defendants have violated the Virginia Readmission Act. Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the defendants from using Article II, section 1 of the Virginia Constitution to violate the Virginia Readmission Act. Consequently, by May 1, 2026, the defendants shall not deny a person attempting to register to vote or cancel a person's existing registration except for convictions of the following common-law felonies: (1) arson; (2) burglary; (3) escape and rescue from a prison or jail; (4) larceny; (5) manslaughter; (6) mayhem; (7) murder; (8) rape; (9) robbery; (10) sodomy; and (11) suicide. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mdzAnL at no extra charge.[CC] KB CUSTOM: Delgado Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME ALBERTO DELGADO-BOJORQUEZ, OSCAR JOVANNY DIAZ-RAMIREZ, JOSE ANIEL LOPEZ-VALDEZ, and REY DAVID AVIÑA-COTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KB CUSTOM AG SERVICES, LLC, and KYLE BEAUCHAMP, Case No. 1:25-cv-00847-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for Rule 23 class certification. The proposed class, represented by the named Plaintiffs, is defined as: "All individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers who were employed by Defendants as heavy tractor-trailer truck drivers at any time between March 14, 2022 and the present." Accordingly, the proposed class of over 300 truck drivers from Mexico meets the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Furthermore, as the truck drivers were paid alike and performed the same job subject to the same written contract terms, common questions of law and fact predominate, and a class action would be far superior to any other method of adjudicating the legal claims of more than 300 H-2A truck drivers employed pursuant to identical contracts. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants breached their and other truck drivers' employment contracts or, in the alternative, are liable to them in quantum meruit. The Plaintiffs seek the Court's determination that their breach of contract and quantum meruit claims may be maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs are truck drivers brought to the United States by Defendants to work pursuant to the H-2A temporary foreign worker visa program hauling silage (chopped row crops) for the Defendants' dairy customers. KB operates a custom harvesting business that provides harvesting and trucking of silage for Defendants' dairy customers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w9f618 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawson Morton, Esq. James M. Knoepp, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca Hause-Schultz, Esq. Vance O. Knapp, Esq. FISHER PHILLIPS, LLP 621 Capital Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 E-mail: rhause-schultz@fisherphillips.com vknapp@fisherphillips.com KC LUCKY BASTARD: Chaffin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brittany Chaffin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KC LUCKY BASTARD, LLC, d/b/a LUCKY BASTARD SALOON, KC WHISKEY RIVER, LLC, d/b/a WHISKEY RIVER SALOON, KELLY COMPANIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, and KELLY OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00049 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants purport to utilize a tip credit for each hour worked by Plaintiff and other Tip Credit Employees to comply with the FLSA's required minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (and $10.88 per hour for hours worked over 40 in a workweek). Because Defendants take a tip credit under the FLSA for its Tip Credit Employees, Defendants must meet all statutory requirements for counting a portion of tips received by their employees as satisfying the statutory minimum wage. The Defendants do not meet these statutory requirements for claiming a tip credit towards the minimum wage. The Plaintiff has worked over 40 hours in at least one workweek. Defendants knew or should have known that its compensation practices and/or policies for Tip Credit Employees violate the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants in February of 2023 and is a current employee as a bartender. KC Lucky Bastard, LLC, is a member managed Tennessee limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com KIND LLC: Burnett Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------ Jade Burnett, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KIND LLC and KIND FOODS LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00440 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' unfair and unlawful business acts and practices; deceptive advertising practices; consumer legal remedies act; breach of express warranty; and unjust enrichment. The Defendants violate California consumer protection law in the labeling of their KIND HEALTHY GRAINS Dark Chocolate Clusters (the "Products") by representing that the Products are made with healthy, premium ingredients, but failing to disclose that they contain a substantial amount of lead. According to independent scientific testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel, a single 65 gram serving of the Products contains 2.34 mcg of lead, which is more than four times the California Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Level ("MADL") for reproductive toxicity of 0.5 micrograms of lead per day. By making the Representations and failing to disclose that the Products contain lead, Defendants deprive consumers of the opportunity to make an informed purchasing decision. The Defendants make the label Representations in order to drive their own profits and to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class members who would not have purchased the Products, or would not have purchased them on the same terms, if they knew the truth, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste.192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: 310.400.1053 Fax: 212.202.6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com KUREHA ENERGY: Rich Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Jason Rich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KUREHA ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00330 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for damages and other legal and equitable relief from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover: unpaid overtime wages; liquidated damages; attorney fees and costs; interest; and such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. The Plaintiff and the Field Representatives worked 12 to 14 hours per day and seven days a week. Thus, Plaintiff and the Field Representatives worked over 40 hours per week. Defendant classified Plaintiff and the Field Representatives as exempt from overtime wages. Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and the Field Representatives an overtime rate of one and a half times their effective hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff and the Field Representatives worked over 40 hours per week without overtime pay. The Plaintiff and the Field Representatives were misclassified as overtime-exempt. The Plaintiff has knowledge of the Field Representatives performing similar job duties to him and working over 40 hours per week without overtime wages because of conversations he had with other Field Representatives and witnessing the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant as a Field Representative on October 18, 2018. The Defendant is an entity engaged in the fracking/oil industry that provides fracking plugs to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Pounds, Esq. ELLWANGER HENDERSON LLLP 11149 Research Blvd., Ste. 100 Austin, TX 78759 Phone: (737) 808-2262 Facsimile: (737) 808-2262 Email: bpounds@equalrights.law - and - Alexander White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 Email: awhite@vkv.law LAKESIDE TITLE: Eisenhardt Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ VICKI EISENHARDT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKESIDE TITLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00279-RDB (D. Md., January 22, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") 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. As a result, Plaintiff was injured by Defendant's Data Breach. The Plaintiff paid fees and costs associated with Defendant's services and reasonably understood that a portion of the funds paid to Defendant would be used to pay for adequate cybersecurity and the protection of her PII, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Vicki Eisenhard is a citizen of Westminster, Maryland and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Lakeside Title Company is a Mid-Atlantic title company with 75+ professionals and 18 offices, delivering technology-driven real estate settlement and escrow services for more than 4,000 transactions annually, backed by an on-site legal team and advanced fraud protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane O. King, Esq. 803 W. Broad St. Suite 210 Falls Church, VA 22046 Telephone: (202) 331-1963 Facsimile: (202) 449-8365 E-mail: dking@dkinglaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com LAURA HERMOSILLO: Court Grants Relief in Immigration Case --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as RAMON RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LAURA HERMOSILLO, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash)., the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered the Defendants to provide individual notice of the Rodriguez Vazquez declaratory judgment to all noncitizens charged as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) or (a)(7) who are detained at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center (NWIPC). On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez filed suit challenging the Tacoma Immigration Court's bond denial practice. On May 2, 2025, the Court certified a Bond Denial Class comprised of all noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, are not apprehended upon arrival, and are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c), Section 1225(b)(1), or Section 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing. In late 2022, the Tacoma Immigration Court instituted a practice of denying bond hearings to noncitizens detained at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center who had entered the United States without inspection. The Immigration Judges reasoned that these individuals are seeking admission to the United States, placing them within the ambit of Section 1225(b)(2), and thus are ineligible for release on bond under Section 1226(a). On September 30, 2025, the Court granted summary judgment to the Bond Denial Class and declared that Bond Denial Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2). The Court further declared that the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice of denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of Section 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court entered judgment in favor of the Bond Denial Class on October 1, 2025. Defendants appealed the Court's order to the Ninth Circuit on October 28, 2025, but did not seek a stay of the declaratory judgment pending appeal. The Court noted that Defendants have refused to comply with the Court's ruling and have continued to apply Section 1225(b)(2)'s mandatory detention regime to members of the Bond Denial Class. Instead of following the Court's declaratory judgment, the Immigration Judges have cited In re Yajure Hurtado as binding precedent and characterized the Court's ruling as an advisory opinion. Since the Court entered judgment, more than 100 unlawfully detained noncitizens have filed habeas corpus petitions seeking enforcement of their rights as class members. The Court explained that a petition for habeas corpus is currently a class member's only avenue to achieve a bond hearing. The Court found that Defendants' assertions that the Court's ruling is an advisory opinion are wrong. The Court explained that what separates a declaratory judgment from an advisory opinion is the settling of some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff. A declaratory judgment is legally binding on the parties to a case and carries the force and effect of a final judgment. The Court adopted the Bond Denial Class's notice proposal, finding such relief is necessary because individual habeas petitions are the only realistic way for class members to exercise their rights under the declaratory judgment. The Court found it is proper because Defendants have the capacity to provide notice in the way that the Class proposes. The Court ordered that Defendants must provide individual notice of the Rodriguez Vazquez declaratory judgment to all noncitizens charged as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) or (a)(7) who are detained at NWIPC. This notice must be provided within five days of the noncitizen's arrival at NWIPC, written in a language that the noncitizen can understand, and accompanied by a copy of the noncitizen's I-213. Defendants must provide a weekly list to class counsel of all detainees who received the notice that week, along with a copy of each listed detainee's I-213 and charges or Notice to Appear. Defendants must begin providing the notices no later than Tuesday, January 20, 2026. The first weekly list to class counsel must be provided on Monday, January 26, 2026, and continue every Monday thereafter until further order of the Court. The Court denied the Class's request for notice to Defendants' employees, finding that such relief would be more performative than useful. The Court also denied the request for notice before transfer of detainees, finding it lacks a sufficient nexus to the Court's enforcement of the terms of the declaratory judgment. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9jmGS3 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Pamela Bondi Represented By Michael D. Ross 202-742-7118 michael.d.ross@usdoj.gov Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Defendant Drew Bostock Represented By Michael D. Ross 202-742-7118 michael.d.ross@usdoj.gov Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Defendant Executive Office for Immigration Review Represented By Michael D. Ross 202-742-7118 michael.d.ross@usdoj.gov Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Defendant Kristi Noem Represented By Michael D. Ross 202-742-7118 michael.d.ross@usdoj.gov Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Defendant Sirce Owen Represented By Michael D. Ross 202-742-7118 michael.d.ross@usdoj.gov Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Defendant Bruce Scott Represented By Michael D. Ross 202-742-7118 michael.d.ross@usdoj.gov Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Defendant Tacoma Immigration Court Represented By Michael D. Ross 202-742-7118 michael.d.ross@usdoj.gov Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security Represented By Victor M. Mercado-Santana Dept. Of Justice, Civil Division 202-305-7001 victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov Ian S Lam 202-307-6329 ian.s.lam@usdoj.gov Plaintiff Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez Represented By Aaron Korthuis Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (sea) 206-957-8611 aaron@nwirp.org Glenda M Aldana Madrid Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (sea) 206-957-8646 glenda@nwirp.org Leila Kang Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (sea) 206-816-3847 leila@nwirp.org Matt Adams Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (sea) 206-957-8611 matt@nwirp.org LENS CENTER: Yuventina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Celmeta Yuventina and Jona Mahmuti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE LENS CENTER INC., JOEL ACKERMAN, YIDES ACKERMAN, and SHEA GOLDBERGER, as individuals, Case No. 1:26-cv-00202 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per week, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and the Collective Class to work without appropriate overtime and wage compensation. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent. The Defendants had knowledge that Plaintiffs and the Collective Class performed work requiring overtime pay and wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. THE LENS CENTER INC. is a domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[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 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ward Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526-BEM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying the PRV Class defined as "All persons in the United States or its territories (1) to whom Liberty Mutual placed, or caused to be placed, one or more call; (2) between March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020; (3) to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service; (4) where Drips' records indicate a prerecorded message played; and (5) the person's phone number appears on the AWLI Spreadsheet;" -- Certifying the NDNC Class defined as "All persons in the United States or its territories who (1) received more than one call in a 12-month period; (2) by or on behalf of Liberty Mutual; (3) on a telephone number that appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days at the time of the calls, (4) between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020; and (5) the person's phone number appears on the AWLI Spreadsheet;" -- Appointing Ward as Class Representative of both Classes; -- Appointing Jacob Ginsburg of Kimmel & Silverman, PC, Max S. Morgan of the Weitz Firm, LLC and Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices as Class Counsel; and -- Instructing Class Counsel to submit a proposed Form of Notice and Notice Plan within 45 days of the Order granting Class certification. Liberty is a nationwide insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kXYeEh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street Ste #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: Max.Morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com LIFE SURGE: Dessauer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Dessauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFE SURGE LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00133 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and on behalf of all other similarly situated collective members. The Defendant has engaged in a willful scheme to avoid its pay obligations under the FLSA in order to save millions of dollars in labor costs and increase profits by misclassifying its sales employees as independent contractors. Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff on a salary basis. The Defendant compensated Plaintiff entirely on commissions basis. To avoid its obligations under the FLSA, Defendant willfully misclassified Plaintiff and all other Sales Advisors as independent contractors. As a result of this willful misclassification, Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff or other Sales Advisors for hours worked over 40 in any work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was contracted as an independent contractor, Sales Advisor effective January 26, 2023. Life Surge offers "one-day live event designed to inspire, train, and equip believers to advance God's Kingdom in the marketplace."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road, Ste. 225 Tampa, FL 33626 Phone: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com LIMBLE SOLUTIONS: Touani Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan Touani and Nick Mazza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIMBLE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00033 (D. Utah, Jan. 13, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the FLSA for the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective allege they were not paid overtime compensation for hours worked above 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay SDRs, including Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective, overtime compensation for hours worked above 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant should have paid Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective overtime compensation for hours worked above 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant. Limble is based in Lehi, Utah and provides a CMMS and Asset Management platform to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: April Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC HC 63 Box 8715 Duchesne, UT 84021 Phone: (801) 415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 Email: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H Street NE, 4th Floor Washington D.C. 20002 Phone: (202) 830-2016 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com LPA-NEVADA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Desai Suit Due Dec. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRIAN DESAI, ET AL., v. LPA-NEVADA, LLC d/b/a LAKE POINTE APTS, ET AL, Case No. 3:25-cv-05087-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool entered an scheduling order/discovery plan as follows: -- Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or before May 20, 2026. -- Discovery shall be completed on or before Dec. 21, 2026. -- The plaintiff shall designate any expert witnesses on or before Oct. 5, 2026, and the defendant shall designate any expert witnesses on or before Dec. 7, 2026. -- Absent extraordinary circumstances, all discovery motions shall be filed on or before Dec. 1, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on or before Dec. 21, 2026. -- All dispositive motions, except those under FRCP 12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before Feb. 8, 2027. LakePointe offers apartment rentals. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x9kINn at no extra charge.[CC] LYFT INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Priority Pickup Option ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Lyft's premium-priced "Priority Pickup" option is not as beneficial as advertised, given that priority pickups often fail to arrive at the advertised time and sometimes take even longer than a standard -- and cheaper -- Lyft pickup. The 27-page lawsuit contends that although consumers pay on average about $3 more for a Priority Pickup, Lyft consistently fails to deliver on its promise of a predictable, faster-arriving ride. The complaint summarizes that many Lyft users who pay extra for a Priority Pickup, advertised as the ride-hailing option for consumers to "get where they want to go quick, fast, and in a hurry," essentially pay a premium price for "benefits that they never receive." Per the suit, Lyft's Standard ride-hailing option provides users an average pick-up time and costs less than a Priority Pickup. The defendant also offers a Wait & Save option for a lower-cost delayed pickup with an uncertain wait time, the case adds. The class action lawsuit says that although the Priority Pickup option amounts to a "laudable promise" from Lyft, the company simply "does not always deliver," meaning users end up paying extra for a benefit they never receive. "So, people like Plaintiff end up paying extra for no reason," the lawsuit states. Because Lyft differentiates the pickup times between different ride options down to the exact minute, and not as a range or estimate, the rideshare company should have the ability to accurately predict pickup times and indicate them to customers as soon as they are available, the suit argues. This, however, is not the case, as consumers like the plaintiff have reported unexpected additional wait times after selecting the Priority Pickup option and did not receive a refund of the price premium they paid, the filing illustrates. Furthermore, the case contends that Lyft's apparent inability to consistently deliver on its Priority Pickup promise is made worse by its reliance of "dark patterns", what the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) describes as deceptive business practices designed to "manipulate consumers into making choices they would not ordinarily make." For Priority Pickups, the lawsuit says, the dark patterns manifest in Lyft's pop-up to riders who select tier ride options if they wait to "upgrade" to get picked up quicker for just a few dollars more, or "keep waiting" for the ride they ordered. Such conduct is what the FTC refers to as "confirm shaming," which, according to the case, is a way of using shame or disapproval to deter users from making choices by framing alternate options as the worse decision. " . . . Lyft knows that people 'in a hurry' will pay an extra $3 to avoid the risk of getting picked up late," the suit asserts. "Lyft capitalizes on this association between price and dependability when, in reality, a Priority Pickup ride comes with significant risk because Lyft does not consistently deliver on its advertised pickup time." The Lyft Premium Pickup class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in the United States who paid for a Priority Pickup but were not picked up within the advertised time during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] MAO IZAKAYA: Lowe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Mi A Lowe, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MAO IZAKAYA & SUSHI LLC, a California limited liability company; ANTHONY AN, an individual; OH DUBLIN INC (DBA AKUMA BAY), a California Corporation; JIWOON YANG, an individual; CHI YOUNG MOON, an individual; JAEHYUK YANG, an individual; HEYOU R. LIN, an individual; CHANGHA HWANG, an individual; MYEONG RANG KIM, an individual; HANA ESCROW COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:26-cv-00449 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' Violation of California Labor Code for Unpaid Overtime and Unpaid Minimum Wages. The Defendants failed to accurately disclose material facts concerning hours worked, wage calculations, overtime eligibility, and their legal obligations under federal and state wage-and-hour laws. The unlawful compensation practices were implemented through routine payroll systems and standardized policies that were self-concealing and not reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff through the exercise of due diligence. The Plaintiff did not know, and could not reasonably have known, the full nature and extent of Defendants' wage-and-hour violations, including the role of successor entities in continuing or benefitting from those practices, until well within the applicable limitations periods. The Defendants' wage-and-hour violations were ongoing and continuous, including repeated failures to pay legally required wages and overtime, such that each underpayment constituted a new violation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Restaurant as a non-exempt chef. The Defendant engaged in a Japanese restaurant business in Alameda County, the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Song, Esq. BHS LAW CORPORATION 2559 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Phone: (408)628-4257 Fax: (408)628-4258 Email: Briansong@Songleelaw.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Bellissimo Sues Over Inadequately Storing of PII ------------------------------------------------------------------ Edythe Bellissimo and Jerry Livingston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. and THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK of PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:26-cv-00069 (W.D. Pa., Jan. 14, 2026), is brought action against the Defendants for the injuries Plaintiffs and others similarly situated sustained as a result of Defendants inadequately storing individuals' Personal Identifiable Information ("PII"). To provide their contracted services to First National Bank, First National Bank provided Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive, non-public PII to Marquis, who in turn stored and used Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. On August 14, 2025, cybercriminals hacked into the network systems of First National Bank's service provider and third-party vendor, Marquis, and stole Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive PII stored therein, including their full names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and dates of birth causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members ("Data Breach" or "Breach"). As result of the Data Breach, approximately 217,000 of customers of financial institutions who contracted with Marquis were impacted by the Breach. Now, Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. Despite discovering the Breach on or about August 14, 2025, First National Bank and Marquis have delayed alerting victims of the Data Breach. Upon information and belief, Defendants have yet to finish sending notice of the Breach to affected individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former customers of First National Bank, who received banking services from First National Bank prior to the Data Breach. Marquis is a is a software firm that provides "marketing and compliance solutions" to "700+ banks and credit unions."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara J. Watkins, Esq. D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Stanley D. Ference IV, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-281-7229 Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com arihn@peircelaw.com mference@peircelaw.com MARYLAND EYE CARE CENTER: Neher Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maryland Eye Care Center. The case is styled as Samuel Neher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maryland Eye Care Center, Case No. 8:26-cv-00185 (D. Md., Jan. 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Maryland Eye Care Center -- https://www.mdeyecarecenter.com/ -- offer a variety of refractive surgery and general ophthalmology treatments to help restore and maintain your optimal vision health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com MATTHEW MORRISON BATES: Klingler Files Suit in D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matthew Morrison Bates, et al. The case is styled as Robert Klingler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Matthew Morrison Bates, Joshua Curtis Bishop, Frances M. Palacios, Jared James Prazen, Thiel Fama Ruperto, Jason Leon Stock, Wilfred Jose Manuel Vigil also known as: Will Vigil, Stronghold Capital Partners, LLC, Stronghold Wealth Partners, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00043 (D. Utah, Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com MDL 2873: Two AFFFs Product Liability Suits Transferred to D.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one case from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico and one from the Eastern District of Oklahoma, all to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873. The State of New Mexico and the New Mexico Environment Department in the Torrez action moved to vacate the order that conditionally transferred their case to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in the MDL, while the federal defendants (the United States and the U.S. Air Force) oppose this motion. In the Drummond action, 3M Company moved to transfer the Eastern District of Oklahoma case to the MDL. The State of Oklahoma opposed the motion to transfer. Actions in the MDL involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The MDL actions share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health; and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. In opposition to transfer, the New Mexico plaintiffs argue that this action, brought under state environmental laws to enforce the terms of an environmental permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department to the U.S. Air Force for Cannon Air Force Base, will not share factual questions with the actions in the MDL. Plaintiffs contend that their claims are limited to terms of the permit and will not require discovery relating to the Air Force's use of AFFF at Cannon Air Force Base. Plaintiffs also argue that the transferee court has found—with respect to an earlier action by the State that was transferred to the MDL—that the federal government's defenses in this matter are site-specific and that the court lacks jurisdiction over New Mexico's claims for injunctive relief at Cannon Air Force Base. They argue that transfer would be burdensome for them and their witnesses and would not result in efficiencies. However, the panel contends that their allegations regarding the violations of the permit all flow from the Air Force's use of AFFF at Cannon Air Force Base. Indeed, New Mexico sought the same relief in its prior action, which remains pending in the MDL. Further, other actions in the MDL allege AFFF use at Cannon Air Force Base. These actions are being actively litigated in the MDL. Said action will present similar, if not identical, factual questions and will be most efficiently litigated with the other actions involving AFFF use at Cannon Air Force Base. With respect to plaintiffs' argument that transfer would be inefficient because the transferee court has concluded that the State's injunctive relief claims should proceed, if at all, in state court, the panel noted that said action is pending in federal district court. To the extent plaintiffs seek remand to state court, the transferee court can decide that motion. If the action is properly in federal court, then any jurisdictional issues regarding the injunctive relief plaintiffs seek presumably will exist in both the District of New Mexico and in the transferee court. To the extent plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced because caselaw in the Fourth Circuit differs from that in the Tenth Circuit, this argument is not well taken. Transfer is warranted "if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action might experience inconvenience or delay." In the State of Oklahoma action, it alleges that defendants designed, manufactured, and sold PFAS and PFAS-containing products that contaminated the State's natural resources, specifically with respect to groundwater at or near a former Gulfstream Aerospace/Rockwell Automation site in Bethany, Oklahoma. The panel consistently held that a party seeking to transfer of an action that does not on its face raise claims relating to the use or disposal of AFFF bears a "significant burden" to persuade the panel that transfer is appropriate where 3M has satisfied that burden claiming that said action will involve AFFF issues and overlaps with actions pending in the MDL. The Oklahoma City action alleges AFFF use and contamination at the Wiley Post Airport, which is directly adjacent to the former Gulfstream site. The State proffers an expert declaration to argue that AFFF-based PFAS contamination from the airport did not migrate to the former Gulfstream site, but the Panel is "neither well-situated nor inclined to weigh the merits of the parties' opposing characterizations of opinions presented in an expert declaration." Further, the former Gulfstream site itself appears to be at issue in the Oklahoma City action. The site is owned by the Oklahoma City Airport Authority, and plaintiffs in the Oklahoma City action seek to recover for PFAS contamination. "After considering the argument of counsel, we find that Torrez and Drummond involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2873, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation," concludes the panel. A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-12-25.pdf MDL 3010: Three Digital Ads Antitrust Row Transferred to S.D. N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the Southern District of New York, and with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge P. Kevin Castel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3010. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the orders conditionally transferring their actions to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the MDL while defendant Google LLC opposed the motions, and supported transfer. Like the actions in the MDL, the three actions concern Google's alleged monopolization and suppression of competition in online display advertising, an industry that involves high-speed electronic trading venues called "exchanges" that advertisers and online publishers use to manage the buying and selling of ad space on web sites and mobile apps. They allege that Google has monopolized or suppressed competition in digital display advertising -- specifically, the ad exchange market and the publisher ad server market. Moreover, their complaints each allege many of the same business practices as the MDL plaintiffs in support of their claim that Google has engaged in anticompetitive conduct. In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally assert that (1) justice and efficiency are best promoted by permitting their actions to proceed in their chosen forum, the Eastern District of Virginia, so that their actions can be decided by the judge who tried the related governmental enforcement action brought by the United States and certain state attorneys general, (2) there will be few common factual issues to be litigated in the MDL due to the collateral estoppel impact from the liability opinion in the DOJ action, which they expect will resolve nearly all the common liability issues; (3) competitor actions raise unique damages issues, which have not been part of the MDL to date; and (4) the MDL is too advanced to include competitor actions. The judges in both the transferee and transferor courts undoubtedly are knowledgeable about the issues raised in OpenX, PubMatic, and Magnite. Considering the totality of circumstances, the panel finds that the overlap between these actions and the MDL and the ongoing pretrial proceedings in the MDL support transfer. The ad exchange actions and the MDL share common factual issues as to Google's alleged monopolization of the ad exchange and publisher ad server markets and tying of its publisher ad server to its ad exchange – three of the core issues on the MDL. Plaintiffs' expectation that collateral estoppel will eliminate the need to litigate these issues is unavailing. The allegedly different nature of plaintiffs' damages does not weigh against transfer. They assert that the measure of damages for competitors (lost profits and diminished scale) is distinct from the measure of damages for the MDL plaintiffs (overcharges from supra-competitive pricing imposed on publishers and advertisers). But the question of damages likely will involve common factual issues such as the duration of harm and the volume of impacted transactions, as Google asserts, notes the panel. In any event, the transferee judge has the discretion to employ separate tracks or other appropriate pretrial management techniques to address any differences among the MDL actions. The advanced status of the MDL does not weigh against transfer, rules the panel. Whether the continued inclusion of tag-along actions is appropriate is based upon a review of the status of the MDL proceedings and an assessment of the relative merits of transferring additional cases. Transfer of the ad exchange actions to the MDL also will avoid inconsistent rulings on discovery and other pretrial motions, the panel adds. A full-text copy of the court's December 15, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3010-Transfer_Order-12-25.pdf MDL 3108: Two Data Breach Litigations Transferred to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers one case each from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the District of Maryland, all to the District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Change Healthcare, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3108. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the orders that conditionally transferred their actions to MDL No. 3108. The defendants from the Change Healthcare group opposed the motions. All actions on the motion are brought on behalf of persons whose personally identifiable information and protected health information were compromised in a cyberattack on the systems of defendants Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare, Inc., and Optum, Inc. (together, Change Healthcare) announced February 21, 2024. Change Healthcare allegedly failed to take adequate measures to prevent and address the consequences of the cyberattack on its network, which exposed the private information of millions of individuals and severely disrupted the ability of physicians, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers to use Change Healthcare's digital platform to access insurance information, fill prescriptions, submit insurance claims, and receive payment for services provided to patients. CareFirst is a health insurance company that provide medical, dental, and vision insurance and related services to individuals in the greater Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland area. It contracted with defendants for the provision of clearinghouse, risk adjustment, claims processing, and other related services. It alleges that the Change Healthcare data breach and the ensuing shutdown of Change's operations left it without access to the data required to process payments and submit claims. It states that it incurred costs by engaging other vendors to continue operations. Connecticut Radiation is a healthcare provider that contracted with Change Healthcare for the provision of practice management services. It alleges that Change failed to perform contracted-for services both before and after the data breach. Plaintiff further contends that, when it retained a new service provider, defendant failed to provide data and support needed by that provider to submit insurance claims in a timely manner and carry out other necessary duties. It also asserts that it accepted a TFAP loan from Change and that Change improperly demanded repayment of the loan by threatening to withhold payment by its affiliate, UnitedHealthcare, of plaintiff's claims for services rendered. Plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals and healthcare providers, and assert virtually identical claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract or implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws. Discovery in all actions will focus on how Change Healthcare's system was breached, what security measures Change Healthcare had in place, and the measures taken after the data breach was discovered to notify those impacted and to restore healthcare providers' access to insurance and other information stored in the Change Healthcare platform. Plaintiffs oppose transfer, arguing that its action will focus primarily on Change's failure to perform contracted-for services, which allegedly began months before the data breach occurred. It contends that its action will turn primarily on case-specific issues such as the terms of its individual contract and the extent of its damages. Plaintiff maintains that transfer would be inefficient and inconvenient because of non-overlapping discovery and unique legal claims, and because most of the relevant evidence is in or near Connecticut. Plaintiff further argues that the forum selection and choice-of-law provisions in its contract require that the action be brought in a Connecticut court and resolved under Connecticut law, making transfer improper. The panel ruled that Plaintiff's arguments against transfer are not persuasive. Although plaintiff contends that its action has little to do with the Change Healthcare data breach and focuses primarily on case-specific issues of fact, the cyberattack is prominently featured in its complaint and its damage claim is based on defendant's "fail[ure] to process the Plaintiff’s payment claims from in or about February 2024" -- when the cyberattack occurred -- "to in or about August 2024," when it alleges defendant resumed processing its claims. Moreover, claims relating to Change's demands for repayment of its TFAP loan overlap with similar claims by numerous MDL plaintiffs. "After considering the argument of counsel, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 3108 and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation," concludes the panel. The panel added that "plaintiff's argument based on the choice of law and forum selection provisions in its contract is misguided. Plaintiff contends that a Connecticut court would be in the "best position" to resolve its claims under Connecticut law, but as we have stated, "[t]ransferee courts routinely interpret and apply the laws of multiple states." We have further made clear that "contractual forum selection clauses do not limit the Panel's authority . . . to transfer tag-along actions to an existing MDL," the panel notes. A full-text copy of the court's December 10, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3108-Transfer_Order-12-25.pdf MDL 3114: McDiarmid v. AT&T Transferred to N.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------------- In the multidistrict action captioned "In re: At&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned MacDiarmid v. AT&T Mobility LLC, (C.A. No. 0:25−61291, S.D. Fla.) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Ada E. Brown for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. MacDiarmid moved to vacate the conditional transfer order while defendant AT&T Mobility LLC opposed the motion and supports transfer. In opposition to transfer, plaintiff principally argues that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and that transfer is improper because his action must be remanded to state court. However, the panel has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer, explaining that remand motions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. Plaintiffs also seek an order from the panel remanding their actions to state court, however, the panel does not have the authority to order remand of actions to state court. The Plaintiff also asserts that transfer will force him to participate in an MDL in violation of an alleged class action waiver in the AT&T consumer services agreement. "This argument misunderstands the nature of the MDL," the panel points out. "This MDL, like many others, includes both individual and class-based actions. Transfer does not force a plaintiff to litigate his claims as a class action, as we previously have held in this MDL." These putative class actions present common factual questions concerning an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T customers released on the dark web. A full-text copy of the court's December 15, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-12-25.pdf MELINDA EDDY: Burnside Loses Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burnside et al v. Melinda Eddy, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03319 (C.D. Ill., Filed Oct. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Sue E. Myerscough entered denying motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES LLC, MAIDEN MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES LLC, WEEG II MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES LLC, CH MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES LLC, SMITHRIDGE MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES LLC, AND MIAMI AIRPORT EXCHANGE EQUITIES LLC, as tenants in common, AKA MIAMI AIRPORT IND EQUITIES &ETALS, Case No. 1:26-cv-20267-WPD (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property business to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business within the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. MIAMI AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES LLC was and is a Foreign Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL J. ZIMMERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its deadline to file its resistance to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by four days, from Jan. 23, 2026, to Jan. 27, 2026. The additional days are requested due to a widespread technical outage impacting Outlook email services, which has impeded Midland's ability to finalize its Resistance and supporting declarations. Midland will endeavor to file its Resistance on January 23 but requests the additional time in case it becomes necessary. In the event that Midland takes additional days to file its Resistance, the parties jointly request that the Plaintiff be given a commensurate extension of days to file her Reply, which is currently due on April 24, 2026. Class certification briefing deadlines have been extended twice previously as part of jointly requested amended scheduling orders. A final pretrial conference has been set for April 7, 2027, and trial is set to begin May 17, 2027. This requested short extension for the class certification briefing will not impact any other deadlines in this action. Midland provides life insurance and annuities. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rnXlyV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Tuck, Esq. Peter G. Cornick, Esq. Jason N. Sigalos, Esq. William H. Higgins, Esq. Robert D. Phillips, Esq. Tania L. Kazi (Rice), Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7134 Facsimile: (404) 253-8404 E-mail: andy.tuck@alston.com peter.cornick@alston.com jason.sigalos@alston.com william.higgins@alston.com bo.phillips@alston.com tania.kazi@alston.com - and - Michael A. Dee, Esq. Jennifer E. Lindberg, Esq. BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES, GROSS, AND BASKERVILLE, P.L.C. 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-2510 Telephone: (515) 242-2400 Facsimile: (515) 323-8531 E-mail: dee@brownwinick.com jen.lindberg@brownwinick.com MIELLE ORGANICS: Knowles Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. MIELLE ORGANICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-0572 (S.D.N.Y., January 22, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Rosemary Mint Strengthening Shampoo from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CARLTON KNOWLES is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant MIELLE ORGANICS, LLC operates the Mielle Organics online retail store, as well as the Mielle Organics interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: haircare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[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.lega MONROE UNIVERSITY LTD.: Shor Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as Abriana Shor, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 800905/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Jan. 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Matters - Other Contract. Monroe University -- https://www.monroeu.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2578 Broadway #551 New York, NY 10025-8844 Phone: 305-479-2299 MONROE UNIVERSITY: Rivera Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as Katherine L. Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 1:26-cv-00403 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Monroe University -- https://www.monroeu.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Samuel Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ahern Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ahern, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-301 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: Ash Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Ash, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-299 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: Brousseau Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jean Brousseau, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-296 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 NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Wins Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA CLERMONT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL TENANT NETWORK, INC. and LCIJ, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03545-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order: -- Granting the motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. -- Appointing Lemberg Law, LLC as counsel for the certified class. -- Appointing Vanessa Clermont as class representative. The Court certifies the following class: "All persons who were the subject of the Defendants National Tenant Network, Inc's and LCIJ, Inc.'s postcards, substantially similar to the postcard concerning the Plaintiff, sent during the applicable FCRA statute of limitations period, 15 U.S.C. section 1681p, as determined by whether and when the person that was the subject of one of the Defendants' postcards discovered that it was sent." The Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiff's counsel within 14 days of the entry of this Order an unredacted, accurate computer-readable data file containing the information necessary to facilitate class notice, including to the extent available a list of the names, last known mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of all persons who were the subject of one of the Defendants' postcards, substantially similar to the postcard concerning the Plaintiff, sent between June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2023. National provides resident screening services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9UJkRF at no extra charge.[CC] NEWELL BRANDS INC: Corbett Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Monica Corbett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05616 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00352 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Newell Brands Inc. -- https://www.newellbrands.com/ -- is an American conglomerate of consumer and commercial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Neal Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (201) 294-1566 Email: mpollack@zlk.com NEWELL BRANDS INC: Elwood Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Blake Elwood, Terry Merrifield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05616 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00352 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Newell Brands Inc. -- https://www.newellbrands.com/ -- is an American conglomerate of consumer and commercial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre Robert Belanger, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29304 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Email: mpollack@zlk.com NEWELL BRANDS INC: Martin Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karin Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Sunbeam Products, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06075 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00350 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Newell Brands Inc. -- https://www.newellbrands.com/ -- is an American conglomerate of consumer and commercial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anny M. Martin, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Nicolle B. Brito, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP -BR FL 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Fax: (561) 750-3364 Email: amartin@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com - and - Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Email: dantullis@rgrdlaw.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. Jordan M. Steele, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com jsteele@carellabyrne.com - and - Michael A. Caplan, Esq. Timothy Brandon Waddell CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 596-5610 Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com bwaddell@caplancobb.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer A. Adler, Esq. WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL LLC 3344 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 832-9524 Fax: (404) 875-9433 Email: jadler@wwhgd.com NEWREZ LLC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Hodges' HELOC Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Eva Hodges, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, and The Bank of New York Mellon, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-10147-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended class action complaint and dismissed it without prejudice. The Plaintiff obtained a home equity line of credit second mortgage in March 2005 from Countrywide Home Loans, secured by her home in Plymouth, Massachusetts, with an initial principal balance of $100,000. She filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and received a discharge on December 11, 2008, which eliminated her personal liability for the HELOC but left a lien on her home. After the bankruptcy discharge, the Plaintiff stopped receiving monthly statements for her HELOC. Shellpoint assumed the servicing rights to the Plaintiff's HELOC on October 1, 2013. On January 23, 2024, the Plaintiff received a Notice of Default and Notice of Intent to Foreclose from Shellpoint stating that she needed to pay $152,820.46, including approximately $100,000 in interest and fees assessed since December 2008. The Plaintiff alleged that Shellpoint violated Section 1692e(10) of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act when it misrepresented that she owed interest and fees that accrued on her HELOC during periods in which she did not receive statements. The Plaintiff also brought an individual claim against Shellpoint for violating Section 1692f(6) of the FDCPA, arguing that the interest and fees charged on her HELOC during periods when she did not receive statements were unlawful. The Court found that Plaintiff has not identified a creditor or other entity who violated Section 1637(b) and may not remedy this issue by improperly using the FDCPA to enforce the alleged TILA violation against Defendants. The Court stated that Imposing the TILA's requirements on debt collectors via the FDCPA would contravene Congress's decision to cabin the reach of the TILA to creditors and their assignees alone. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Count II. Because the Plaintiff's individual claim against Shellpoint for violating Section 1692f(6) of the FDCPA relied on the same theory, Count VI was also dismissed. Because the Court dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims. The Plaintiff's state law claims, Counts III and IV, were dismissed without prejudice. Count I, a claim for declaratory judgment, was also dismissed because Plaintiff has not offered a viable legal theory under which Defendants are liable. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/28rf7pj9 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Newrez, LLC Represented By Brian E. Pumphrey Mcguire Woods, LLP 804-775-7745 bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com Emily C. Shanahan Husch Blackwell LLP 617-598-6727 emily.shanahan@huschblackwell.com Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon 1 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Represented By Brian E. Pumphrey Mcguire Woods, LLP 804-775-7745 bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com Emily C. Shanahan Husch Blackwell LLP 617-598-6727 emily.shanahan@huschblackwell.com Plaintiff Eva Hodges Represented By Kristi Cahoon Kelly Kelly Guzzo, PLC 703-424-7572 kkelly@kellyguzzo.com Shennan A. Kavanagh 617-542-8010 skavanagh@nclc.org Casey Shannon Nash Kelly Guzzo PLC 703-424-7571 casey@kellyguzzo.com Jennifer Spieler Wagner National Consumer Law Center 617-542-8010 jwagner@nclc.org NOON DELIVERY SERVICES: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noon Delivery Services. The case is styled as Darrel Johnson, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Noon Delivery Services, a California corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000373 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Noon Delivery Services -- http://www.noon-deliveryservices.com/-- is an active interstate freight carrier based out of Manteca, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmine J. Badawi, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Email: jasmine@kallaw.com NORLITE LLC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill, et al., v. Norlite, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00439-ECC-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a memorandum of law in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in excess of twenty-five (25) pages, not to exceed seventy (70) pages. Due to the complexity and number of the issues involved, the additional pages are necessary for Defendants to fully present their response to the various issues raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Additionally, the Defendants move for leave to file a memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Docket Entry No. 102) in excess of twenty five (25) pages, not to exceed seventy (70) pages. Considering the nature of the issue involved, and the fact that Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law in support of their Motion for Class Certification consisted of 69 pages, per the Court’s Order (Docket Entry No. 97), the additional pages are necessary for Defendants to fully present their response on the complex issue of class certification. The Defendants have conferred with Plaintiffs, who do not oppose this request. We appreciate the Court’s attention to this Request. Norlite is a manufacturer of lightweight aggregate materials produced from shale mined at the plant. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dTj2hq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James P. Ray, Esq. ROBINSON+COLE One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8257 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: jray@rc.com NURA PLLC: Neitzel Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nura, PLLC, et al. The case is styled as Clinton Neitzel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nura, PLLC, Nura Surgical Center, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-26-691 (Minn. 4th Judicial Ct., Hennepin Cty., Jan. 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Nura -- https://www.nuraclinics.com/ -- is a pain management clinic based in Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com OBSIDIAN DEVELOPMENT: Mcfarland Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Obsidian Development Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Riley Mcfarland Individually and as a Member of Obsidian Development Group, LLC; John Doe, Said Name Being Fictitious and Intended to Identify Any and All Persons and/or Entities Having an Interest in the Liened Premises and Not Otherwise Identified; McFarland Properties LLC, individually and on behalf of all Contractors, Subcontractors, Sub-Subcontractors and Materialmen Similarly Situated v. Obsidian Development Group, LLC, Joshua King, Nathan Mccormick, Colby Garza, Case No. Index Not Assigned (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie Cty., Jan. 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Commercial Division." Obsidian Group -- https://www.obsidiandev.com/ -- is a Twin-Cities based commercial real estate investment and brokerage firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank John Jacobson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RALPH C. LORIGO 101 Slade Ave. West Seneca, NY 14224-2617 ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Denisenko Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEKSANDR DENISENKO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2682CV00086 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., January 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. On January 17, 2026, Orthopaedic Specialists lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. Cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to the personally identifiable information ("PH") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") of Defendant's current and former patients. According to the complaint, Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handing and securing the Private Information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information. The Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the Class, seeks compensatory damages for breach of implied contract, which includes the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest, and costs. Plaintiff Aleksandr Denisenko is a current patient of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts, P.C. is a healthcare provider offering orthopedic care headquartered in Norwood, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872)263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com PENNEY OPCO LLC: Pou Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penney Opco LLC. The case is styled as Patricia Pou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penney Opco LLC doing business as: JC Penney, Case No. 1:26-cv-20310-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Penney Opco LLC doing business as JCPenney -- https://www.jcpenney.com/ -- is an American department store chain founded in 1902 by James Cash Penney.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com PET FOOD EXPERTS: Ballah Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marvee Ballah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PET FOOD EXPERTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-13851-3 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05056. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff worked approximately 43 hours per week on average, meaning approximately 3 hours of overtime per week. The Plaintiff was paid at a rate of approximately $32 per hour. The Complaint covers a period of three years prior to filing through the present. The Plaintiff seeks double damages under RCW 49.52.070 for willful withholding of wages.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Bradley J. Krupicka, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2280 Portland, OR 97205 Main: (971) 315-0650 Facsimile: (971) 315-0720 Email: bkrupicka@ohaganmeyer.com POWERPRO SERVICE CO: Such Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Powerpro Service Co., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tyler Such, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. Powerpro Service Co., Inc., Frank Navetta, Byron Navetta, Case No. 601239/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). The case type is stated as Other Torts (New York Labor Law claims). PowerPro Service Company -- https://www.powerproservicecompany.com/ -- is the largest generator provider on Long Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Donald Barnhorn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Rd., Ste. 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 PRODIGY INSURANCE: Dungey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prodigy Insurance Associates LLC. The case is styled as Nicholas Dungey, Nicholas Finley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prodigy Insurance Associates LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80040-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Prodigy Insurance Associates LLC offers insurance plans for families to help cover serious medical emergencies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com RENAISSANCE OF RICHFIELD: May Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Aries J. May, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Renaissance of Richfield, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00127 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair wage Standards Act ("OMWFSA"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. Under the FLSA and OMWFSA, employers must pay all non-exempt employees an overtime wage premium of onc and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time they spend working in excess Of 40 hours in a given workweek. the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, including by excluding non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials from the regular rate calculation, automatically deducting time for meal breaks that were not actually taken, and rounding employees' time in a manner that systematically undercounted hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee and performed services for Defendant from September 2024 through May 2025. The Defendant operates an assisted living and memory care facility in Richfield, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 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 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Suit Over RESPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Pierson of HousingWire reports that Rocket Companies faces a class-action lawsuit alleging it steered homebuyers to its mortgage products, violating RESPA. The suit cites a federal investigation and claims hundreds of thousands of consumers were affected. Detroit-based Rocket Companies was hit with a class-action lawsuit on Monday that accuses one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders of steering consumers to their loan products, "even though Rocket Mortgage‘s terms are disadvantageous to the clients." The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, a consumer protection law firm that was also involved in similar litigation against Zillow and the National Association of Realtors. In a press release announcing the action, the law firm said that Rocket -- including its affiliates Rocket Mortgage, Amrock Holdings and Rocket Homes Real Estate, which were also named as defendants -- conspired to "pressure clients to use Rocket's mortgage company to finance their purchase." The defendants are also accused of funneling leads to real estate agents who push clients to Rocket and "away from other providers with cost-saving opportunities, in violation of a real estate agent's fiduciary duties to their clients." The firm went on to say that up until its acquisition of Redfin in 2025, Rocket Homes's website utilized a "vast referral network" to connect prospective homebuyers with third-party real estate agents, who were required to pay a 35% referral fee and steer clients to Rocket Mortgage. "Everyday families rely on the laws governing our nation's real estate market for fairness and transparency, and we believe Rocket has failed to play by the rules," said Steve W. Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman. "We believe at least hundreds of thousands of consumers have been duped by Rocket's tricks, and judging by its year-over-year revenue, its scheme has worked." A spokesperson for Rocket Companies issued a statement to HousingWire in which the company denied the accusations. "We categorically disagree and will dispute the allegations that Rocket, Redfin or any of the named defendants are doing anything illegal. The claims in this case are a complete retread of the case that the CFPB filed and was quickly dismissed. Rocket is proud to help homebuyers navigate complex real estate partnerships. We are confident that we will be vindicated once facts are presented," the statement read. The lawsuit pointed to Rocket Companies' third-quarter 2025 earnings report in which the company posted $1.78 billion in revenue, good for year-over-year growth of 148%. By this measure, the law firm states, the company's steering program "has been a resounding success." "Buying a home is most likely the largest purchase any individual will make in their lifetime, and housing is a basic need," Berman said. "That Rocket sought to capitalize on this by pressuring homebuyers into bad loans is not only illegal, but immoral." The lawsuit claims that Rocket violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). It seeks treble damages, single damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief to stop Rocket's alleged steering practices, which were brought to light due to a four-year federal investigation by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB). [GN] ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Inflating Home Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- A new consumer class-action lawsuit filed against Rocket companies (including Rocket Mortgage and Rocket Homes) accuses the Michigan-based lending conglomerate of forcing agents to steer clients to use Rocket Mortgage, to the detriment of homebuyers across the country, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. The lawsuit was filed Jan. 26, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and accuses the collective defendants of having "exploited the vulnerability of home buyers for profit," by steering consumers to use their financing "even though Rocket Mortgage's terms are disadvantageous to the clients." The practice of steering in real estate involves any illegal influence on a client's decision diverting them away from cheaper loans. Defendants include Rocket Companies Inc. which owns equity interests in co-defendants Rocket Mortgage LLC, Amrock Holdings LLC and Rocket Homes Real Estate LLC. If you bought a home and used Rocket Mortgage or Quicken Loans to finance at any time since Jan. 1, 2019, find out more about your rights. The new lawsuit comes as part of consumer-protection law firm Hagens Berman's efforts to create a more transparent real estate system, following on the heels of similar litigation aimed at Zillow Inc., and the firm's blockbuster settlements regarding real estate brokerage fees totaling more than $1 billion, dubbed "the realtors' big defeat" by the New York Times. A Successful Scheme The lawsuit explains Rocket's alleged scheme that compels real estate agents to pressure clients to use Rocket's mortgage company to finance their purchase, "In exchange, the Rocket Defendants funnel leads (in the form of interested buyers or sellers) to real estate agents who, in turn, steer clients to Rocket's mortgage company," away from other providers with cost-saving opportunities, in violation of a real estate agent's fiduciary duties to their clients. Until its acquisition of Redfin in 2025, Rocket Homes operated a vast referral network through its website, which connected prospective home buyers with third party real estate agents. Agents were required to pay a 35% "referral fee" to Rocket Homes, according to the lawsuit. In return, agents were required to steer clients to Rocket Mortgage. "Everyday families rely on the laws governing our nation's real estate market for fairness and transparency, and we believe Rocket has failed to play by the rules," said Steve W. Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman. "We believe at least hundreds of thousands of consumers have been duped by Rocket's tricks, and judging by its year-over-year revenue, its scheme has worked." According to the lawsuit, third quarter revenue for 2025 (released on October 30, 2025) shows a 148% year-over-year growth for the quarter of $1.78 billion. "By all of these measures, its steering program has been a resounding success," the lawsuit states. "Buying a home is most likely the largest purchase any individual will make in their lifetime, and housing is a basic need," Berman said. "That Rocket sought to capitalize on this by pressuring homebuyers into bad loans is not only illegal, but immoral." How Steering Harms Homebuyers The lawsuit brings claims of violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and seeks treble damages, single damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief to put an end to Rocket's alleged steering practices, which were brought to light due to a four-year federal investigation by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. "Based on this investigation, consumers were directly harmed by the steering practice because Rocket Mortgage, and its predecessor, Quicken Loans, offered substandard loan packages that charged higher interest rates and offered fewer cost-saving opportunities for home buyers," the lawsuit states. "As a result of these substandard loans, ‘Rocket Mortgage charged higher rates and fees to consumers who went through the Rocket Homes network compared with consumers who didn't go through the network' – a clear sign of illegal steering." According to the lawsuit, the defendants were engaged in a perpetual loop of illegal referrals and kickbacks through agents, Rocket Homes and Rocket Mortgage, steering homebuyers through a process that left them paying higher prices via bad loans. Find out more about the lawsuit against Rocket alleging illegal steering practices. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contacts Media Contact Ash Klann pr@hbsslaw.com (206) 623-9363 [GN] ROCKET MORTGAGE: Unlawfully Discloses Sensitive Info, Fedoroff Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- GARY FEDOROFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00702 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawfully disclosing consumer's sensitive mortgage application information with third parties without consent. The complaint relates that when applying for a home mortgage or a mortgage refinance, consumers provide a wealth of personal information to Rocket Mortgage so that Defendant may determine their loan eligibility and amount. Unknown to consumers, Rocket Mortgage embedded web trackers on its website that transmit the contents of the loan applications to third parties entirely without consumers knowledge or consent. Indeed, Rocket Mortgage disclosed sensitive information contained in the loan application including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and the Class Members' names, email addresses, phone numbers, marital status, status as a military veteran, loan amount, purchase amount, information about down payments, whether the consumer underwent a foreclosure or a bankruptcy, the loan type, their status as a homeowner, information about their monthly payment, and information about their credit worthiness. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of value of the Private Information, (iv) statutory damages, and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of action for (1) violation of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act - unauthorized interception, use, and disclosure; (2) Violation of the California Information Privacy Act; (3) Violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; (4) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law; (5) Invasion of Privacy Under California's Constitution; (6) Negligence; (7) Intrusion Upon Seclusion; and (8) Breach of Confidence. Plaintiff Gary Fedoroff is a citizen of the State of California. Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC is one of the largest online mortgage lenders that operates a website www.rocketmortgage.com, where consumers can apply directly for a mortgage or a mortgage refinance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: hlopez@milberg.com - and - Albert Plawinski, Esq. PLAWINSKI, PLLC 2101 Pearl St. Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 720-7095 E-mail: albert@plawinski.law ROXUL USA INC: Pittman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Pittman, Individually, and on behalJ0j himself and others similarly situated v. ROXUL USA INC. a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00017-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., Jan. 22, 2026), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Defendant on behalf of current and former hourly-paid factory workers who were not paid all the overtime compensation due to them within weekly pay periods in which they worked more than 40 hours per week during the 3 years preceding the filing of this collective action lawsuit. The Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs performed work for Defendant 40 hours or more per week within weekly pay periods during all times material. The Defendant has had a common plan, policy, and practice Of failing to compensate the Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all the overtime compensation due to them within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action. The Defendant has taken no action to rectify its failure to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated all the overtime compensation due to them. The Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all the overtime compensation due to them was without a good faith basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by and performed work for Defendant as an hourly-paid factory worker during the 3 year period preceding the filing of this action. The Defendant manufactures fiberglass insulation materials at its Byhalia, Mississippi, and Ranson, West Virginia plants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Norris, Esq. NICK NORRIS, P.A. 272 Calhoun Station Parkway, Suite C #13 Gluckstadt, MS 391 IO Phone: 601-641-4897 Email: nick@nicknorri3.law SAI ORAL SURGERY: Putnam Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sai Oral Surgery PLLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Putnam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sai Oral Surgery PLLC, Case No. 2026-10191-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., Jan. 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as "Negligent Security." SAI Oral Surgery PLLC -- https://www.saioralsurgery.com/ -- is a dental practice located in Port Orange, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Ann Wallace, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (786) 244-5660 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: jwallace@sirillp.com SAINT GORGE: Owner Pleads Guilty in $54-MM Radiology Fraud Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marty Stempniak of Radiology Business reports that a fraudster has pleaded guilty to charges he took part in a $54 million Medicare scam that involved radiology and other healthcare services. Alex Alexsanian, 48, of Burbank, California, entered a plea to one count of money laundering conspiracy on Jan. 20. He was previously arrested by Golden State authorities in October 2024 for participating in a wide-ranging plot to bilk Medicare for imaging services that were never performed. Sentencing is slated for April 28, with Alexsanian potentially facing up to 20 years in prison, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. His accomplice Sophia Shaklian, 38, of Los Angeles, previously pleaded guilty in November and could spend up to 10 years in jail, with her sentencing slated for March, local media reports. As detailed previously, between 2019 and 2024, Shaklian managed and submitted claims for seven healthcare providers enrolled in Medicare across Los Angeles County. Among them were a hospice company she owned, according to the original indictment. The scheme also involved multiple diagnostic imaging companies -- Saint Gorge Radiology in Sylmar; Hope Diagnostics in North Hollywood; Direct Imaging & Diagnostics and Lab One, both in Hollywood; and Labtech and Lifescan Diagnostics in Claremont. The claims amounted to more than $54 million for unnecessary services that were never provided. In total, the pair pocketed $23 million, with Shaklian laundering Medicare funds paid to her hospice business by transferring them to accounts in the name of "Varsenic Babaian," a fake identity. Alexsanian purportedly directed a previously unidentified foreign national to open Saint Gorge Radiology and acquire Console Hospice, in the Van Nuys neighborhood of Los Angeles. The accomplice, now identified as Dmytro Malakhov, then provided control of those two companies and their corresponding bank accounts to Alexsanian. He and Malakhov (who soon fled the country) subsequently submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare for services never provided by the two companies. They then laundered the reimbursements through the fake "Babaian" identity, using the money to buy $6 million in gold bars and coins, among other purchases. "In order to conceal his control over and use of these accounts, [Alexsanianan] did not change the name of the owner . . . or add himself as signatory, but instead assumed Malakhov's identity in using the accounts," court documents state To conceal and disguise illegal transfers, those involved would write checks and wire money from Saint Gorge Radiology's to Malakhov's personal accounts. In a June 2020 instance, Alexsanianan used his co-conspirator's personal account to purchase $74,000 in precious metals, later delivered to his apartment the following day. During the conspiracy, he laundered somewhere between $1.5 million and $3.5 million in funds procured through healthcare fraud, authorities estimate. As part of the plea agreement inked in December, Alexsanian has agreed to forfeit $3 million, the sum of which he admits was involved in the scam. The U.S. Attorney's Office, on the other side, is agreeing to dismiss other charges originally brought against him previously. Along with a maximum sentence of 20 years, he also would subsequently face a three-year-period of supervised release and a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction (whichever is greatest). [GN] SAPUTO CHEESE USA: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sonia Chavez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV-011575 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00116. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against Saputo under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. ("PAGA"), seeking civil penalties based on various alleged Labor Code violations, including: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods; failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Koree B. Wooley, Esq. Cindi L. Ritchey, Esq. Jayce E. Gustafson, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121.3134 Phone: +1.858.314.1200 Facsimile: +1.844.345.3178 Email: kbwooley@jonesday.com critchey@jonesday.com jgustafson@jonesday.com SEAL SKIN: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertises Discounts --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Joanne Cattani filed a class action lawsuit against Elite Era LLC and Seal Skin Cover LLC. Why: Cattani claims Seal Skin falsely advertises discounts on its website. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Seal Skin falsely advertises discounts on its website, sealskincovers.com. Plaintiff Joanne Cattani filed the class action complaint against Elite Era and Seal Skin Cover on Dec. 15 in California federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Seal Skin is a company that sells vehicle covers, such as car covers, boat covers and motorbike covers, directly to consumers through its website. Cattani claims that for years, Seal Skin has engaged in a false discount advertising scheme on its website. The lawsuit alleges that Seal Skin advertises perpetual discounts and percentage-off savings on nearly all of its products, with discounts typically ranging from 40% to 50% off of the advertised strikethrough reference prices. Seal Skin represents these reference prices as the regular and normal prices of the products, from which the advertised discounts are calculated, the Seal Skin car cover class action lawsuit says. However, Cattani claims these discounts and reference prices are false because Seal Skin never or almost never offers the products at their advertised reference price. Class action: Seal Skin's alleged false discount advertising scheme violates California law The lawsuit further alleges that Seal Skin also advertises false limited-time discounts to induce consumers to purchase the products immediately before they supposedly return to the fictitious reference price. Seal Skin's false discount advertising harms consumers by causing them to pay more than they otherwise would have paid and to buy products they otherwise would not have bought, Cattani alleges. Seal Skin's false discount advertising violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, the class action lawsuit says. Cattani seeks to represent a class of California consumers who purchased one or more products from the Seal Skin website advertised with a discount. She is suing for violations of California's consumer protection laws and seeks restitution and/or disgorgement for herself and for each of the class members. She also seeks public injunctive relief to protect the general public by enjoining Seal Skin from engaging in the alleged false advertising scheme. In related news, consumers sued The Talbots LLC over allegations that it routinely ran fake sales on its website and in its brick-and-mortar stores. The plaintiff is represented by Daniel M. Hattis and Paul Karl Lukacs of Hattis Lukacs & Corrington. The Seal Skin class action lawsuit is Cattani v. Elite Era LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03581, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] SENIORS IN SERVICE: Higgins Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- David Higgins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SENIORS IN SERVICE OF TAMPA BAY, INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-00111 (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 due to the Defendant's denied overtime pay. The 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 the FLSA, says the complaint. 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 SENTRY INSURANCE: Fashion Nova Sues Over Unfair Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fashion Nova, LLC, a California limited liability company, and FN Logistics, LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, and SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY, a Wisconsin Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-00580 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2026), is brought for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., arising out of Sentry's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in the State of California with respect to Sentry's marketing, sale, and performance of their workers' compensation insurance policies. Sentry has engaged in a pattern and practice of: egregiously mishandling claims and otherwise failing to adequately perform their duty to defend Fashion Nova under various Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policies, causing Fashion Nova to incur significant damages, including increased claims payment obligations, increased claims handling fees, and increased workers' compensation insurance premiums; issuing unlawful "Casualty Insurance Agreements" that drastically alter material terms of Fashion Nova's insurance policies without filing and obtaining proper approval from the relevant regulatory authorities; and charging improper and excessive fees and imposing other obligations upon Fashion Nova under Sentry's unlawful and unfiled "Casualty Insurance Agreements." Sentry has engaged in the foregoing deceptive, bad faith conduct and overarching scheme for purposes of unjustly enriching themselves at Fashion Nova's (and other similarly situated employers') expense. Sentry engaged in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices by conditioning the sale of workers compensation policies to Fashion Nova on the basis that Fashion Nova agree to certain unfiled and unapproved "side agreements." Fashion Nova further allege, on information and belief, that Sentry has engaged in the same practice in transactions with other policyholders in the State of California. Sentry engaged in such conduct for the purpose of unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of their policyholders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Fashion Nova, LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of California. Sentry Insurance Company is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander D. Hardiman, Esq. Colin M. Davis, Esq. Anjanique L. Barber, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 31 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 858-1000 Email: alexander.hardiman@pillsburylaw.com colin.davis@pillsburylaw.com anjanique.barber@pillsburylaw.com - and - Lucia E. Coyoca, Esq. Valentine A. Shalamitski, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 312-3250 Email: lec@msk.com vas@msk.com SKYWATER TECHNOLOGY: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to IonQ, Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Skywater Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: SKYT) related to its sale to IonQ, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Skywater shareholders are expected to receive $15.00 per share in cash and $20.00 in shares of IonQ common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/skywater-technology-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SLT LENDING: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SLT Lending SPV, Inc. d/b/a Sur La Table, Defendant, Case No. :26-cv-00547 (D. Minn., January 22, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.surlatable.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant SLT Lending SPV, Inc. is a Washington Company that offers kitchenware and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, kitchen cookware, outdoor cookware, bakeware, coffee and tea supplies, kitchen tools, knives, small appliances, décor, food, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SNAP INC: Settles Social Media Mental Health Suit in Calif. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Snap Inc. has settled a bellwether case over claims its social media platform harms young users' mental health. Why: The Snapchat settlement comes just days before the case was set to go to trial. Where: The Snapchat lawsuit was filed in California state court. How to Get Help: If you or your child experienced social media addiction or mental health issues linked to excessive platform use, you may qualify to take legal action. Snap Inc. has reached a settlement agreement in a bellwether case over claims its social media platform Snapchat harms young users' mental health, just days before the case was scheduled to go to trial. The plaintiff in the case, identified as K.G.M., alleged in her Snapchat lawsuit that the social media company purposely induced young people to compulsively use its platform. The Snapchat lawsuit was the first social media harm bellwether trial scheduled among more than 1,000 cases that have been coordinated in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Snapchat settlement does not resolve other cases, attorney says According to a Law360 report, Mark Lanier, attorney to the plaintiff, told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl that the Snapchat settlement resolves his client's case and another case filed by K.G.M.'s sister. However, the Snapchat settlement does not resolve the other cases consolidated before Judge Kuhl, Lanier said. The Snapchat settlement means that Snap CEO Evan Spiegel will no longer be called to testify in the trial, Lanier told reporters after the hearing. In October, Judge Kuhl ruled that Spiegel, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri must testify at the bellwether trial. Lanier said he expects to call Zuckerberg as the trial's second witness, Law360 reports. The Snapchat lawsuit is part of a larger multidistrict litigation over claims that various platforms engage in social media harm, especially to the mental health of young users. In March 2025, a California federal judge dismissed some claims against social media companies, including Meta and Snap, involved in a multidistrict litigation. However, claims of general negligence and wrongful death were allowed to proceed. The plaintiffs are represented by Mariana A. McConnell of Kiesel Law LLP, Rachel Lanier and W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm, Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, Adam S. Davis of Wagstaff & Cartmell and Joseph VanZandt of Beasley Allen Law Firm. The Snapchat lawsuit is Social Media Cases, Case No. JCCP5255 and Lead Case No. 22STCV21355, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] SONY CORPORATION: Rudnick Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sony Corporation of America, et al. The case is styled as Carmen Rudnick, Bobi Hinesman, Debbie Garcia Debolt, Christine Dionne, Robin Shine, Lisa Castello, Richard Carpe, Willis Marzolf, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00297-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sony Corporation of America -- https://www.sony.com/en_us/SCA/ -- is the American arm of Japanese multinational conglomerate Sony Group Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Elizabeth Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 297-3807 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com SONY ELECTRONICS INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sony Electronics Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-00452-NEB-LIB (D. Minn., Jan. 20, 2026), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.electronics.sony.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of the Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access the Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that the Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers electronics for sale including, but not limited to, televisions, home theatre equipment, audio equipment, gaming equipment, cameras, lenses, hearing aids, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ST. JOHN'S RIVERSIDE: Singleton Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. John's Riverside Hospital. The case is styled as Ebony Singleton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. St. John's Riverside Hospital, Case No. 55803/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). St. John's Riverside Hospital -- https://riversidehealth.org/ -- is a private, community hospital located in Yonkers, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com STEVE REAMS: Otto Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESRON OTTO, v. STEVE REAMS, Weld County Sheriff, and PHILIP J. WEISER, Attorney General, Case No. 1:25-cv-02502-LTB-RTG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Lewis T. Babcock entered an order that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted. The Court further entered an order that the amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241 is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed on December 19, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d4Xthb at no extra charge.[CC] SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Klein Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Douglas Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05874 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00348 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Sunbeam -- https://www.sunbeam.com/ -- is the authority for natural pain relief products, bedding, and kitchen appliances made to make everyday life better.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com - and - James Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: (770) 227-6375 Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Melissa Susan Weiner, Esq. Ryan Thomas Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Fax: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S Gay Street-Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: rsoffin@milberg.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas Peter Panayotopoulos, Esq. WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL, LLC-ATL 3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 876-2700 Fax: (404) 875-9433 Email: NPanayo@wwhgd.com SVP SEWING BRANDS: Benson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SVP Sewing Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Nate Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SVP Sewing Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00192-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich., Jan. 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SVP Sewing Brands, LLC -- https://www.svpworldwide.com/ -- doing business as Singer has been one of the leading brands of consumer and artisan sewing machines, and one of the world's most trusted and recognizable brands since 1851.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 101 3rd Ave., NE, Ste. 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com T-MOBILE USA INC: Burrise Suit Transferred to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shallace Burrise, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc, Case No. 2:25-cv-07685 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-00139-JDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment Discrimination. T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Elkin, Esq. Benjamin Alan McLain, Esq. ELKIN GAMBOA, LLP 4119 W. Burbank Blvd., Suite 110 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (323) 372-1202 Fax: (323) 372-1216 Email: michael@elkingamboa.com ben@elkingamboa.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin L. Webster, Esq. Farima Flora Feizi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 830-7227 Email: bwebster@littler.com ffeizi@littler.com - and - Demery E. Ryan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 2049 Century Park East, Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 553-0308 Fax: (310) 553-5583 Email: dryan@littler.com - and - Matthew J. Ruza, Esq. Yara Mroueh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 321 N Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654-4715 Phone: (312) 372-5520 Fax: (312) 372-7880 Email: mruza@littler.com ymroueh@littler.com TAXITY LLC: Abitbol Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taxity LLC. The case is styled as Miryam Abitbol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Taxity LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00389 (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. Taxity, LLC doing business as Resoly -- https://www.resoly.com/ -- offers comprehensive tax relief services including debt resolution, settlement, and forgiveness programs.[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 THURSDAY BOOT: Court Narrows Claims in "DeMarco" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Adam DeMarco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DNVB, Inc., doing business as, Thursday Boot Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03076-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's practice of automatically adding a shipping protection fee to a customer's cart at checkout—which a customer must then manually remove from their cart—and certain representations Defendant makes with respect to that shipping protection fee are deceptive. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's representations and practices are deceptive because purchasing shipping protection provides no actual value to online customers. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's representation that if a customer elects not to purchase shipping protection Defendant is not responsible for damaged, lost, or stolen items during shipping is deceptive. Plaintiffs argue this representation is deceptive because Defendant itself (or its chosen carrier, UPS) is in fact required to reimburse customers for any damage or theft incurred during shipping, irrespective of whether a customer chooses to pay an additional fee for shipping protection. Upon careful examination of the record, the court verifies that Plaintiffs assert these claims individually and on behalf of a putative class of all current and former customers who purchased products through www.thursdayboots.com and paid a Shipping Protection Fee within the applicable statute of limitations. To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege sufficient facts, taken as true, to state a plausible claim for relief. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. According to the court, New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service, while GBL Section 350 prohibits false advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service. To successfully assert a claim under either section of the statute, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice. The court affirms that Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded a materially misleading omission under the reasonable consumer standard. Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that Defendant's representation that is not responsible for damaged, lost, or stolen items during shipping is potentially misleading under the reasonable consumer standard as it omits material information that is solely within Defendant's possession. Specifically, Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded their omission-based claims because Defendant did not disclose that it uses a carrier to ship its products. Therefore, this is a question of fact that should not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The court concludes that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer might understand Defendant's claim as suggesting that the buyer had no recourse for damages incurred during shipping—including no recourse for damages from Defendant's carrier, here, UPS. Regarding the common law claims, the court finds no clear error in the recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs unambiguously demonstrated assent to the Fee and cannot claim that adding the Fee to their carts was a breach of contract, because no valid contract existed until Plaintiffs demonstrated their acceptance by paying for their purchases, including the disclosed Fee. Accordingly, the court dismisses Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment because those claims are based on the same facts underlying Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. The court further dismisses Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief for lack of standing because there is no real or immediate threat that Plaintiffs will be harmed by Defendant's allegedly deceptive practices in the future. Upon considering whether to allow leave to re-plead, the court notes it is the usual practice upon dismissing a complaint. However, because the court concluded that all of the claims for which it recommended dismissal were foreclosed as a matter of law, and because Plaintiffs have not argued that they could allege any additional facts to bolster those claims, any amendment would be futile. Therefore, the court will not grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their claims for injunctive relief, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or unjust enrichment. For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation in large part. Hence, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are dismissed for lack of standing with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment are also dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 26. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5a5HMl from PacerMonitor.com TRANSUNION LLC: Moore Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TransUnion LLC. The case is styled as Richard Moore, individually and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. TransUnion LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00367 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 477-8380 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com TRI-STATE CONSTRUCTION: Inguil Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tri-State Construction of NY Corp., et al. The case is styled as Jorge Inguil on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tri-State Construction of NY Corp., John Kim, Young Jae Kim, Case No. 701587/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Jan. 18, 2026). The case type is stated as Other Commercial (NYLL). Tristate Construction -- https://tristateconstruction.us/ -- is a interior construction company offering a variety of interior services around NY, NJ and Pennsylvanina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 33 State Road, Suite A-1 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (866) 216-5186 TRUIST FINANCIAL: Jarrell Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truist Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Emmanuel Jarrell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Truist Financial Corporation, Case No. 5:26-cv-00039 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Truist Financial Corporation -- https://www.truist.com/ -- is an American bank holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com UNITED SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Late Fees Class Action for $5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and its subsidiaries have agreed to a $5,000,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit alleging that the insurance providers unlawfully retained the interest collected on late fees that the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) ordered USAA to return to policyholders after it altered its billing plans in 2011. The USAA class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 16, 2025 and covers all individuals who received late fee refunds, but not the interest collected on the late fees, from a consent order signed in 2020 between USAA and the MIA that ordered late fees be returned to policyholders who did not pay their premiums on time after the 2011 billing changes. The court-approved website for the USAA late fees settlement can be found at USAALateFeeLitigation.com. According to the settlement site, USAA settlement class members do not need to do anything to automatically receive a settlement payment. The final amount of this payment, the agreement outlines, will depend on how many late fees a class member was charged and how long ago they paid them, as well as the total number of class members. The settlement agreement adds that for current policyholders, payments will be issued in the form of a statement credit, and for former policyholders, payments will be issued in the form of a check. Any funds remaining in the net settlement fund nine months after settlement checks were initially issued to class members shall be issued to the Wounded Warrior Project and Face the Fight as cy pres awards, the agreement reports. Consumers who would like to ask to be excluded from or object to the USAA settlement must send the settlement administrator a written notice of their decision, which must include their name, address, contact information, and the last four digits of their current or former USAA policy number, among other information. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the USAA class action settlement at a hearing on April 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The USAA class action lawsuit alleged that the insurance provider and its subsidiaries, following a market conduct examination by the Maryland Insurance Administrator, failed to issue to consumers the interest it collected from unlawful late fees that were refunded to policyholders as required by a 2020 consent order. "[P]ursuant to [the Consent Order,] Defendants refunded all Late Fees charged to Maryland policyholders between August 27, 2011 and January 23, 2019. It likewise issued refunds for policyholders charged late fees greater than $10 from January 23, 2019 to September 30, 2019. MIA did not require Defendants to pay interest on charges being refunded, but the Consent Order permitted civil actions in connection with the proceedings," court documents state. [GN] VILLAGE OF FREEPORT ASSESSORS: Penguin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board of Assessors and the Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Freeport. The case is styled as Penguin Management Inc., all other petitioners similarly situated herein v. The Board of Assessors and the Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Freeport, Case No. 400087/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Real Property - Tax Certiorari. The Board of Assessment Review in the Village of Freeport, New York -- https://www.freeportny.gov/8/Assessor -- operates under the direction of the Village Assessor to handle property assessment grievances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Matthew Mahony, Esq. JASPAN SCHLESINGER NARENDRAN LLP VITAC CORP: Class Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATELYN ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, v. VITAC CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00329-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Brimmer entered an order granting the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court further entered an order that: The class, defined as follows, shall be preliminarily certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All current and former closed captioners in Colorado who worked for the Defendant from Jan. 31, 2022 through the date of final settlement approval." Katelyn Anderson is appointed as Class Representative. Sara A. Green is appointed as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and For Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Colorado Wage Act) is denied without prejudice as moot. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and For Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Colorado Wage Act) is denied as moot. The Defendant's opposed motion for leave to file response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action and for Class Certification Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Colorado Wage Act) Out of Time is denied without prejudice as moot. On Jan. 31, 2025, plaintiff Katelyn Anderson filed her complaint against the defendant. The complaint alleges that defendant required its employees to perform "prep time," where they were required to clock-in and perform "preparation tasks," such as connecting to customers' facilities, conducting research, and conducting quality assurance, before the scheduled start of their shifts. Ms. Anderson was employed by the defendant from October 2017 to November 2024 to create closed captions for the defendant's media clients. VITAC is an American audio transcription company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0snoU2 at no extra charge.[CC] VOLODIMIR NIKITYUK: Jiminez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volodimir Nikityuk. The case is styled as Vanessa Jiminez, Juan Jose Giron, Ana Maria Rosas Benitez, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Volodimir Nikityuk, Case No. E2026001307 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Monroe Cty., Jan. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other (Employment).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael John Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 825-8620 W&N-1 LLC: McShall Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W&N-1, LLC. The case is styled as Diavian McShall, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. W&N-1, LLC; W&N-2, LLC; W&N-3, LLC; W&N-4, LLC; Case No. 800941/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Wage and Hour). W&N-1, LLC is a New York Foreign Limited-Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Christopher Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Hwy Commack, NY 11725 Phone: (888) 257-2016 Email: info@bgemploymentlaw.com WEX HEALTH INC: Ashley Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Natasha Ashley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEX HEALTH, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES l -20, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 25CU063874C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00332-JES-BJW. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages; Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify for Expenses and Losses; Waiting Time Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq. Christopher Reilly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 Email: bmcarthy@littler.com creilly@littler.com WHLR-SUNSHINE SHOPPING: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. WHLR-SUNSHINE SHOPPING PLAZA LLC, YADON, INC., D/B/A THE ICE CREAM SHOP and ASIAN BUFFET OF LEHIGH ACRES INC. D/B/A ASIAN BUFFET, Case No. 2:26-cv-00092 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Defendants' commercial property, ice cream shop, and restaurant businesses to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject property and Defendants' businesses and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the commercial property and the restaurant and restaurant businesses therein. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property, ice cream shop, and restaurant businesses. The Defendants have each individually and together discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the properties and the businesses thereon, in a manner prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WHLR-SUNSHINE SHOPPING PLAZA, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property constituting a commercial plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com WILLIAM C. SMITH: Smith Files Suit in D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against William C. Smith & Company. The case is styled as Charleen D. Smith, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. William C. Smith & Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00140 (D.D.C., Jan. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. WC Smith -- https://wcsmith.com/ -- is an award-winning, interdisciplinary property management and development company serving the Washington, DC metropolitan area for over 50 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Kevin Lietz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com WILLIAM C: Bobo Sues for Breach of Duty to Protect Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARCITA BOBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM C. SMITH & CO., INC. d/b/a WC SMITH, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00201 (D.C., January 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information ("PII" or "Personal Information"). The complaint relates that on May 18, 2025, the Defendant detected suspicious activity on its computer network, and that an unauthorized actor accessed and potentially exfiltrated certain files from its servers between May 5 and May 18, 2025. On October 21, 2025, Defendant concluded its investigation, identified individuals whose personal information may be involved, and determined that the data at issue includes names and Social Security numbers. The Defendant began sending out notice letters to impacted persons on January 12, 2026. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take and implement available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failed to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption, storage, and destruction of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iii) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and (vi) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose PII was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Marcita Bobo is a citizen and resident of Washington, D.C. She provided PII to Defendant in connection with entering into lease agreements for residential housing with Defendant. Defendant William C. Smith and Company, Inc. is a Washington, D.C.-based multidisciplinary real estate firm which owns and/or manages a portfolio of more than 12,000 residential and commercial real estate units in Washington, D.C. and neighboring Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Filing for FLSA Conditional Cert. Due April 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MONTEFUSCO, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08805-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered a pretrial case schedule through class certification: Motion for Conditional Certification (FLSA): April 3, 2026 Opposition to Conditional Certification Motion: April 17, 2026 Conditional Certification Motion Reply: April 24, 2026 Hearing on Conditional Certification Motion: May 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Motion for Class Certification (Rule 23): Jan. 15, 2027 Class Certification Opposition: March 15, 2027 Class Certification Reply: April 15, 2027 Class Certification Hearing: May 20, 2027 at 10:00 a.m. Williams-Sonoma sells kitchenware and home furnishings. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AehmkV at no extra charge.[CC] WORKDAY INC: Class Cert Bid in Mobley Suit Due July 16 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MOBLEY, et al., v. WORKDAY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting motion to change time and setting the following case deadlines: Class certification motion: July 16, 2026 Last day to depose expert(s) disclosed Aug. 6, 2026 with class certification motion: Opposition to class certification motion, Sept. 11, 2026 motion to decertify: Last day to depose expert(s) disclosed Sept. 30, 2026 with class certification opposition and motion to decertify: Reply to class certification motion, Oct. 9, 2026 opposition to motion to decertify: Last day to depose expert(s) disclosed Oct. 23, 2026 with opposition to motion to decertify: Reply to motion to decertify: Nov. 13, 2026 Class certification hearing: Dec. 8, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Workday is an American on‑demand (cloud-based) financial management, human capital management, and student information system software vendor. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qTYJrr at no extra charge.[CC] WORLDREMIT CORP: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Egahi" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sunday Egahi, individually and on behalf of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. WorldRemit Corp., Defendant, Civil Action No. JKB-24-03728 (D. Md.), Chief Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Demand for Jury Trial, to Compel Arbitration, and to Stay Action. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff Sunday Egahi opened an account with Chime, Inc. d/b/a Sendwave. Defendant WorldRemit Corp. acquired Sendwave in February 2021. Defendant provides various consumer financial services, including international money transfer services. Plaintiff used Defendant's services to send remittance transfers to friends and family in Nigeria at least through January 31, 2025. Plaintiff's primary contention is that Defendant advertised its q money transfer services as being almost instant and containing no added fees when, in fact, the money transfers were not instant and did charge fees. Plaintiff asserts that, because of Defendant's allegedly false advertising, he and numerous unidentified individuals made transactions that were not instant and contained added fees. Between May 18, 2020, and January 31, 2025, six different user agreements governed the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant. Each user agreement contained a modification clause allowing Defendant to change terms. Additionally, each user agreement contained various provisions dealing with dispute resolution, including waivers of rights to a jury trial and to bring a class action. Most importantly, several of the user agreements contained arbitration provisions requiring disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. The Court must determine which user agreement and arbitration agreement govern the parties' relationship. Defendant contends that the December 2024 user agreement controls, despite the presence of the modification clause. The Court disagrees and concludes that the modification clause contained in the December 2024 user agreement robs both it and the arbitration agreement it contains of consideration. Under Maryland law, an arbitration agreement is a separate and independent contract even when it is merely a clause in a broader agreement. If a promise does not actually bind the promisor to fulfill any obligation, then it is illusory and cannot serve as consideration. In the December 2024 agreement, the modification clause allows Defendant to modify the agreement from time to time and states that users shall not modify the agreement. The Court finds there is no limit on Defendant's discretion to modify, or revoke, the arbitration agreement's terms at its pleasure. Defendant is only required to place the most current version of the User Agreement on its website after the terms have already been changed. Therefore, the December 2024 arbitration agreement and user agreement lack consideration and are unformed. For the same reasons, the Court concludes that the two next most recent user agreements—from January and October 2024—are also unformed. By contrast, the Court finds that the September 2021 user agreement was properly formed. Critically, the modification clause in this agreement requires Defendant to provide advance notice to users of any change in terms. The Court finds that this modification clause limits Defendant's discretion enough to constitute consideration for its promise to arbitrate. Because the September 2021 user agreement contains a merger clause stating that the user agreement superseded all prior agreements and the arbitration agreement applies to any dispute or claim, the September 2021 agreements apply to the entirety of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff contends that even if the September 2021 arbitration agreement is properly formed, it is still invalid due to impossibility, frustration of purpose, and unconscionability. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff claims performance is impossible because the selected arbitrator, the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), does not hear consumer arbitration disputes. However, the NAF action was not unanticipated or unforeseeable because it occurred twelve years before the arbitration agreement was executed. Thus, the agreement is not invalid due to impossibility or frustration of purpose. Regarding unconscionability, Plaintiff used Defendant's services of his own volition and had already been doing so for over a year when the September 2021 agreement came into effect. There was no procedural or substantive unconscionability. Furthermore, Defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration by litigating. Defendant made its intention to compel arbitration clear just two months after filing its Answer, and no significant litigation occurred. The class action and jury trial waivers are contained in the September 2021 arbitration agreement itself, and the Court has concluded that the agreement is properly formed and its terms are valid. Plaintiff argues that class action waivers are illegal under the EFTA. However, the Court finds that 15 U.S.C. Section 1693m(a) does not confer a right or cause of action within the meaning of Section 1693l. Therefore, the user agreement's class action waiver is enforceable. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Demand for Jury Trial, to Compel Arbitration, and to Stay Action is granted. The terms of the September 2021 user and arbitration agreements will govern the parties' relationship, and the action will be stayed pending arbitration proceedings. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated 09 January is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HHW8YH from PacerMonitor.com Defendant WorldRemit Corp., located at 2093 Philadelphia Pike, Suite 1016, Claymont, Delaware 19703, is represented by Richard B. Benenson -- rbenenson@bhfs.com -- Patrick J. Reilly -- preilly@bhfs.com -- and Sarah J. Auchterlonie -- sja@bhfs.com -- of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP. Plaintiff Sunday Egahi is represented by Joshua Graeme Whitaker -- whitaker@adelphilaw.com -- of Adelphi LLP ZEALTHY INC: Henderlight Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Henderlight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZEALTHY INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00467-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who received multiple text messages from the Defendant. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation whose principal office is located in the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. New York Bar No. 4995130 156W56th St #902 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.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 ***