260204.mbx

260204.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 4, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 25 Headlines 1133 VENTURES: Foster Sues Over Property's Barriers to Disabled 3M COMPANY: City of Blakely Files Suit in M.D. Georgia 709 INVESTMENT: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Breach ACADIA WEALTH: Kalman Balks at Unfair Scheme to Solicit Investments ADVANTEX OF CALIFORNIA: Ocha Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AINS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Information, Reed Alleges AKRON REGIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Burnside Alleges ALLBIRDS INC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Vickers Says AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ARTHUR J GALLAGHER: Lockyer Sues Over Tobacco Surcharge AWP INC: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation BALLET SLIPPERS: Webb Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BELK INC: Faces Magana Suit Over Fake Sales and Discounts BFS GROUP LLC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLUEHOOK TOOL COMPANY: Pope Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas BOWERY RESIDENTS' COMMITTEE: Yearwood Sues Over Unpaid Overtime BRONCO MIDCO 2 LLC: Adame Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BURROWES BROTHERS: Faces Castillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. BUYERSROAD INC: Rodriguez Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy CAL-MAINE FOODS: Emery Files Suit Over Egg Price-Fixing Conspiracy CALIFORNIA FINE: Pucilowski Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. CALIFORNIA FINE: Pucilowski Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. CAREATHOME MEDICAL: Cervantes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CELGENE CORP: $239MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 4 CERNER CORPORATION: Weibush Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Sanchez Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty CLENS LLC: Palmer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CONDUENT INCORPORATED: Luckett Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey CONNECT HOLDING: Fails to Secure Private Information, Riggs Says CORTECH LLC: Espinal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnston Files Suit in S.D. California COVENANT HEALTH INC: DeFlaminis Files Suit in D. Massachusetts COVER BEAR: Boyd Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CRYSTAL RUN: Website Secretly Operates Tracking Tools, Loesel Says DANIEL H. COOK ASSOCIATES: Fong Files Suit in S.D. New York DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Lowbruck Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says DILLON COMPANIES: Sells Contaminated Motor Fuel, Dehart Says DOONEY & BOURKE INC: Post Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DVA RENAL: Lee Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. EAGLE POINT: Centralsquare Sues Over Supracompetitive Interest EFINANCIAL LLC: Chenault Files Suit Over TCPA Violation EVONIK CORPORATION: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FANATICS LLC: Faces Cavanaugh Suit Over Deceptive Shipping Fees FASTENAL COMPANY: Vaca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FCA US: Humphreys Sues Over Defective HV Lithium-Ion Battery Pack FCA US: Website Uses Tracking Software, Blalock Alleges FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT: Horton Suit Removed to C.D. California FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Faces Gomeringer Suit Over Unpaid Overtime FISHMONGER NASHVILLLE: Giles Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FIVE BELOW INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIVE BELOW INC: Qualls Suit Removed to N.D. California FLAGLER SQUARE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property FPC YANKTON: Henry Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action GOHEALTH INC: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for March 26 GREAT WOLF: Deceives Consumers Thru Drip Pricing Scheme, Grant Says GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Bukhari Files Suit in S.D. Texas HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Southfield Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement HILSCHER-CLARKE ELECTRIC: Burson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HUB CYBER: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 29 HUMAN TECHNOLOGIES: Herring Files Suit Over FCRA Breach JARED HOY: Bid for Clarification Granted in Huber Class Suit JOSEPH WALTERS: Whitmore Files Suit in E.D. Virginia L3HARRIS MARITIME POWER: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIBERTY INSURANCE: Aqeel Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ward Class Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Lyons Files Suit in W.D. Virginia LIMESTONE LOGISTICS: Hurtt Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid OT LOAN BY PHONE: Velasco Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California LOCAL CONSUMER REACH: Boddie Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan LOREX CORPORATION: Hill Files Suit in E.D. New York MAKITA CORPORATION: Walker Files Suit in C.D. California MAMAJUANA CAFE: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MANNKIND CORPORATION: A.L. Sues Over Invasion of Privacy MARCH & BIANCHI INC: Mintes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MATHESON TRI-GAS INC: Darby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MATTRESS FIRM INC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MAVERICK CARTING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Wolf Says MAXIM LENDING CORP: McGonigle Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California MEDICREDIT INC: Saggio Wins Bid for Class Certification MEMORIAL MOTORS INC: Macias Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas META PLATFORMS: Cook Suit Seeks Prelim. Sealing of Docs METRO INDUSTRIAL: Alexandre Sues Over Unpaid Regular Overtime Wages MIAMI CASINO: Watson Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website MID AMERICA: Filardi Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement MILWAUKEE CRAFT: Faces Mack Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MONROE UNIVERSITY: Aloizos Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MONROE UNIVERSITY: Francois Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MONROE UNIVERSITY: Quiles Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NEWS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Says OLIVE & JUNE: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message and Calls OTTER PRODUCTS: Court Stays Class Cert Briefing in Button PANERA BREAD: Cipriani Files Suit Over Data Breach PANERA BREAD: Keleshian Files Suit Over Data Breach PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE: Lyons Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT PROPERTY RECEIVABLES: Suit Alleges Illegal Conversation Recording PTT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Larsen Suit Due March 23 REALCLEARHOLDINGS LLC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Garfinkel Says RESOURCE CORPORATION: Jones Files Suit Over Data Breach SALESFORCE INC: Acosta Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois SALESFORCE INC: Tatum Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois SALESFORCE INC: Yadav Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois SAN GABRIEL TEMPORARY: Jenkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Guerrero PAGA Class Suit in Cal. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Lobatos PAGA Class Suit in Cal. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez PAGA Class Suit in Cal. SIMENS INDUSTRY: Lizarraga Suit Removed to E.D. California SKILLZ PLATFORM: Mitchell Balks at Deceptive Mobile Gaming Platform SMARTE INC: Cunningham Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois STRYDER CORP: Gaddam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUNRISE SOLAR: Brossard Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois TA OPERATING: Caraballo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TARGET CORPORATION: Yarbrough Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages TEKGO INC: Ni Sues Over Denied Proper Overtime Compensation TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Burge Suit Transferred to D. Kansas TEXAS ALLIANCE: Lively Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation TFORCE FREIGHT: Henry Suit Removed to N.D. California THOMPSON METAL: Underpays Wind Technicians, Hutchinson Suit Says THREE LITTLE: Fagnani Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRUFFOIRE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Tesch Says TRUSTEES OF BAKERS UNIVERSITY: Peterson Files Suit in D. Kansas U.S. DEPARTMENT: Detainees Must Have Right to Counsel, Suit Alleges UCF HOTEL: Welsh File Suit Over FCRA Violation UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Imhof Says UNITED PARKS: Ngo Suit Removed to S.D. California UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Hill Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII VERA BRADLEY SALES: Valiente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida VERIFF OU: Reed Files Suit in S.D. New York VOLVO CAR USA: Weinbach Sues Over Defective Vehicles WALGREEN CO: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Polk Suit Due May 15 WE PACK IT ALL: Mantilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLS FARGO: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 5 WOOLRICH INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Alleges WORKFORCE SOFTWARE: Brown Files Suit Over Data Breach ********* 1133 VENTURES: Foster Sues Over Property's Barriers to Disabled --------------------------------------------------------------- LELAND FOSTER, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1133 VENTURES LLC, A Michigan limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00224 (W.D. Mich., January 21, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of individuals similarly situated, pursuant to the enforcement provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is an Ohio resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disability as defined by the ADA. On October 9, 2025, the Plaintiff was a customer at Big Apple Bagels within the shopping center that is the subject of this complaint and encountered architectural barriers at the shopping center property that violate the ADA and its regulations. The barriers to access at the property have endangered Plaintiff's safety. According to the complaint, the shopping center owned and operated by the Defendant is non-compliant with the remedial provisions of the ADA. The Plaintiff has been denied access to Defendant's accommodations, benefit of services, activities, and has otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the Defendant, says the suit. 1133 Ventures LLC operates and owns a shopping center located in Grand Traverse County, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com 3M COMPANY: City of Blakely Files Suit in M.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is styled as City of Blakely, City of Cartersville, City of Chatsworth, City of Meigs, City of Pelham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00008-LAG (M.D. Ga., Jan. 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. 3M Company -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Brian Terry, Esq. 1201 W Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 881-4100 Email: terry@bmelaw.com 709 INVESTMENT: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Breach ------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. 709 INVESTMENT I LLC and RORE MANAGEMENT 7401 LLC D/B/A LA QUINTA INN BY WYNDHAM MIAMI AIRPORT NORTH, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-20596-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 29, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the commercial property and hotel subject to the complaint are open to the public and is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property, and hotel regularly, to include a stay at the commercial property and business located within the commercial property on September 27-28, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The Plaintiff alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property, and hotel business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, have likewise posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to him and others similarly situated. 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 hotel business within the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. Defendant/Landlord 709 INVESTMENT I LLC is the owner of the commercial property. Defendant/Tenant RORE MANAGEMENT 7401 LLC D/B/A LA QUINTA INN BY WYNDHAM MIAMI AIRPORT NORTH is the owner of the hotel business within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com ACADIA WEALTH: Kalman Balks at Unfair Scheme to Solicit Investments ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW KALMAN, Plaintiff v. AARON P. SEVIGNY; TENNILLE SEVIGNY; ACADIA WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC; TENARON, LLC; JEAN E. HERTZOG, individually, as Executrix of the Estate of Leo J. Hertzog, Jr., and as Trustee of the Leo J. Hertzog, Jr. Revocable Trust of 2003; UNITED PLANNERS' FINANCIAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, L.P.; and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10 (fictitious entities), Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00619 (D.N.J., January 20, 2026) is an action for federal securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and related state-law claims, brought on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated investors who entrusted their retirement savings and other funds to Defendants for investment advisory and brokerage services. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a systematic, multi-year scheme to solicit investments from retirees and conservative clients, recommending and selling unsuitable, high-risk, illiquid alternative investments -- such as private placements in GPB Capital Holdings, LLC; syndicated conservation easements sponsored by EcoVest Capital, Inc.; shares in Priority Income Fund, Inc.; and other speculative vehicles -- driven by exorbitant commissions and undisclosed conflicts of interest, while prioritizing personal gain over fiduciary obligations. Allegedly, the Defendants, in connection with the purchase and sale of securities, including notes, evidence of indebtedness, and investment contracts in GPB, EcoVest, and Priority Income Fund, used manipulative and deceptive devices, including material misrepresentations and omissions about the suitability, risks, liquidity, performance, tax implications, and conflicts of investments like GPB, EcoVest, and Priority Income Fund, which were touted as stable despite known red flags. These misrepresentations and omissions were made through various means, including client communications, promotional materials, and failure to provide accurate account statements, all in violation of the law, says the suit. Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident and licensed attorney, entrusted his retirement savings to Defendants in 2015 upon Hertzog's recommendation. He asserts that the investments proved unsuitable and resulted in substantial losses, far below prudent benchmarks, due to high fees, illiquidity, outright fraud, and unforeseen tax liabilities. Acadia Wealth Management, LLC operates as an investment advisory firm and is controlled by Defendants Aaron P. Sevigny and Tennille Sevigny.[BN] The Plaintiff, of Kalman Law, P.C., appears pro se. ADVANTEX OF CALIFORNIA: Ocha Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advantex of California LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maria Ocha, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Advantex of California LLC, Fadden Dominic, Case No. 26STCV02197 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction). Advantex -- https://www.advantexps.com/main/ -- is an award-winning recruiting firm specializing in accounting, finance and information technology throughout Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com AINS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Information, Reed Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KATYA REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AINS, LLC D/B/A OPEXUS A/K/A CASEPOINT, a District of Columbia Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00202 (D.D.C., January 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personal information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who provided personal, sensitive data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which in turn entrusted that data with Defendant. The complaint relates that in the course of providing services to the EEOC, Defendant collected, stored, and maintained sensitive personal information belonging to individuals who interacted with the EEOC, including Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes. That information included names, contact information, and other personally identifiable information ("PII"). In February 2025, Defendant experienced a data security incident in which former employees--both of whom had already been convicted for hacking and sentenced to two to three years--with privileged system access engaged in unauthorized activity involving EEOC data. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for (i) negligence and negligence per se; (ii) invasion of privacy; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iv) violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act; and (v) violation of the Georgia Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff and the class members seek damages, including nominal damages from Defendant, and to compel Defendant to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices to safeguard the Sensitive Information it maintains to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from re-occurring in the future. Plaintiff Katya Reed is a resident of the County of Coweta in the State of Georgia. Defendant AINS, LLC sells case management software solutions to the federal government.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard A. Newman, Esq. NEWMAN LAW OFFICES 1717 K Street, NW; Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 544-8040 Facsimile: (866) 544-8040 E-mail: howard@newmanlawoffices.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: Raphael@Janove.law - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com AKRON REGIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Burnside Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BURNSIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKRON REGIONAL HOSPITAL LLC d/b/a SUMMA HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a SUMMA HEALTH and AKRON ASSURANCE HOSPITAL COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00149 (N.D. Ohio, January 20, 2026) challenges policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek for Defendants, including donning time. Accordingly, because she was not paid for her donning time, she was not paid all of the overtime hours that she worked. The Defendants willfully and intentionally did not correctly record and pay all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and violated the FLSA's recordkeeping requirements. Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, individually and jointly, from approximately August 26, 2024 until December 18, 2025 as a Surgical Assistant at the Summa Health System, Barberton Campus. Akron Regional Hospital LLC d/b/a Summa Health System d/b/a Summa Health is an integrated healthcare delivery system in Akron, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com ALLBIRDS INC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Vickers Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY VICKERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLBIRDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00861 (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for intentionally incorporating a host of tracking technologies for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes on the Website without disclosure to its users, including the tracking technologies provided by third parties. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated www.allbirds.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google, LLC. When consumers visit the Website, they are presented with the opportunity to opt out of third-party tracking technologies including those which Defendant uses for targeted advertising and website performance. Unbeknownst to its customers, and contrary to its express assurance that customers have control over the sale and sharing of their personal information, Defendant intercepts and discloses its customers' personally identifiable information ("PII"), and product purchase information to unknown third parties -- including, but not limited to, Google and Meta -- even when customers affirmatively disable the tracking technologies. The Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain PII. By failing to procure consent and continuing to allow the Third Parties' tracking even after consumers reject the tracking technologies, Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, says the suit. Plaintiff Kelly Vickers is a resident and citizen of Corona, California. She maintained active accounts with Facebook and Google. When creating her Facebook and Google accounts, Plaintiff provided them with her PII, including her full name, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Plaintiff used the same device to access the Website that she did to access her Facebook and Google accounts. She was in California when she visited the Website. Defendant Allbirds, Inc. is a global footwear and apparel brand. It owns and operates the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00704 (S.D.N.Y., January 27, 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 an Out of Space Food Survival Kit 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 AMERICAN OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. operates the Astronaut Foods online retail store, as well as the Astronaut Foods interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's freeze-dried astronaut food, 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 ARTHUR J GALLAGHER: Lockyer Sues Over Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------- DEBBORA LOCKYER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER (ILLINOIS), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01011 (N.D. Ill., January 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for imposing a health-based tobacco surcharge without making available a compliant alternative standard to avoid the surcharge. This lawsuit challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Illinois Employees' Self-Funded Medical/Dental Plan and Insured Benefits in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the implementing regulations. ERISA permits health-contingent wellness programs that promote health if, and only if, such programs strictly comply with the criteria governing these programs, including: (i) offering a meaningful and accessible reasonable alternative standard to any individual being charged extra based on a health factor; (ii) clearly disclosing the availability of that alternative standard in "all plan materials" describing the surcharge; and (iii) making available the "full reward" to all participants who satisfy the reasonable alternative standard. The complaint relates that the Defendant's Plan does not clearly or consistently establish a reasonable alternative standard that informs participants of all available avenues to avoid the surcharge. There is no indication in the benefit guides that surcharges will be reimbursed to those participants who satisfy the alternative standard. At the same time, Defendant fails to disclose in all Plan materials (i) contact information for accessing the alternative standard, (ii) that participants may qualify for the full reward or (iii) that they have the right to a physician-directed alternative. In doing so, Defendant withholds critical information from participants needed to properly assess their rights and, in effect, shifts Plan costs onto employees based on a health factor without satisfying the requirements needed to take advantage of ERISA's safe harbor. The Defendant cannot qualify for the statutory safe harbor because, while it imposes a health-based surcharge, it does not comply with the requirements for lawful wellness program. The Plan fails to satisfy the essential regulatory criteria, which must be satisfied, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to recover these unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Defendant from continuing to profit from its violations. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Plan as a whole, seeks appropriate equitable relief under the United States Code to address Defendant's ongoing violations of ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions. Plaintiff Debbora Lockyer is an employee of Gallagher who paid, and continues to pay, the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiff and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated. Defendant Arthur J. Gallagher (Illinois), LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business in Illinois. Defendant is a subsidiary of Arthur J. Gallagher Service Company, which is a subsidiary of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., a global insurance brokerage and risk management consultancy firm. Gallagher sponsored, maintained, and administered the Plan. Gallagher exercised discretionary authority and control over the design and administration of the Plan, including the determination and collection of participant premium contributions and the implementation of its tobacco-related premium differential, and therefore acted as a plan fiduciary within the meaning of ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Main: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com AWP INC: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Williams, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AWP, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00086 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 22, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid traffic control employees. The Plaintiff alleges he and similarly situated hourly-paid traffic control employees were not paid for all their overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this cause of action. the Defendant either failed to record all of the overtime hours of Plaintiff and others similarly situated into its time keeping system or "edited-out" such hours from its time keeping system, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid traffic control employee. AWP, Inc. is a traffic safety and traffic control company with 160 locations in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com BALLET SLIPPERS: Webb Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ballet Slippers Inc., et al. The case is styled as Angela Webb, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Ballet Slippers Inc., Empoweredexpansions Corp., Case No. 26STCV02330 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ballet Slippers, Inc. is a boutique establishment in Beverly Hills, California that specializes in the creation and distribution of high-quality ballet shoes and accessories.[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 BELK INC: Faces Magana Suit Over Fake Sales and Discounts --------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN MAGANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELK INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00673 (N.D. Cal., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law arising from unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises purported regular prices and purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices. The Defendant consistently advertises sales (for example "Up to 50% OFF," "Up to 60% OFF," or "Up to 70% OFF") with a constant stream of promotions. To the contrary, says the complaint, the purported discounts on Defendant's products are almost always available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's products are consistently available for less than that. The representations that Plaintiff relied on were not true. The purported regular prices Defendant advertised were not the true regular prices at which Defendant usually sells the products. The purported discounts were not true discounts, and the sales were ongoing -- not time-limited. Had Defendant been truthful, Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Belk Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells Belk Exclusive Brand products, which include but are not limited to clothing, personal goods, and home goods products branded under various Belk brand name.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com BFS GROUP LLC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BFS GROUP, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Raul Estrada Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BFS GROUP, LLC, BFS GROUP OF CALIFORNIA LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV001312 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Builders FirstSource -- https://www.bldr.com/ -- is the nation's largest supplier of structural building products, value-added components and services to the professional market.[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 BLUEHOOK TOOL COMPANY: Pope Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derreck Pope, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bluehook Tool Company LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00280 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Jan. 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:26-cv-00016 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bluehook Tool Company -- https://bluehooktool.com/ -- provides top-notch fishing and wellbore intervention services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Phone: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan Mitchell Roper, Esq. KELLY HART HALLMAN LLP 201 Main St., Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 332-2500 BOWERY RESIDENTS' COMMITTEE: Yearwood Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Yearwood, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BOWERY RESIDENTS' COMMITTEE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00581 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code of the City of New York ("NYCHRL"), that Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover from Defendant: unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime, due to time shaving, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, economic damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Because the Plaintiff worked through all meal breaks, the Plaintiff worked for a total of 42.5 hours per week. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff would work his scheduled hours and then work hours beyond his schedule that would go uncompensated. The Defendant knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to pay wages to Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members for all hours they worked, due to Defendant's policy of time shaving, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as a Porter and Driver for all Defendant's BRC Locations. BOWERY RESIDENTS' COMMITTEE, INC. is a nonprofit organization which provides homeless outreach services, transitional housing and shelter, permanent housing, and substance abuse treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 BRONCO MIDCO 2 LLC: Adame Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bronco Midco 2 LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marissa Adame, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bronco Midco 2 LLC, Mdpanel LLC, Case No. 26STCV02338 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Bronco Midco 2 LLC's headquarters is located in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com BURROWES BROTHERS: Faces Castillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO MUNGUIA CASTILLO and MICAELA FLORES MOSSO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BURROWES BROTHERS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC (d/b/a MANGO SEED), PAUL BURROWES, and GERMAINE BURROWES, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00329 (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay applicable minimum and overtime wages; failure to pay an additional hour's pay for spread of hours exceeding 10 hours; failure to provide with a written wage notice; failure to furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages; failure to pay on a regular weekly basis; and failure to reimburse the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment to perform their job. The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks and food preparers. Burrowes Brothers Restaurant Group LLC, d/b/a/ Mango Seed, is a Caribbean/American restaurant owned by Paul Burrowes and Germaine Burrowes located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com BUYERSROAD INC: Rodriguez Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------ REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUYERSROAD, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a EXPERIENCE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV02724 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for installing on its Website a spyware pixel created by TheTradeDesk in order to identify website visitors. The complaint relates that the Defendant created its own online presence at experience.com to communicate with potential customers, encouraging engagement with this electronic medium -- Defendant's Website -- as an alternative to the telephonic or in-person interaction. Defendant did this to enable potential customers to obtain information from and about Defendant's products, and to enable Defendant to elicit information from potential customers about their specific needs and desires. Defendant well understands that its Website is a means to communicate privately with potential customers, a consumer expectation that is not only reasonable, but actively nurtured by Defendant. However, the Defendant falsely promised Website visitors that it would protect their privacy, but then secretly monetized their personal information by enabling TheTradeDesk to spy on those visitors, surveil their journey across the web, track their location and lifestyle habits, and bombard them with targeted advertising. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website several times, most recently in mid-2025. Without Plaintiff's or class members' knowledge or consent, Defendant deployed TheTradeDesk's de-anonymization process to identify Plaintiff using electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device. Defendant's installation of the TheTradeDesk tracing process violates California's Trap and Trace Law. Dozens of state and federal courts have held that substantially identical conduct violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), asserts the complaint. Plaintiff REBEKA RODRIGUEZ is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant BUYERSROAD, INC is a California-based company that provides an experience management platform to clients via its website. Defendant also owns, operates, and controls the website, experience.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: 323-306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Emery Files Suit Over Egg Price-Fixing Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ GLORIA EMERY, CAROL GOLDBERG, and CASEY WHALEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.; ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.; VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC; HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC.; HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC., HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC; HILLANDALE FARMS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC. d/b/a EXPANA; EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC.; UNITED EGG PRODUCERS; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00193-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of federal antitrust, consumer protection, and common laws. This is a cartel action against the major producers of conventional eggs, yet another staple food product made unreasonably expensive by conspiracy in restraint of trade between the small number of companies responsible for this important part of the nation's food supply. Specifically, the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs from at least as early as January 1, 2022, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anti-competitive effects dissipate, says the complaint. The complaint relates that to effect their collusive increases, the Egg Producer Defendants supplied inflated "assessments" of egg prices to Urner Barry. Urner Barry then knowingly laundered these reports, publishing price quotes using the Egg Producer Defendants' subjective and deliberately skewed information along with data from its other subscribers. It also incorporated transaction prices from an online spot market provided by Defendant ECI, an opaque private spot market that is the equivalent of a "dark pool" for commodities. Urner Barry quotes, in turn, are a benchmark for the pricing of Defendants' sales of Conventional Eggs -- nearly all of them. In this way, Urner Barry and ECI not only incorporate but normalize and amplify price swings led by the largest-volume producers, who were conspiring together. This prevents independent, competitive decision-making by other producers from pulling the market price back to competitive levels. This is how the Defendants were able to sustain repeated price hikes that were not explained by costs or competitive supply factors. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' conspiracy has harmed Plaintiffs and members of the Class, who are ordinary Americans just trying to put food on the table in an environment where staple after staple in the grocery basket has been forced to supracompetitive prices by unscrupulous agribusiness barons. The prices Plaintiffs and the Class paid for eggs during the Class Period were supracompetitive and the entire Class was uniformly harmed by purchasing in a market tainted by the cartel. Plaintiffs bring this class action Complaint against Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, state consumer protection laws, and common law. The Plaintiffs and the proposed Damages Class seek damages and multiple damages as permitted by law for their injuries by Defendants' violation of the aforementioned statutes. Plaintiffs Gloria Emery, Carol Goldberg, and Casey Whalen purchased Conventional Eggs produced by the Egg Producing Defendants, indirectly for personal use and not for resale, from one or more retailers during the Class Period. By paying artificially inflated prices for Conventional Eggs, the Plaintiffs suffered antitrust injury as a direct result of the antitrust violations alleged in this Complaint. Defendants Cal-Maine, Rose Acre, Versova, Hillandale, and Daybreak are the five biggest egg producing companies in the United States. Together they own almost half of all commercial layer hens. Defendant Urner Barry is a publisher. It collects, analyzes, and disseminates detailed, granular industry intelligence to its customers in the egg, poultry, meat, seafood, plant protein, and related segments of the food industry. Urner Barry provides actionable competitive information related to the egg market to the Egg Producer Defendants and others.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: burt@whafh.com - and - Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com byrd@whafh.com CALIFORNIA FINE: Pucilowski Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DONNA PUCILOWSKI, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant., Case No. S-CV-0056407, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00158 to the proceeding. In her complaint, the Plaintiff asserts the following five causes of action on behalf of herself and a class of individuals she seeks to represent: (1) Violation of California Civil Code; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Conversion, (4) Money Had and Received; and (5) Violation of California Business & Professions Code. California Fine Wine & Spirits LLC operates as a liquor store.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sedina L. Banks, Esq. Sherry E. Jackman, Esq. Brian E. Moskal, Esq. GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3610 Facsimile: (310) 553-0687 E-mail: sbanks@greenbergglusker.com sjackman@greenbergglusker.com bmoskal@greenbergglusker.com CALIFORNIA FINE: Pucilowski Class Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DONNA PUCILOWSKI, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA FINE WINE & SPIRITS LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. S-CV-0056407, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00218-AC to the proceeding. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following five causes of action on behalf of herself and a class of individuals she seeks to represent: (1) Violation of California Civil Code;(2) Breach of Contract; (3) Conversion; (4) Money Had and Received; (5) Violation of California Business & Professions Code. California Fine Wine & Spirits LLC operates as a liquor store.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sedina L. Banks, Esq. Sherry E. Jackman, Esq. Brian E. Moskal, Esq. GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3610 Facsimile: (310) 553-0687 E-mail: sbanks@greenbergglusker.com sjackman@greenbergglusker.com bmoskal@greenbergglusker.com CAREATHOME MEDICAL: Cervantes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jocelyn Cervantes, individually and for others similarly situated v. CAREATHOME MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a VESTA HEALTHCARE and CAREATHOME MEDICAL PRACTICE (CA), P.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-00570 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendants in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But Vesta did not pay the Plaintiff or the other Hourly Employees time-and-a-half for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. Instead, Vesta paid the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees straight time for their hours worked over 40 in a workweek (Vesta's "Straight Time for Overtime Policy"). Vesta further required the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to spend significant amounts of time loading their computers and various work programs on their company issued laptops before they could clock in for their day (Vesta's "Off the Clock Policy"). Vesta did not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for this computer loading time despite having the ready ability to calculate the time necessarily taken to load such computer programs each workday. the Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees were thus not paid for that time. Vesta's Straight Time for Overtime Policy and Off the Clock Policy violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Vesta as a clinical assistant in California. Vesta Healthcare proactively identifies the need for additional support in the home and provides 24/7 telehealth support for caregivers and care recipients, with a focus on high-need, frail senior populations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua I. White, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. Kyle DeCamp, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (323) 551-9221 Fax: (310) 654-4093 Email: josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com william@laurelemploymentlaw.com kyle.decamp@laurelemploymentlaw.com CELGENE CORP: $239MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE CELGENE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 2:18-cv-04772 (MEF) (JBC) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") between April 27, 2017 and April 27, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that Class Representative AMF Tjänstepension AB, on behalf of itself and the Court-certified Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the securities class action (the "Action") for $239,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that Celgene and two of its former officers, Terrie Curran and Philippe Martin (collectively, "Defendants") violated the federal securities laws. Class Representative alleges that Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period regarding certain Celgene products and product candidates, including the pharmaceutical drugs and drug candidates known as GED-0301, Otezla, and Ozanimod, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants deny all allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on May 4, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Michael E. Farbiarz of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, either in person at Courtroom 4 of the Frank Lautenberg Post Office & U.S. Courthouse, 2 Federal Square, Newark, NJ 07102, or by telephone or videoconference, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Settlement Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 22.2% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $5.75 million (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred by Class Representative directly related to its representation of the Class) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the case website, www.CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of (I) Proposed Class Action Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice"). You may obtain copies of the Settlement Notice and the Claim Form on the case website, www.CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com; by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Celgene Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. 91422, Seattle, WA 98111; by calling toll free 1-855-648-0893; or by emailing info@CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than April 13, 2026. To submit a claim online, visit www.CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel or emailed to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received on or before April 23, 2026 at 5:00 p.m., in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. As this Class was previously certified and, in connection with class certification, Class Members had the opportunity to request exclusion from the Class, the Court has exercised its discretion not to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion in connection with the Settlement proceedings. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel. Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Celgene Corporation Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91422 Seattle, WA 98111 (855) 648-0893 info@CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com www.CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Class Counsel: KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Matthew L. Mustokoff 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com By Order of the Court CERNER CORPORATION: Weibush Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Weibush, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION, doing business as ORACLE HEALTH, and AULTMAN HEALTH FOUNDATION, doing business as AULTMAN HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 5:26-cv-00166 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 22, 2026), is brought arising from a cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach occurred as early as January 22, 2025. Following an internal investigation, Defendants learned the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, Social Security number as we as well as personal health information, "(PHI"), including patient medical records, medical record numbers, doctors, diagnosis, medicines, test results, images, care, and treatment. Plaintiff refers to both PII and PHI collectively as "Sensitive Information." The Defendants failed to promptly inform Class Members even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendants knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendants violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former patients and prospective patients, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient and a Data Breach victim. Cerner is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations, lost control over its affiliated entity and client's patients' highly sensitive personal information, including Aultman Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Sanchez Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA SANCHEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES, a California corporation; RETIREMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES EMPLOYEES' 401(K) PLAN; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00894 (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for breaches of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to CHLA's 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). This action is brought on behalf of current and former employees, participants, or beneficiaries of DEFENDANTS' Plan to recover losses due to DEFENDANTS' mismanagement of the Plan and certain selected funds and engaging in prohibited transactions with a party in interest. Employees and former employees in America rely heavily on 401(k) plans for retirement savings. Unlike traditional defined-benefit pension plans, which provide guaranteed payouts for life and where the employer assumes the investment risks and pays the fees and expenses of the investments, 401(k) accounts increase and decrease with financial markets, and therefore, the proliferation of 401(k) plans has exposed workers to significant risks including drops in the stock market and high fees from Wall Street money managers. This action is filed to recover millions of dollars of funds owed back to the Plan on behalf of employees, participants, and beneficiaries of the Plan due to DEFENDANTS' misguided selection of investment options and improper transactions. These retirement funds are significant to the welfare of the Class. According to the complaint, the DEFENDANTS breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty to the Plan by failing to appropriately select and monitor the Plan's guaranteed income fund. Additionally, DEFENDANTS breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by failing to monitor the Plan's fees and expenses. DEFENDANTS caused the Plan to pay excessive fees and expenses associated with recordkeeping and, as a result, the Plan compensated recordkeepers who were also parties in interest from the retirement savings of Plan participants in excessive amounts, thereby diminishing the value of the participants' retirement funds without justification. The complaint alleges that the PLAINTIFF was injured during the relevant time period by DEFENDANTS' flawed processes, inadequate monitoring, and prohibited transactions in breach of their fiduciary duties. As a result of DEFENDANTS' actions, participants invested in subpar investment vehicles and paid excessive administrative fees, which resulted in a loss of compounded returns. The PLAINTIFF, individually and as the representative of a putative Class consisting of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries, brings this action on behalf of the Plan to enforce DEFENDANTS' liability under the United States Code to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from their breaches of fiduciary duties, and to restore to the Plan any lost profits. In addition, the PLAINTIFF seeks to reform the Plan to comply with ERISA and to prevent further breaches of fiduciary duties and grant other equitable and remedial relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Plaintiff BARBARA SANCHEZ resides in Los Angeles, California, and is an employee of CHLA and has worked for CHLA during the relevant time period. Defendant CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES (CHLA) is the current sponsor and administrator of the Plan. Defendant PLAN COMMITTEE is the committee that manages and oversees the Plan, and orders ERISA audits of the Plan. DOES 1 through 50 are the defendants under fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Erin R. Hutchins, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Boulevard, Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com ehutchins@maternlawgroup.com CLENS LLC: Palmer Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clens LLC. The case is styled as Jen Palmer, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Clens LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00381-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Clens LLC -- https://clensclean.com/ -- provide house cleaning services in San Diego, La Mesa, Poway, Del Mar, and surrounding cities..[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 CONDUENT INCORPORATED: Luckett Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alvin Luckett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conduent Incorporated, Conduent Business Services, LLC, American International Group Inc., AIG Procurement Services Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-09784 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00624 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Conduent Inc. -- https://www.conduent.com/ -- is an American business services provider company headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 CONNECT HOLDING: Fails to Secure Private Information, Riggs Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Riggs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Connect Holding II LLC d/b/a Brightspeed, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00067 (W.D.N.C., January 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII") from hackers. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving services from Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. In its privacy policy, Defendant promises its customers that it has implemented adequate data security. According to online sources, Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its computer systems on January 5, 2026. Unfortunately, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was stolen in the Data Breach by the hacking group, Crimson Collective. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct as the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff has been a victim of actual attempted financial fraud as a result of the Data Breach. She received an alert from her bank recently stating someone was attempting to open a fraudulent account using her Private Information. The Plaintiff has also experienced an increase in the volume of spam phone calls she received as a result of the Data Breach, which has required her to spend time and energy blocking numbers and installing a call verifier, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Sue Riggs is an individual citizen of the Ohio. Defendant Connect Holding II LLC, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is an internet provider for rural and suburban communities across 20 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 525 North Tyron Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (980) 533-4616 E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com CORTECH LLC: Espinal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CorTech, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alex Espinal, an individual; and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CorTech, LLC, Mariani Packing, Co., Inc., Case No. CU25-11916 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." CorTech -- http://www.cor-tech.net/-- is a service-oriented staffing/recruiting company dedicated to working closely with our clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hector Rodriguez, Esq. MACIAS RODRIGUEZ ADAMS LLP 1550 The Alameda, Ste. 332 San Jose, CA 95126-2329 Phone: 408-455-6388 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Johnston Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale Corporation. The case is styled as Bianca Johnston, Anatasia Chernov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Does 1-10, Case No. 3:26-cv-00403-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Costco Wholesale Corporation doing business as Costco -- https://www.costco.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. Almeida Law Group LLC 111 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (310) 896-5813 Email: wes@almeidalawgroup.com COVENANT HEALTH INC: DeFlaminis Files Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covenant Health, Inc. The case is styled as Nicholas DeFlaminis, Linda DeFlaminis, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Covenant Health, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-10229 (D. Mass., Jan. 20, 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 COVER BEAR: Boyd Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cover Bear, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Boyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cover Bear, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-20408-XXXX (S.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. The Cover Bear, LLC is a business entity based 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 CRYSTAL RUN: Website Secretly Operates Tracking Tools, Loesel Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NADINA LOESEL and JENNIFER TURIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRYSTAL RUN HEALTHCARE LLP, a New York limited liability partnership, and CRYSTAL AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER OF MIDDLETOWN, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-00655 (S.D.N.Y., January 26, 2026) arises from the Defendant's systematic interception and disclosure of patients' and website visitors' sensitive personal health information and electronic communications to third parties, including Google LLC and The Trade Desk, Inc., without prior notice or consent, through tracking technologies embedded in Defendants' website, www.crystalrunhealthcare.com According to the complaint, Crystal Run Healthcare has knowingly implemented third-party tracking technologies on its Website, including Google's DoubleClick tracking platform (the "DoubleClick Tracker") and The Trade Desk tracking platform (the "Trade Desk Tracker"). When Website visitors search for doctors or medical specialists, research health conditions, seek information about specific medical services, or interact with other health-related content, Crystal Run Healthcare enables Google and The Trade Desk to intercept these electronic communications without consent. The intercepted information includes: (a) the names of physicians from whom users are seeking treatment; (b) users' medical specialties and facilities viewed; (c) when users request a callback; (d) when users click to pay a bill; (e) users' free-text searches made via the site's search bar, including searches for sensitive medical conditions; and (f) every page URL visited by users on the Website. This interception of private electronic communications occurs in real-time, without appropriate notice to visitors and without obtaining their consent, in violation of: (1) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the "ECPA"), (2) breach of implied contract; (3) common law protections against invasion of privacy; and (4) principles of unjust enrichment. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these widespread privacy violations on behalf of a nationwide class, obtain appropriate remedies for thousands of affected individuals, and prevent the continued unauthorized interception of patients' electronic communications through Defendants' Website. Plaintiff Nadina Loesel is a citizen of New York, who resides in Middletown, New York. Plaintiff Jennifer Turiano is a citizen of New York, who resides in Monroe, New York. Defendant Crystal Run Healthcare LLP is one of the largest multi-specialty physician groups in the Hudson Valley region of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott E. Reiser, Esq. LUM, DRASCO & POSITAN LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 401 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-6738 Facsimile: (973) 403-9021 E-mail: sreiser@lumlaw.com - and - Fletch Trammell, Esq. TRAMMELL PC 3262 Westheimer, #423 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (800) 405-1740 Facsimile: (800) 532-0992 E-mail: fletch@trammellpc.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC Scottsdale Quarter 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 7622661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com DANIEL H. COOK ASSOCIATES: Fong Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daniel H. Cook Associates Inc. The case is styled as Ernest Fong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Daniel H. Cook Associates Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00602 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Daniel H. Cook Associates -- https://dhcook.com/ -- has been a pioneer in the self-funded benefits field and offer a variety of services, including self-insured medical, dental, and optical benefits, as well as record-keeping and administration for defined-contribution and benefits plans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Lowbruck Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON LOWBRUCK, ADAM MOSS, ERIC RODGERS, MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, and JOHN VEDAMANIKAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, on Behalf of the DELL INC. 401K PLAN, Plaintiffs v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and its members; and DELL BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00209 (W.D. Tex., January 28, 2026) arises from Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the United States Code alleging that Defendants (the Plan's fiduciaries) breached their duties by: (1) retaining underperforming investment options: (i) the Dell Pre-Mixed Portfolio Target Date Series (the "Dell TDFs" or "Dell TDF Series"), (ii) the US Small/Mid Cap Equity Fund (the "Dell SMid Fund"), and (iii) the Emerging Markets Equity Fund (the "Dell Emerging Fund") (collectively, the "Subject Funds") for the Plan between 2019 and 2025, despite more suitable target date funds ("TDFs"), small/mid-cap funds, and emerging markets equity funds having been readily available; (2) engaging in transactions prohibited by ERISA; and (3) failing to monitor the fiduciaries responsible for administration and management of the Plan's actions in retaining the imprudent Dell TDF Series and Dell Core Funds as investments for the Plan. The Defendants' breaches and imprudent investment decisions have resulted in the loss of over $318 million of assets for the Plan and its participants, says the complaint. Based on Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Plan, and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, asserting claims for a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, for engaging in prohibited transactions and unlawful self-dealing with respect to the Plan in violation of ERISA, and for failure to monitor fiduciaries. In connection with these claims, the Plaintiffs seek to recover all losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants' fiduciary breaches, all profits earned by Defendants in connection with Defendants' breaches, and other appropriate relief. Allison Lowbruck was employed as an Account Manager with Dell from 2021 through 2024. Adam Moss was employed as a Pre-Sale Solution Architect with Dell from 2017 through March 2025. Eric Rodgers was employed as a Tier III Tech Support with Dell from 2016 through 2024. Michael Schwartz was employed as a Consultant Product Manager with Dell from 2016 through April 2025. John Vedamanikam was employed as a Senior Advisor, Product Marketing with Dell from 2009 through April 2025. All of them were participants in the Plan. Defendant Dell Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Round Rock, Texas, is an American multinational technology company. Defendant the Board of Directors of Dell is a fiduciary of the Plan responsible for appointing and monitoring the Plan's fiduciaries, including the Investment Committee. Defendant the Investment Committee, is responsible for designating the investment options available under the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart L. Cochran, Esq. CONDON TOBIN SLADEK SPARKS NERENBERG PLLC 8080 Park Lane, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 265-3804 Facsimile: (214) 691-6311 E-mail: scochran@condontobin.com - and - Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq. Nicolas Kravitz, Esq. John A. Carriel, Esq. Alexander L. Burns, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 648-1842 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com E-mail: nicolas.kravitz@ksfcounsel.com E-mail: john.carriel@ksfcounsel.com E-mail: alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN WILLIAMS, individually, as natural parent and next friend of Y.W., C.W., J.B., and N.D., minors, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION D/B/A DEVEREUX ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-453 (E.D. Pa., January 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"). The complaint relates that Devereux provides children and adults with behavioral healthcare services related to autism, intellectual and developmental disabilities, specialty mental health, education, and foster care. Due to the nature of the services it provides, Devereux acquires and electronically stores PII and PHI. On November 28, 2025, a ransomware group, The Gentlemen, publicly claimed that it had obtained Devereux's sensitive data. Devereux subsequently posted a "Notice of Data Breach" on its website, which reflects that "[t]he categories of information that may be involved varies [sic] by individual, but could include some combination of name, demographic information, clinical information, and financial information." The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII and/or PHI were exposed in the Data Breach. Plaintiff seek remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief, including substantial improvements to Devereux's data security policies and practices. Plaintiff Dawn Williams and her four minor children are residents of North Versailles, Pennsylvania. Her four minor children have recently been treated at a Devereux facility. Defendant The Devereux Foundation operates behavioral health centers in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com DILLON COMPANIES: Sells Contaminated Motor Fuel, Dehart Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LINDSEY DEHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DILLON COMPANIES, LLC (d/b/a KING SOOPERS FUEL CENTER, KING SOOPERS, INC., KING SOOPERS, and CITY MARKET), and HF SINCLAIR CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00330 (D. Colo., January 27, 2026) arises from Defendants' negligent, reckless, and unsafe distribution and sale of motor fuel that was represented as unleaded gasoline but was, in fact, contaminated with diesel fuel, therefore causing widespread and immediate economic damages to consumers throughout the State of Colorado. The complaint relates that the contamination involved a breakdown in fuel quality control and distribution affecting multiple retailers. Specifically, unleaded regular and plus grade gasoline that was contaminated with diesel fuel was loaded from a third-party supplier terminal operated by HF Sinclair Corporation ("Sinclair") in Henderson, Colorado, into transport vehicles, and was subsequently delivered to retailers up and down the Front Range in Colorado. According to the complaint, Petroleum marketers estimate that at least 400,000 gallons of fuel may have been affected. At gas stations operated and/or branded by Dillon Companies, LLC d/b/a King Soopers Fuel Center, King Soopers, Inc., King Soopers, and City Market ("King Soopers"), unleaded regular and plus grade gasoline was improperly mixed with diesel fuel and sold to unsuspecting consumers. King Soopers sold this contaminated fuel for use in gasoline-powered vehicles to consumers during the time period from approximately January 7, 2026 through January 8, 2026. King Soopers has since released a list identifying at least 13 locations that negligently and recklessly sold contaminated gasoline. Public reports and consumer complaints indicate that similar contamination incidents occurred at gas stations operated by other retailers in Colorado during and around the same time period, including Defendant Sinclair, Circle K Stores, Inc., Safeway, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. d/b/a Murphy Express (collectively, "Retailers"). The Plaintiff anticipates that upon further investigation and discovery, this Complaint is likely to be amended to include additional plaintiffs who purchased contaminated fuel from these other retailers, and that these other retailers will become additional defendants. The complaint alleges that the Defendants obviously acted negligently and recklessly, and failed to implement reasonable quality control, inspection, testing, oversight, supervision, and monitoring procedures to prevent fuel contamination, and also failed to timely warn consumers once contamination occurred. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and the Class suffered economic losses, including but not limited to engine damage, engine failure, repairs, and diminution of value, as well as the consequential economic damages incurred in dealing with all of these issues. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, therefore seeks all available compensatory and statutory damages, economic losses, consequential damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief available under Colorado law. Plaintiff Lindsey DeHart is a Colorado resident who purchased unleaded plus grade gasoline from Defendant King Sooper's fuel station in Castle Rock, Colorado during the relevant time period and suffered engine damage as a result of contaminated fuel originally distributed in Colorado by Defendant Sinclair. Defendant Dillon Companies, LLC d/b/a King Soopers Fuel Center, King Soopers, Inc., King Soopers, and City Market ("King Soopers"), is a Kansas limited liability company operating grocery stores and branded fuel stations throughout Colorado. King Soopers' principal place of business in Colorado is located at 65 Tejon Street, Denver, CO 80223. Defendant HF Sinclair Oil Corporation ("Sinclair") is a Delaware corporation distributing motor fuel and operating convenience stores and branded fuel stations throughout Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (215) 875-3063 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: apiazza@bergermontague.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Justin D. Cole, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bergermontague.com jcole@bergermontague.com - and - Soledad Slowing-Romero, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 474-4230 E-mail: sslowingromero@bergermontague.com DOONEY & BOURKE INC: Post Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Breanna Post, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., Case No. 25-00002-38334-2 SEA was transferred from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00249 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Dooney & Bourke -- https://www.dooney.com/ -- is an American leathergoods company dedicated to designing and manufacturing their products with expert craftsmanship and timeless style.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Kit W. Roth, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1301 Second Ave., Ste. 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: kit.roth@morganlewis.com DVA RENAL: Lee Wage and Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SHANNELLE LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC., a Tennessee corporation; DAVITA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CU25-10886, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Solano to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00250-DJC-CKD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims against Defendants under the California Labor Code for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, improper meal periods, improper rest periods, failure to timely pay wages due at termination, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. She also asserts a claim for unfair competition based on the foregoing alleged Labor Code violations. Plaintiff asserts these claims on behalf of a putative class that includes "[a]ll current and former employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing four years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the class action is provided to the class." DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC. is an ESRD Treatment Clinic (Dialysis Center) in Franklin, Tennessee. DAVITA INC. is an American company that provides kidney dialysis services through a network of 2,675 outpatient centers in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. Jennifer J. Mcdermott, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-557-2900 Facsimile: 310-557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com jslowik@proskauer.com jmcdermott@proskauer.com EAGLE POINT: Centralsquare Sues Over Supracompetitive Interest -------------------------------------------------------------- Centralsquare Technologies LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EAGLE POINT CREDIT COMPANY INC.; EAGLE POINT CREDIT MANAGEMENT LLC; EAGLE POINT INCOME MANAGEMENT LLC; EAGLE POINT INSTITUTIONAL INCOME FUND; EAGLE POINT INCOME COMPANY INC.; CAPRA IBEX ADVISORS, LLC; CAPRA IBEX CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES, LLC; CAPRA CREDIT MANAGEMENT, LLC; FAIR OAKS INCOME LIMITED; FAIR OAKS CAPITAL LLC; LIVERMORE INVESTMENTS GROUP LIMITED; ELDRIDGE INDUSTRIES, LLC; ELDRIDGE STRUCTURED CREDIT ADVISERS, LLC; PANAGRAM CAPITAL, LLC; PEARL DIVER CREDIT COMPANY INC.; PEARL DIVER CAPITAL LLP; and JOHN DOE CLO EQUITY INVESTORS 1–99, Case No. 3:26-cv-00106 (D. Conn., Jan. 21, 2026), is brought on its own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated to recover the supracompetitive interest they paid because of Defendants' anticompetitive agreement. The controlling investors of the largest lenders to non-investment grade U.S. companies--equity investors in Collateralized Loan Obligations ("CLOs")--conspired during the LIBOR-to-SOFR transition to artificially inflate interest rates that borrowers paid on their term loans (commonly called "leveraged loans"), in violation of antitrust law. The Defendants and other competing CLO equity investors formed a working group to ensure that leveraged loans transitioned from LIBOR to-SOFR with the highest possible interest rates. As a result of their collective efforts, the leveraged loan borrowers, like Plaintiff CentralSquare, were forced to accept higher interest rates to move their loans to SOFR via contractual amendment prior to the cessation of LIBOR. The Plaintiff's preliminary economic analysis confirms that Defendants' conspiracy worked and significantly raised borrowing costs above competitive levels. The Defendants' conspiracy reduced competition in the U.S. leveraged loan market, raising Plaintiff's and the Class's interest rates and payments, says the complaint. The Plaintiff CentralSquare borrowed under two leveraged loans containing artificially inflated CSAs. Eagle Point Management serves as the contractually appointed investment adviser to various funds and managed accounts that own debt and equity in CLOs holding portions of leveraged loans that transitioned from LIBOR-to-SOFR—including loans to Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. McGahan, Esq. Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 860-638-9328 Facsimile: 860-531-2606 Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com alawrence@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Jimmy S. McBirney, Esq. Sean C. Russell, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com jmcbirney@scott-scott.com srussell@scott-scott.com - and - Kyle Pozan, Esq. Consuela M. Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 North Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: 312-205-8968 Email: kjpozan@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowu@locklaw.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-339-6900 Email: bdclark@locklaw.com EFINANCIAL LLC: Chenault Files Suit Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA CHENAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. EFINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00307 (W.D. Wash., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to (1) maintain the required written policies and procedures, (2) provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing, (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call list, and (4) honor consumer opt-out requests caused Plaintiff and the class members harm as they continued to receive text message solicitations after asking for those messages to stop. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint relates that to promote its business, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers and make phone calls to them 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. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff Christina Chenault is the regular user of the telephone number that received the telephonic calls. Defendant eFinancial is an online and call center-based insurance agency in King County, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kira M. Rubel, Esq. THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 8811 N. Harborview Drive, Ste.B Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2174 Telephone: (253) 358-2215 E-mail: kira@theharborlawgroup.com - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com EVONIK CORPORATION: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evonik Corporation. The case is styled as Joel Hernandez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Evonik Corporation, Case No. 26STCV01770 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Evonik -- https://evonik.com/ -- is one of the world leaders in speciality chemicals and tranforms ideas into pioneering products and solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com FANATICS LLC: Faces Cavanaugh Suit Over Deceptive Shipping Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- JAKE CAVANAUGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANATICS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026-001293-CA-01 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., January 21, 2026) is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from its deceptive "Handling Fee." According to the complaint, Fanatics prominently advertises "FREE SHIPPING" or, on other occasions, a flat, low-cost shipping price on its websites. Those marketing representations are false because Fanatics surreptitiously adds a so-called "Handling Fee" of $1.99 to all orders, which it falsely and deceptively claims (in a difficult to access hyperlink) is for "warehouse and packing" costs. The assessment of this fee is deceptive and unfair, since, a) Fanatics does not disclose this added fee until the very last step in the multi-step ordering process; b) the fee itself is deceptively named and described; and c) the fee is in actuality a hidden shipping fee, asserts the complaint. Fanatics misrepresents the nature of the shipping charges assessed on the Fanatics' websites, by making representations that fail to correct reasonable understandings of its FREE or flat, low-cost shipping promises, and that misrepresent the actual costs of shipping charged to consumers, says the suit. Fanatics LLC is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal business offices in the city of Jacksonville, Florida. The Company provides licensed sports merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (954) 736-3394 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180-2163 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com FASTENAL COMPANY: Vaca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastenal Company. The case is styled as Juan M. Vaca, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Fastenal Company, Case No. 25STCV37797 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Fastenal -- https://www.fastenal.com/ -- is the largest fastener distributor in North America.[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 FCA US: Humphreys Sues Over Defective HV Lithium-Ion Battery Pack ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA HUMPHREYS, in her individual capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated, and JARON HUMPHREYS, in his individual capacity and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOUG SMITH AUTOPLEX, INC., a Utah corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00053 (D. Utah, January 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who purchased or leased a 2020-2025 Jeep Wrangler 4XE or a 2022-2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4XE that has been equipped with a defective high voltage lithium-ion battery pack. According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles suffer from a latent safety defect wherein the HV Battery is prone to internal failure leading to thermal runaway and spontaneous vehicle fires. The defect can cause Class Vehicles to spontaneously catch fire even when the ignition is off and the vehicle is parked. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members are left with vehicles they cannot safely charge, cannot park in their garages, and cannot use as the hybrid-electric vehicles they paid a premium to own, says the suit. FCA US, LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Head, Esq. HEAD LAW, PLLC 5411 S. Vine St., # 4A Murray, UT 84107 Telephone: (801) 691-7511 Facsimile: (801) 691-7512 E-mail: dhead@headlawusa.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law FCA US: Website Uses Tracking Software, Blalock Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- WENDY BLALOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00201 (C.D. Cal., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant, alleging digital surveillance embedded in a consumer website. The complaint relates that on the Website, Defendant embedded LiveRamp tracking software (the "Tracking Beacon"). The Tracking Beacon is a device or process that runs when a webpage loads and captures dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information generated by the visitor's interaction with the Website and transmits that information to LiveRamp for identity matching and monetization. The California Invasion of Privacy Act prohibits installing or using a "trap and trace device" without first obtaining consent or a court order. A "trap and trace device" includes any "device or process" that captures the incoming impulses identifying the dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication. By deploying the Tracking Beacon, Defendant turned ordinary browsing on the Website into a data-extraction event. Defendant captured and transmitted Californians' identifying signaling information to a third-party broker without the consent or court order the law demands, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a class of California residents to halt that surveillance. Wendy Blalock is a citizen and resident of California. FCA US, LLC owns and operates https://www.chrysler.com which Defendant uses to market vehicles and related services to consumers in California and throughout the United States. Does 1 through 25 are the the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymie Parkkinen, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: jparkkinen@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT: Horton Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Duane Horton, Sr., individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2531101 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00277. The original complaint asserts the following causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in violation of the Violation of California Labor Codes and Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David J. Dow, Esq. Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 Email: ddow@littler.com jhannah@littler.com FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Faces Gomeringer Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GOMERINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00045-DJH (W.D. Ky., January 21, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former hourly employees who, throughout the relevant period, were subject to Defendant's corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its hourly employees for all pre-, mid-, and post-shift off-the clock work. The hourly employees routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, the hourly employees actually worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for hours worked over 40 per week, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee from his home from approximately August 2023 to October 2024. Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist is a business process management company that provides operational, technology, and client support services (including customer service) for businesses in a variety of industries, including healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com - and - Mark R. Miller, Esq. Julia Ozello, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 200 W. Madison St., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com jo@wallacemiller.com FISHMONGER NASHVILLLE: Giles Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JAYDEN GILES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FISHMONGER NASHVILLLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00079 (M.D. Tenn., January 21, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Giles and all other similarly situated employees work or worked for the Defendant at its Nashville, Tennessee restaurant as employees paid less than the minimum wage plus customer tips pursuant to the "tip credit" provisions of the FLSA. The Defendant however, failed to satisfy the requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet its minimum-wage and overtime obligations to its tip-credit employees by: (1) failing to provide with the required notice before taking the tip credit; (2) requiring tip-credit employees to share tips with non-tipped employees who have no or insufficient customer interaction; (3) requiring them to spend more than 20% of their shifts performing non-tip-producing work while paid at the lower, tipped hourly rate; and (4) requiring them to spend large amounts of time performing non-tip-producing work while paid at the lower, tipped hourly rate before and after serving guests, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server at its Nashville, Tennessee restaurant from approximately March 2025 to January 2026. Fishmonger Nashville, LLC, is a Tennessee limited liability company. It owns and operates the Fishmonger restaurant in the Germantown neighborhood of Nashville.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com FIVE BELOW INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Five Below, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-00501 (D. Minn., Jan. 21, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.fivebelow.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers discounted specialty gifts for sale including, but not limited to, toys, games, electronics, beauty supplies, arts, crafts, candy, snacks, pet supplies, sporting goods, books, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FIVE BELOW INC: Qualls Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Le'kiyah Qualls, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. FIVE BELOW, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. C25-03292 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 21, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00671. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf of a putative class for alleged: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked and/or failure to pay overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay in violation of Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code section 226.7; failure to indemnify employees for employment related losses/expenditures in violation of Labor Code Section 2802; failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick days at the regular rate of pay in violation of Labor Code Section 246; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code Section 226; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; and unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Alexander L. Grodan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com - and - Jenna M. Rogenski, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: jenna.rogenski@morganlewis.com FLAGLER SQUARE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C. D/B/A FLAGLER SQUARE and SUBWAY AT FLAGLER SQUARE LLC D/B/A SUBWAY #29579, Case No. 1:26-cv-20386-XXXX (M.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 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 commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and restaurant businesses have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation 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 restaurant business within the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. FLAGLER SQUARE, L.C. D/B/A FLAGLER SQUARE, owns and operates a commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FPC YANKTON: Henry Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DREW JOSEPH HENRY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, V. WARDEN, FPC YANKTON, Case No. 4:25-cv-04244-CCT ( D.S.D.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class action: The Petitioner moves the Court for an order under Rule 23(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this proceeding may be maintained as a class action on behalf of a class comprised of Petitioner and all other persons similarly situated, namely: "All Inmates confined at Yankton Federal Prison Camp who, prior to arrival at their designated facility, were held In Bureau of Prisons custody in transit or holdover status and denied First Step Act time credit accrual due solely to transfer and/or designation delays." Rule 23(a) Requirements are Satisfied. Certification is proper under Rule 32(b)(2) because: the BOP has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class; uniform relief would resolve the issue for all members. This case challenges a single BOP policy or practice, not individualized time credit calculation determinations. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PzgmiJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GOHEALTH INC: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for March 26 ------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF GOHEALTH, INC. ("GOHEALTH" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF DECEMBER 19, 2025. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTION, CURRENT GOHEALTH SHAREHOLDERS WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, AND FROM PURSUING RELEASED CLAIMS. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this action is being settled on the terms set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 19, 2025 (the "Stipulation"). The Action is brought derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant GoHealth and alleges that, among other things, beginning on July 14, 2020, at least, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing GoHealth to make misrepresentations and fail to disclose to shareholders that, among other things: (1) the source of the Company's revenue growth and enhanced financial metrics was the result of an unsustainable business approach, whereby GoHealth significantly increased focus on only two Medicare insurance carriers; and (2) the Defendants had intended for 2020 to be an "investment year" for GoHealth, which involved substantial and fast carrier expansion in GoHealth's Medicare business along with a heightened dependance on non-commissionable Medicare "Special Needs Plans," both of which would have adverse effects on certain of the Company's key financial metrics. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by Plaintiff in the Action. On December 19, 2025, GoHealth, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into the Stipulation to resolve the Action, which Stipulation was filed in the Court. The Action was brought derivatively on behalf of GoHealth against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company. GoHealth was named as a nominal defendant in the Action. The Stipulation, and the settlement contemplated therein (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of the Court, are intended by the Parties to fully, finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge, and settle the Released Claims and to result in the complete dismissal of the Action with prejudice, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The proposed Settlement requires adoption and maintenance by GoHealth of certain corporate governance reforms and procedures, as outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation (the "Reforms"), subject to Court approval. In recognition of the substantial benefits conferred upon GoHealth as a result of the Reforms achieved through the prosecution and Settlement of the Action, the Parties agreed on October 16, 2025 that GoHealth's insurers shall pay to Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of eight hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($875,000.00) (the "Fee and Expense Award"), subject to Court approval. Plaintiff's Counsel shall also apply to the Court for a service award to be paid to the Plaintiff in an amount of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) (the "Service Award"), to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Award. The Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated therein (the "Preliminary Approval Order") and providing for notice of the Settlement to be provided to current GoHealth shareholders who owned GoHealth stock as of December 19, 2025 ("Current GoHealth Shareholders"). The Preliminary Approval Order further provides that the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on March 26, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders; (ii) consider any objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with this Notice; (iii) determine whether a judgment should be entered dismissing all claims in the Action with prejudice, and releasing the Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iv) determine whether the Court should approve the agreed-to Fee and Expense Award; (v) determine whether the Court should approve the Service Award to the Plaintiff, which shall be funded from the Fee and Expense Award; and (vii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Upon final approval of the Settlement, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court may, in its discretion, change the date or time of the Settlement Hearing without further notice to you. If you intend to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's calendar or the investor relations portion of the Company's website, https://investors.gohealth.com/, for any change in the date or time of the Settlement Hearing. Any Current GoHealth Shareholder who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, or to the Fee and Expense Award or Service Award, may file with the Court a written objection. An objector must, at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the Settlement Hearing. You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiff's Counsel at: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10017, Telephone: (516) 922-5427, E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net. Please Do Not Call the Court or Defendants with Questions About the Settlement. GREAT WOLF: Deceives Consumers Thru Drip Pricing Scheme, Grant Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERRIE GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-886 (N.D. Ill., January 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deceiving its consumers through drip pricing strategies by advertising low prices, then adding hidden junk fees right before consumers check out. The complaint relates that the Defendant has been nickel and diming visitors to its Great Wolf Lodge Williamsburg indoor water park, on its website in violation of "Virginia's Mandatory Fees or Surcharges Law". Whenever a visitor selects an admission ticket to the indoor waterpark on the website, www.greatwolf.com/williamsburg, he or she is quoted a fee-less price, only to be ambushed by a $9.99 "Amenity Fee" at checkout after clicking through the various screens required to make a purchase. This cheap trick has enabled Defendant to swindle substantial sums of money from its customers, asserts the complaint. To stop this hustle, Virginia enacted its Mandatory Fees or Surcharges Law, which prohibits the "advertise[ment] or display [of] a price for goods or services without clearly and conspicuously1 displaying the total price, which shall include all mandatory fees or surcharges. "Mandatory fees or surcharges" includes any additional fee or surcharge that must be paid in order to purchase the good or service being advertised. Consumers injured by a violation of Virginia's Mandatory Fees or Surcharges Law are entitled to the same remedies as those afforded under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act including statutory damages, adds the complaint. For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all other Virginia ticket purchasers for Defendant's Great Wolf Lodge Williamsburg indoor water park for damages, restitution, reasonable attorneys' costs and fees, and injunctive relief under Virginia's Mandatory Fees or Surcharges Law and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Sherrie Grant is a citizen and resident of Norfolk, Virginia who purchased a "Water Park Day Pass" to Defendant's indoor water park, Great Wolf Lodge Williamsburg, in Williamsburg, Virginia on January 15, 2026, through Defendant's website www.greatwolf.com/williamsburg Defendant Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. operates the Great Wolf Lodge Williamsburg indoor water park located in Williamsburg, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: 914-874-0710 (tel) Facsimile: 914-206-3656 (fax) E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Bukhari Files Suit in S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulshan Management Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shaqib Bukhari, on behalf of himself and of all other similarly situated individuals v. Gulshan Management Services, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00295 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Gulshan Management Services is a Human Resources & Staffing, and Business Services company located in Downers Grove, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff -- https://gomarquis.com/ -- is represented by: Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Southfield Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF SOUTHFIELD FIRE AND POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. HAYWARD HOLDINGS, INC., KEVIN HOLLERAN, EIFION JONES, CCMP CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP, CCMP CAPITAL INVESTORS III, L.P., CCMP CAPITAL INVESTORS III (EMPLOYEE), L.P., CCMP CAPITAL ASSOCIATES III, L.P., CCMP CAPITAL ASSOCIATES III GP, LLC, CCMP CAPITAL, LP, CCMP CAPITAL GP, LLC, MSD AQUA PARTNERS, LLC, MSD PARTNERS, L.P., MSD PARTNERS (GP), LLC, MARK MCFADDEN, GREG BRENNEMAN, TIMOTHY WALSH, CHRISTOPHER BERTRAND, and KEVIN BROWN, Case No. 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-SDA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 17, 2026, will move the Court, the Honorable William J. Martini, for entry of an Order: (i) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement; (ii) granting approval of the form and manner of giving notice of the proposed Settlement to the Settlement Class; and (iii) setting a date for the Settlement Hearing to consider the fairness and adequacy of the Settlement, and any requests for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses; and (iv) granting related relief as set forth in the accompanying [Proposed] Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Providing for Notice. Hayward is a designer and manufacturer of residential and commercial pool technology. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G0vqV7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew F. Gately, Esq. Michael Alderman, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West-Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 E-mail: mfg@njlawfirm.com ma@njlawfirm.com - and - Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Susan Hu, Esq. Karolina Klyuchnikova, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Cornelia Gordon, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com shu@scott-scott.com kklyuchnikova@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com cgordon@scott-scott.com HILSCHER-CLARKE ELECTRIC: Burson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Burson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HILSCHER-CLARKE ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00076-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 21, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Ohio Prompt Payment Act ("OPPA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly received their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration, such as that which is described above, in various workweeks when they worked in excess of 40 hours. When Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees both their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration, Defendant did not include Additional Remuneration in the calculation of employees' regular pay rates for overtime. Consequently, the Defendant failed to properly compensate The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the overtime wages they were due in accordance with the requirements of the FLSA. During all relevant times, the Defendant knew of and acted willfully regarding its conduct. The Defendant knew the Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked overtime without properly calculating and paying the overtime compensation due for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant beginning in April 2024 until September 2025. The Defendant is a full-service electrical contractor with offices located throughout the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Phone: 614-787-4878 Fax: 614-957-7515 Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com HUB CYBER: $11MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 29 -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed settlement that would benefit purchasers of Hub Cyber Security Ltd. publicly traded common stock (NASDAQ: HUBC): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE HUB CYBER SECURITY LTD MASTER FILE NO. 1:23-CV-05764-AS SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Hub Cyber Security Ltd. ("Hub") from March 1, 2023 through July 31, 2023, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $11,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on June 29, 2026 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Arun Subramanian in Courtroom 15A at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and in the Notice should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator at www.HubSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In Re Hub Cyber Security Ltd. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked by mail or submitted online no later than May 13, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received by or postmarked no later than June 1, 2026 to the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be delivered to the Clerk of the Court, Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received by June 8, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: In Re Hub Cyber Security Ltd. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Toll-free Telephone: (866) 274-4004 Email: info@strategicclaims.net www.HubSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Casey E. Sadler, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com By Order of the Court HUMAN TECHNOLOGIES: Herring Files Suit Over FCRA Breach ------------------------------------------------------- CODY HERRING, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00287-DCC (D.S.C., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. The complaint relates that in early November of 2025, Plaintiff visited the Greenfield plant in Seneca, South Carolina after a friend told him the plant was hiring. After completing the job application and onboarding paperwork, Plaintiff disclosed his criminal history to Defendant's employees, who suggested Plaintiff should nonetheless be "fine" because Randy Hendricks, an employee of Greenfield, sent him over. Plaintiff took and passed a drug test as part of Defendant's hiring process. Defendant subsequently contracted with Asurint to obtain a consumer report relating to Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant ordered Plaintiff's Consumer Report from Asurint on November 10, 2025. The Defendant paid Asurint, a consumer reporting agency, a fee for the Consumer Report. Plaintiff was not provided a copy of the Consumer Report prior to Defendant's decision to withdraw the job offer. The Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Consumer Report and a summary of rights under the FCRA prior to taking adverse employment action deprived Plaintiff of a critical opportunity to understand his rights and review, contest, explain and/or dispute the information being used against him, states the complaint. The Defendant's actions in violation of the FCRA are part of a pattern of practice undertaken with numerous other individuals. As such, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this Class Action Complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiff Cody Herring is a resident of South Carolina. He was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Defendant Human Technologies, Inc. is engaged in the business of temporary staffing in South Carolina and can be served through its registered agent, John Knight, at 105 N Spring Street, Suite 500, Greenville, SC 29601. It employs approximately 650 individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: 929-474-6448 Facsimile: 646-417-5967 E-mail: nwilliams@sirillp.com - and - Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Direct: 816-281-7162 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com JARED HOY: Bid for Clarification Granted in Huber Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Huber, v. Jared Hoy, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00404 (W.D. Wisc., Filed June 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for clarification. Pursuant to the preliminary pretrial conference order, the Defendants' brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification is due Feb. 19, 2026, and plaintiff's brief in reply is due March 6, 2026. The nature of suit state Civil Rights.[CC] JOSEPH WALTERS: Whitmore Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph Walters. The case is styled as Dustin Whitmore, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Joseph Walters, in his official capacity as Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:26-cv-00049-RCY (E.D. Va., Jan. 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights Prisoner. Joseph Walters is the 11th Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geri Greenspan, Esq. ACLU OF VIRGINIA P.O. Box 26464 Richmond, VA 23261 Phone: (804) 491-8584 Email: ggreenspan@acluva.org - and - Vishal Mahendra Agraharkar, Esq. ACLU OF VIRGINIA 701 E. Franklin Street, Suite 1412 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 523-2151 Fax: (804) 644-8022 Email: vagraharkar@acluva.org L3HARRIS MARITIME POWER: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L3harris Maritime Power & Energy Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Elio Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. L3harris Maritime Power & Energy Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25STCV37765 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." L3Harris Maritime Power & Energy Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.l3harris.com/ -- provides engineering, development, manufacture, and integration of power conversion and distribution systems.[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 LIBERTY INSURANCE: Aqeel Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ali Aqeel, Dwight Seeley, Pamela Seeley, Laurel Readinger, Levi Bartholomew, Arij Ali, and Malina Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00181 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 21, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-10238-DJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract. Liberty Insurance Corporation -- https://libertycompany.com/ -- offers innovative risk management and insurance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erik D. Peterson, Esq. MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 201 West Short Street, Suite 800 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 225-3731 Email: edp@austinmehr.com - and - J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: (615) 354-1144 Email: brandon@msb.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. LARSON • KING, LLP 30 E. 7th Street, Suite 2800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 312-6500 Email: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. David T. Moran, Esq. Jamison M. Joiner, Esq. Maggie I. Burreson, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 953-6032 Email: cthompson@jw.com dmoran@jw.com jjoiner@jw.com mburreson@jw.com - and - L. Webb Campbell, II, Esq. Lauren Z. Curry, Esq. William Pugh, Esq. SHERRARD ROE VOIGT & HARBISON, PLC 1600 West End Avenue, Suite 1750 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 742-4200 Fax: (615) 742-4539 Email: wcampbell@srvhlaw.com lcurry@srvhlaw.com wpugh@srvhlaw.com - and - Marilyn Marie Brown, Esq. Michael Curtis Roberts, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 236-2379 Fax: (512) 236-2002 Email: mbrown@jw.com mroberts@jw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ward Class Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 granting its assented-to motion for leave to file exhibits under seal to forthcoming motion to certify class. The Plaintiff will file his Motion for Class Certification on Jan. 23, 2026. In support of that Motion, the Plaintiff will attach the following exhibits, which he seeks leave to file under seal: Exhibit 2-A: The lead information report by third-party Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a "Jornaya", for the lead with Ward Exhibit 2-I: The spreadsheet of leads sold by Next Level Media, LLC (NLM) to All Web Leads, Inc. (AWLI) and then sold by AWLI to Liberty Mutual, which allegedly originated from the website www.instant-auto-insurance-now.com. Exhibit 2-J: The contract between AWLI and NLM Exhibits 7-A, 7-B, 7-C and 7-D: Call detail records from Drips Holdings, LLC (Drips) to be filed in native format. Exhibits 8-A, 8-B, 8-C and 8-D: The Jornaya reports attached to the declaration of Manny Wald, for leads associated with randomly selected putative class members. 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=STZNOZ 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 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Lyons Files Suit in W.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty University, Inc. The case is styled as Kyler Lyons, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Liberty University, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-00007-NKM (D. Mass., Jan. 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Liberty University -- https://www.liberty.edu/ -- known simply as Liberty, is a conservative, private evangelical Christian university in Lynchburg, Virginia, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 11 South 12th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (509) 822-2463 Fax: (928) 833-4212 Email: rrodriguez@sirillp.com LIMESTONE LOGISTICS: Hurtt Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT HURTT and KATHLEEN FIELD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIMESTONE LOGISTICS, INC., KANDY KLEE CRABBE, and TIMOTHY GORDON CRABBE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00022-SCM (E.D. Ky., January 20, 2026) is a collective action and class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime premiums and other wage payments from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Revised Statutes. The complaint alleges that Defendants have employed numerous hourly employees who have not been paid the appropriate overtime premiums for the hours they worked. The Defendants maintain this practice with all employees who were employed or are employed as delivery drivers and worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiffs Hurtt and Field were employed as delivery drivers for Defendants from August to December 2025 and from October to December 2025, respectively. Limestone Logistics is a subcontractor for a major parcel delivery service. It operates within the greater Cincinnati, Ohio area and regularly transacts business in Northern Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samantha B. Isaacs, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 797-2859 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: samantha@finneylawfirm.com LOAN BY PHONE: Velasco Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loan By Phone of Texas, LLC. The case is styled as Tomasa Velasco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loan By Phone of Texas, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00434-FRS (E.D. Cal., Jan. 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[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 LOCAL CONSUMER REACH: Boddie Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Local Consumer Reach LLC. The case is styled as Steven Boddie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Local Consumer Reach LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-10159-SDK-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Local Consumer Reach LLC is a Ypsilanti, Michigan-based entity focused on marketing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com LOREX CORPORATION: Hill Files Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lorex Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sean Hill, Howard Portman, Vishal Shah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lorex Corporation, Lorex Technology, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00293 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Lorex Corporation -- https://www.lorex.com/ -- is a manufacturer of video surveillance products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com MAKITA CORPORATION: Walker Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Makita Corporation of America, et al. The case is styled as Dennis Walker, Lisa Lam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Makita Corporation of America, Makita U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00450-WLH-RAO (C.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. MAKITA Corporation of America (MCA) -- https://makitatools.com/ -- is a worldwide leading producer of high-quality power tools located in Buford, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS AND LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 725-7700 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul Doolittle, Esq. Andre Robert Belanger, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC - SC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 The Defendants are represented by: C. Bradford Marsh, Esq. Jeffrey Scott Adams, Esq. MARSH ATKINSON & BRANTLEY 271 17th Street NW, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 282-5050 Fax: (404) 282-3030 MAMAJUANA CAFE: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- DONNA JONES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAMAJUANA CAFE PRIME LLC, MAMAJUANA CAFE PRIME WESTCHESTER CORP., and MAMAJUANAROC RESTAURANT & LOUNGE LLC, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00507 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal and state laws by: (i) failing to pay the minimum wage; (ii) failing to pay spread-of-hours pay; (iii) failing to timely pay wages; (iv) unlawfully retaining gratuities; (v) failing to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday; and (vi) failing to provide an accurate wage statement. The Plaintiff also alleges on behalf of herself that she was constructively discharged and retaliated against by Defendants when she was forced to resign from her employment, as any reasonable person would, in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server from August 9, 2021, until she was unlawfully forced to resign on September 1, 2025. Mamajuana Cafe Prime LLC operates a chain of Latin cuisine restaurants with several locations in New York, New Jersey, and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Frank J. Tantone, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com frank@lipskylowe.com MANNKIND CORPORATION: A.L. Sues Over Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------- A.L., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mannkind Corporation; UpScript Investments, LLC, and; United Therapeutics Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-04903-JJT (D. Aroz., Dec. 22, 2025), is brought to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Confidence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other visitors to the Pharmaceutical Websites, Defendants do not keep their patients’ private personal and health information confidential. Instead, through the Pharmaceutical Websites, Defendants collected and transmitted personally identifiable and sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiff’s medical conditions, prescriptions and medical expenses (collectively, the “Sensitive Health Information”) to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. (“Google”) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Facebook,” and together with Google, the “Tracking Tool Providers”), through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools without Plaintiff’s or Class Members’ consent. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of medical privacy; lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Sensitive Health Information to third parties, loss of benefit of the bargain; diminution of value of the Sensitive Health Information; statutory damages and continued and ongoing risk to their Sensitive Health Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff A.L.’s physician prescribed Afrezza, a medication produced, marketed and sold by Defendants Mannkind and UpScript. Mannkind Corporation is a for-profit corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Mills, Esq. Sean A. Woods, Esq. MILLS + WOODS LAW, PLLC 5055 North 12th Street, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Phone 480.999.4556 Email: docket@millsandwoods.com swoods@millsandwoods.com MARCH & BIANCHI INC: Mintes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against March & Bianchi, Inc. The case is styled as Alex Mintes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. March & Bianchi, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000249 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." March & Bianchi is dedicated to providing high-quality fuel options including TOP TIER gasoline, renewable diesel, and E85.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com MATHESON TRI-GAS INC: Darby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. The case is styled as Derwin Darby, individually, and on behalf of others members of the general public similarly situated v. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., Case No. CU26-00455 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Jan. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. -- https://www.mathesongas.com/ -- is a US based company that produces industrial, medical, and specialty gases, and associated gas handling equipment, in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: edwin@calljustice.com MATTRESS FIRM INC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Milito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mattress Firm Inc., Case No. 25-00002-38353-9 SEA was transferred from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 21, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00227 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Moss Adams -- https://www.mossadams.com/ -- is a fully integrated professional services firm dedicated to assisting clients with growing, managing, and protecting prosperity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brook Garberding Michael Anderson Berry EMERY REDDY PC 600 Stewart St, Ste 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Email: brook@garberdinglaw.com anderson@emeryreddy.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey A. James, Esq. SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES 15375 Se 30th Pl., Ste. 310 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: (213) 612-2500 Fax: (213) 612-2501 Email: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com MAVERICK CARTING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Wolf Says ---------------------------------------------------------- HILDA WOLF, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. MAVERICK CARTING, INC., PHANTOM CARTING, INC., MAVERICK ENTERPRISES SERVICES, INC., ALLIANCE TRUCKING, LLC., ANTHONY TRUPIA, PATRICK DEIORIO, & CARLOS BAUTISTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00468 (E.D.N.Y., January 27, 2026) is a collective action asserting wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of a representative collective action as well as claims under the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated; they have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions and have been subjected to Defendants' common decisions, policies, and practices of failing to pay for all hours worked. Specifically, Defendants deprived employees of proper overtime compensation as required by law. The grievances articulated by Plaintiff are the same as those affecting all FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff seeks recovery under the FLSA on behalf of herself and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs from Defendants, excluding Defendant Deiorio, of the following: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages, and (3) attorney's fees and costs. She alleges, individually and pursuant to the NYLL, that she is entitled to recover damages from Defendants, excluding Defendant Deiorio, for the following: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages, (3) statutory penalties for failing to provide wage notices in compliance with NYLL and (4) statutory penalties for failing to provide wage statements in compliance with NYLL. The Plaintiff further alleges, individually and pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA and NYLL, that she is entitled to damages against all Defendants, including back wages, front wages, severe emotional distress damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, based on their retaliatory conduct, culminating in Plaintiff's unlawful termination. She asserts that Defendants discriminated against her based on her ethnicity and subjected her to a hostile work environment and retaliation, and that Defendants discriminated against her based on her religion, age, ethnicity, and gender. Plaintiff Hildy Wolf is a former employee of Defendants. Defendants Phantom Carting, Inc., Maverick Carting, Inc., Maverick Enterprises Services, Inc., are trucking and carting companies. Alliance Trucking, LLC is a trucking and carting company owned and operated by three individuals: current Phantom driver Winston Kevin Gulgar, Bridge and Tunnel Officers Benevolent Association President Wayne Joseph, and Trupia's common-law wife, Regina Serrano. Defendant Anthony Trupia is the owner and operator of Enterprises, Alliance, and Maverick. Trupia has also exercised operational and administrative control over Phantom. Defendant Carlos Bautista is the registered owner of Phantom and is a former truck driver and employee of Trupia. Defendant Patrick Deiorio is Defendant Trupia's personal attorney. Despite this role, Deiorio acted as an agent of the employer Defendants by exercising control over Plaintiff's employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew J. Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main Street, STE 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 Facsimile: (631) 942-7399 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com MAXIM LENDING CORP: McGonigle Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Lending, Corp. The case is styled as Andrew James McGonigle, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Maxim Lending, Corp., Case No. 8:26-cv-00106 (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. Maxim Lending -- http://www.maximlending.net/-- offers mortgage solutions like Fixed Rate, FHA, VA, Jumbo loans, and Home Equity Lines of Credit.[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 MEDICREDIT INC: Saggio Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SAGGIO and JUDE FURR, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-01005-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Ross entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class shall consist of: "All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom the Defendant placed a call in connection with a past-due medical debt, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a person with a past-due medical debt or their authorized representative, (3) with an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from July 8, 2022, through the date of class certification." The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's counsel is appointed counsel for the class. The Court finds that questions of law and fact common to the proposed class predominate over any individual matters, that the Plaintiffs' claims are typical such that they can adequately represent the class, and that a class action is the superior method to resolve their common claims. Medicredit is a Missouri-based debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o1Fiit at no extra charge.[CC] MEMORIAL MOTORS INC: Macias Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memorial Motors, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Macias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Memorial Motors, Inc. doing business as: Lakeland Toyota, Case No. 5:26-cv-00287 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Memorial Motors, Inc. doing business as Lakeland Toyota -- https://www.lakelandtoyota.com/ -- is a car dealer in Lakeland, 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 META PLATFORMS: Cook Suit Seeks Prelim. Sealing of Docs ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor, and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., F/K/A FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily sealing the documents and determining whether continued sealing of the documents is appropriate. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 79-5 and 7-11, and Section 11.4 of the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case, Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, submits this motion to identify documents that contain information that Meta has previously designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential for the Court's review to determine whether sealing these documents is appropriate. The documents sought to be sealed are the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of motion for class certification and various exhibits to the supplemental declaration of Brian C. Gudmundson in support thereof. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J2yQ5H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. June P. Hoidal, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com - and - Jonathan L. Hardt, Esq. James F. McDonough, III, Esq. ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC 712 W. 14th Street, Suite C Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (210) 289-7541 E-mail: hardt@rhmtrial.com jim@rhmtrial.com METRO INDUSTRIAL: Alexandre Sues Over Unpaid Regular Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mackendy Alexandre, and other similarly situated individuals v. METRO INDUSTRIAL WRECKING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, INC. a/k/a METRO INDUSTRIAL WRECKING, a/k/a METRO INDUSTRIAL DEMOLITION, Case No. 0:26-cv-60157-EA (S.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2026), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA or the "Act"). The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, yet he was not paid his full regular wages nor compensated for his overtime hours as required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendant controlled his schedule and activities. The Defendant was aware of the number of hours that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a demolition worker operating heavy equipment that moved in interstate commerce at any time during business. Metro Industrial Demolition is a construction company that provides demolition and environmental services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis M. Mena-Glasgow, Esq. Katherine Montaner-Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Phone: (305) 912-7665 Facsimile: (305) 503-9657 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com filings@simpsonmenalaw.com MIAMI CASINO: Watson Sues Over Blind Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WATSON, Plaintiff v. MIAMI CASINO, LLC d/b/a Magic City Casino. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20373 (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles. He uses the JAWS Screen Reader software to read computer materials and comprehend the website information which is specifically designed for persons who are blind or have low vision. The Plaintiff sues Defendants for offering and maintaining a website, https://www.playcasinomiami.com, that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff, a resident of Florida, attempted to access and use Defendant's website but encountered multiple digital barriers that denied him full and equal access to the goods, services, privileges, and advantages offered by Defendant, in violation of Title III of the ADA. Miami Casino, LLC owns, manages, and operates the website that offers a gaming and entertainment venue known as "Casino Miami."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com MID AMERICA: Filardi Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FILARDI, COURTNEY ANDERSEN, LISA BURMEISTER, KENNETH LEONARD, DOROTHY PETERSEN, STEPHANIE RANEY, IRENE NUNEZ, CONRADO MOREIRA, KIARA REED, NACOLE HOUSTON, MONIKA BENNETT, JASON JARRELL, ALISON BARNHILL, KIMBERLEE FERRIS, JEFFREY GOULD, MELISSA SWARINGEN-ORTON, MICHELLE RUBIANO, and COLEMAN STEPHENS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MID AMERICA PET FOOD LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-11170-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 6, 2026, will move the Court for an order of final approval of the class action settlement and move, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for final approval of a proposed Settlement with the Defendant and affirmation of the certification of the settlement class defined in the Settlement Agreement. Mid America markets and manufactures premium branded pet food. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MoDwpU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. Sue J. Nam, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com snam@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON, HARRIS, SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8297 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 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 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com sjackson@cbplaw.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com atate@peifferwolf.com MILWAUKEE CRAFT: Faces Mack Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE MACK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILWAUKEE CRAFT MEATS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-107 (E.D. Wis., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee and is still currently employed with Defendant. Milwaukee Craft Meats LLC is a food production company with a principal office address in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com MONROE UNIVERSITY: Aloizos Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as Chloe Aloizos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 801010/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Jan. 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Data Breach). Monroe University -- https://www.monroeu.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Elizabeth Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 MONROE UNIVERSITY: Francois Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as Carmelo Francois, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 800975/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Jan. 15, 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: Quiles Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as Crystal Quiles, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 801257/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Jan. 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Commercial (Class Action). 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 NEWS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Says ----------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. THE NEWS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00765 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website https://6397news.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on December 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Slip Dress Espresso 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. 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 OLIVE & JUNE: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message and Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OLIVE & JUNE, LLC, Case No. CACE-26-001054 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 21, 2026), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Olive & June ("Olive & June Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Olive & June, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com OTTER PRODUCTS: Court Stays Class Cert Briefing in Button --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY BUTTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., v. OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00969-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to stay discovery, class certification briefing, and consideration of pending motion to dismiss: Following the conclusion of mediation or within 90 days of the Court's order issuing a stay, whichever occurs first, the Parties will promptly submit a joint status report to the Court regarding the status of mediation; if the mediation concludes without an agreement to resolve the case, the Parties will also file with their joint status report a proposed amended scheduling order. Otter is an American privately owned consumer electronics accessory company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xWzEBI at no extra charge.[CC] PANERA BREAD: Cipriani Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- PAIGE CIPRIANI on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00126 (E.D. Mo., January 29, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant, an American chain of bakery-cafe restaurants. The complaint relates that the Defendant requires current and former customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, to submit non-public Private Information in the ordinary course of providing its services. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In late January 2026, the Defendant experienced a cyberattack incident in which a hacker group accessed Panera's network and acquired certain files. ShinyHunters claim responsibility for hacking Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, usernames, work and personal emails, phone number, home address, and date of birth. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Paige Cipriani is a resident and citizen of Washington. Defendant is an American chain of bakery-café restaurants, maintaining its principal place of business at 1400 S Highway Dr, Fenton, MO 63026.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. McShane & Brady, LLC 4006 Central Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: 816-888-8010 Facsimile: 816-332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brook Garberding, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 916-823-6955 Facsimile: 206-441-9711 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com PANERA BREAD: Keleshian Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- ARMEN KELESHIAN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00123 (E.D. Mo., January 28, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant, an American chain of bakery-cafe restaurants. The complaint relates that the customers are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of receiving goods and/or services, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. However, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes. 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 Armen Keleshian is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant Panera Bread Company is an American chain of bakery-café restaurants, maintaining its principal place of business at 1400 S Highway Dr, Fenton, MO 63026.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: 816-888-8010 Facsimile: 816-332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE: Lyons Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- KANISHA LYONS, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, BARTLETT OPERATOR, LLC, d/b/a SPRING GATE REHABILITATION & HEALTHCARE CENTER and RAINBOW REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02059 (W.D. Tenn., January 20, 2026) is brought against Defendants as a Fair Labor Standards Act multi Plaintiff action complaint to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than 80 hours for Defendants within bi weekly pay periods during all times pertinent without being paid for all such overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay, the complaint relates. The Defendants automatically deducted 60 minutes per shift from the work time (and pay) of Plaintiff and those similarly situated within bi-weekly pay periods during all times material herein. However, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and those similarly situated with bona fide meal breaks, says the suit. Plaintiff Lyons is an adult citizen of the United States and was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid certified nursing assistant. Prestige Administrative Services, LLC manages and operates several rehabilitation and healthcare facilities across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com PROPERTY RECEIVABLES: Suit Alleges Illegal Conversation Recording ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAEANON HARTIGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROPERTY RECEIVABLES, CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00328-JES-MSB (S.D Cal., January 20, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons in California for damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant and its present, former, or future direct and indirect parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, related entities for unauthorized recordings of conversations with Plaintiff and Class Members without any notification or warning, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. At some point prior to 2026, the Plaintiff's father became delinquent on a debt related to apartment fees for a unit he rented in Hawaii. The Plaintiff and her father believe the fees are not valid and dispute the validity of the debt. The debt was assigned, transferred, or sold to Defendant to collect, who began calling. According to the complaint, the Defendant had and followed a policy and practice of using a telecommunications system that enabled it to surreptitiously record cellular telephone communications between Defendant and Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant intentionally did not obtain the consent of Plaintiff and Class Members prior to recording their cellular telephone conversations, says the suit. Property Receivables, Corp. is a debt collection agency based in Renton, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com PTT LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Larsen Suit Due March 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PTT, LLC (d/b/a HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company, and HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany Cartwright entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to continue certain deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for class-certification-related Mar. 23, 2026 motions: Deadline for class-certification-related Apr. 13, 2026 responses: Deadline for class-certification-related Apr. 20, 2026 replies: The Plaintiffs' response Re: Motion to Seal: Apr. 6, 2026 The Defendants' Reply Re: Motion to Seal: Apr. 13, 2026 Discovery completed by: June 12, 2026 Pretrial conference will be held at Aug. 14, 2026 03:00 PM on: PTT operates as an independent casino games provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jVe10O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: cjordan@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com - and - Todd Logan, Esq. Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq. Lauren Blazing, Esq. Max Hantel, Esq. Amy B. Hausmann, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California St, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com abhausmann@edelson.com bsilverkorn@edelson.com mhantel@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Craig Stewart, Esq. Jessica J. Smith, Esq. Bria Y. Smith, Esq. Aja R. Robbins, Esq. Erik F. Stidham, Esq. Teague I. Donahey, Esq. Robert C. Ryan, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street, Ste 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 295-8000 E-mail: cstewart@hollandhart.com jjsmith@hollandhart.com bysmith@hollandhart.com arrobbins@hollandhart.com efstidham@hollandhart.com tidonahey@hollandhart.com rcryan@hollandhart.com - and - Christopher A. Wright, Esq. Mark Rosencrantz, Esq. CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-8020 Facsimile: (206) 467-8215 E-mail: wright@carneylaw.com rosencrantz@carneylaw.com REALCLEARHOLDINGS LLC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Garfinkel Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIELLE LYNNE GARFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. REALCLEARHOLDINGS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00852 (C.D. Cal., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent, in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant operates an online news site https://realclearmarkets.com/ which is riddled with data broker software intended to spy on all visitors and learn (1) who they are, (2) where they are (3) what they read, (4), and (3) how they read it. Defendant's business can be understood to be in service of a surveillance state, deploying the software of four registered data brokers to gather information about readers, starting with data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits, then compiled and correlated with extensive external records maintained by the data brokers. This is done without the consent of their readers, who, should they be informed of defendant's sale of personal information, would never agree to visit the Website, the complaint. As such, Plaintiff has been injured by Defendant's surveillance practices, says the suit. Plaintiff Danielle Lynne Garfinkel is a citizen of California residing and located within the Central District of California. Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. Defendant RealClearHoldings is an Illinois limited liability company that owns, operates, and/or controls https://realclearmarkets.com/ DOES 1 through 15 are the the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com RESOURCE CORPORATION: Jones Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- EUVA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RESOURCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA & RECOVERY OF TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00549 (S.D. Tex., January 23, 2026) is a class action seeking to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief from Defendant. The class action arises out of Defendant RCA's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. This failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a January 2026 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of RCA. The complaint relates that the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")of Plaintiff and other individuals. On January 14, 2026, the threat actor "Qilin" successfully breached RCA's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive patient data. The types of information that Qilin has routinely exfiltrated in their ransomware attacks include, but are not limited to: names, birthdates, addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance details, medical treatment data, financial records, intellectual property, accounting documents, legal files, personnel and customer information, banking details, and etc. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and including in that notice precisely what specific types of information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. Plaintiff Euva Jones is a patient whose healthcare providers and/or health insurance utilize RCA for medical billing and reimbursement services. Defendant Resource Corporation of America & Recovery of Texas ("RCA") is an organization that provides healthcare related financial services based in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com jellzey@eksm.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com SALESFORCE INC: Acosta Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Katherine Acosta, Edward Duarte, and Jamie Knighton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALESFORCE, INC., ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS NEW WORLD INSURANCE CO., TRANSUNION LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-07888 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15382 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Salesforce, Inc. -- https://www.salesforce.com/ap/ -- is an American cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Rd #200, Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.697.6000 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com - and - Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM Wood Island 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Phone: 415.461.6400 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Katie Viggiani, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 468-8000 Email: kviggiani@mofo.com - and - Michelle Sosa-Acosta, Esq. Tiffany Cheung, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Email: MSosaAcosta@mofo.com tcheung@mofo.com - and - Sydney Dianne Gaskins, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 892-5599 Email: sgaskins@mofo.com SALESFORCE INC: Tatum Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Peggy Tatum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salesforce, Inc., Transunion LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-07688 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15379 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Salesforce, Inc. -- https://www.salesforce.com/ap/ -- is an American cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Michelle Sosa-Acosta, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Email: tcheung@mofo.com MSosaAcosta@mofo.com - and - Katie Viggiani, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 468-8000 Email: kviggiani@mofo.com - and - Sydney Dianne Gaskins, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 892-5599 Email: sgaskins@mofo.com - and - William Elliott Ridgway, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 320 S. Canal St., Ste. 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-5707 Phone: (312) 407-0700 Fax: (312) 407-0711 Email: william.ridgway@skadden.com SALESFORCE INC: Yadav Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yogendra Yadav, Juan Elias, Saroj Panigrahy, Randi Burg, Lynne Grogg, Nicholas Zurawskyj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Salesforce, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Group Inc., Transunion LLC, WORKDAY, INC. Pandora Jewelry LLC, Pandora Jewelry, A/S, Case No. 3:25-cv-07847 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15381 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Salesforce, Inc. -- https://www.salesforce.com/ap/ -- is an American cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Dena C. Sharp, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com dsharp@girardsharp.com - and - Jason Louis Lichtman, Esq. Michael J. Miarmi, Esq. Sean Adam Petterson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Email: jlichtman@lchb.com mmiarmi@lchb.com spetterson@lchb.com The Defendant is represented by: Katie Viggiani, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 468-8000 Email: kviggiani@mofo.com - and - Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Michelle Sosa-Acosta, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Email: tcheung@mofo.com MSosaAcosta@mofo.com - and - Sydney Dianne Gaskins, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 892-5599 Email: sgaskins@mofo.com - and - 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 - Andrew Benjamin Serwin, Esq. Matthew C. Danaher, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Phone: (858) 677-1418 Fax: (858) 638-5063 Email: andrew.serwin@us.dlapiper.com matt.danaher@us.dlapiper.com - and - William Elliott Ridgway, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 320 S. Canal St., Ste. 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-5707 Phone: (312) 407-0700 Fax: (312) 407-0711 Email: william.ridgway@skadden.com - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 839-4300 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com - and - Ian C. Hawkes, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 339-8400 Email: ihawkes@orrick.com - and - Marc R Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com - and - Melissa Levin, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFF 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 773-5799 Email: melissalevin@orrick.com - and - Tammy Beth Webb, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 544-1900 Fax: (415) 391-0281 Email: tbwebb@shb.com SAN GABRIEL TEMPORARY: Jenkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Gabriel Temporary Staffing Services, et al. The case is styled as Gilbert Jenkins, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. San Gabriel Temporary Staffing Services LLC, Does 1 to 100, Case No. 26CV001302 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 21, 2026). s The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." San Gabriel Temporary Staffing Services LLC is a professional staffing agency based in Tracy, CA, specializing in providing temporary employment solutions for businesses in various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave., Suite 470 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Guerrero PAGA Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sanmina Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Guerero PAGA class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On November 26, 2024, former employee Frank J. Leon Guerrero filed a PAGA class action in the Alameda County Superior Court alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The class action, a complaint under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), alleges substantially similar violations and a violation of the provision governing payment of final wages and seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other "aggrieved employees," along with attorneys' fees and costs. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, and the Guerrero Cases to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corporation is a global provider of integrated manufacturing solutions, components, products and repair, logistics and after-market services for industrial, medical, defense and aerospace, automotive, communications networks and cloud infrastructure. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Lobatos PAGA Class Suit in Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Lobatos PAGA class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On May 16, 2024 and June 14, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos filed class and PAGA actions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (the "Lobatos Cases") alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The class action, a complaint under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), alleges substantially similar violations and a violation of the provision governing payment of final wages and seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other "aggrieved employees," along with attorneys' fees and costs. Additional violations related to sick leave, suitable rest facilities, seating, failure to retain and provide employment and payroll records, reporting time pay, day of rest rules, payroll deductions, paid time off, and various unlawful employment practices. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, and the Guerrero Cases to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corporation is a global provider of integrated manufacturing solutions, components, products and repair, logistics and after-market services for industrial, medical, defense and aerospace, automotive, communications networks and cloud infrastructure. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez PAGA Class Suit in Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ramirez PAGA class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On November 14, 2023, former employee Gerardo Ramirez filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Alameda County Superior Court. The class action, a complaint under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), alleges substantially similar violations and a violation of the provision governing payment of final wages and seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other "aggrieved employees," along with attorneys' fees and costs. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, and the Guerrero Cases to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corporation is a global provider of integrated manufacturing solutions, components, products and repair, logistics and after-market services for industrial, medical, defense and aerospace, automotive, communications networks and cloud infrastructure. SIMENS INDUSTRY: Lizarraga Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Frank Lizarraga, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIMENS INDUSTRY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CUB00670 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-00408. The Complaint is a putative class action alleging the following causes of action: failure to provide meal and rest breaks; failure to pay overtime and minimum wages; failure to pay vested vacation wages; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to keep accurate payroll records; waiting time penalties; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex Polishuk, Esq. Armida Derzakarian, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-1801 Facsimile: (310) 556-1802 Email: apolishuk@polsinelli.com aderzakarian@polsinelli.com SKILLZ PLATFORM: Mitchell Balks at Deceptive Mobile Gaming Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEL MITCHELL and GIOVANNI GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKILLZ PLATFORM INC. Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00674 (N.D. Cal., January 21, 2026) is a class action seeking to end a campaign of consumer deception and unfair trade practices orchestrated by Skillz in a desperate attempt to save its cratering mobile gaming platform. According to the complaint, Skillz's campaign revolves around a central theme that is patently false: namely, that Skillz -- and Skillz alone -- can be trusted to provide players with a fair and skill-based mobile gaming experience. Skillz hypocritically positions itself as a noble defender of fairness in the mobile gaming space while itself defrauding players. Skillz has trafficked three categories of false and misleading messages designed to induce consumers to play games hosted on the Skillz platform. Skillz ensured, promised, and guaranteed in its advertisements, website and social media, and within its game applications, that (i) players are always evenly matched against equally skilled opponents; (ii) its platform will "NEVER EVER" include computerized opponents, or "bots;" and (iii) players can withdraw their cash "at any time." In reality, as confirmed by former Skillz employees, Skillz has taken steps to intentionally control outcomes of games played on its platform by unevenly matching players, says the suit. Skillz's unfair trade practices and willful false advertising has significantly harmed consumers -- including Plaintiffs and the Class -- by inducing them into believing that Skillz is the only mobile gaming platform where players will be evenly matched, not face bots (or other developer-generated losses), have a "fair" and "real" opportunity to earn rewards in every game, and receive their cash withdrawals immediately, the suit asserts. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, bring claims to recover the money lost by consumers who were duped into playing games on Skillz's platform. Skillz Platform Inc. develops and markets software that hosts and supports head-to-head play in mobile games created by third-party developers, including games that require cash entries and permit players to win cash prizes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N Los Angeles CA, 90067 Telephone: (786) 924-2900 Facsimile: (646) 392-8842 E-mail: ingo@fnf.law - and - Velvel Freedman, Esq. Colleen Smeryage, Esq. Mendel Konikov, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 1 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1240 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 924-2900 E-mail: vel@fnf.law csmeryage@fnf.law mkonikov@fnf.law SMARTE INC: Cunningham Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Randall Cunningham, Isabel Sippo-Stockman, Sruti Bhaumik, and Kuawanda Ragland, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. SMARTE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2025LA001588 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 21, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00708. The Plaintiffs collectively assert claims on behalf of themselves and putative Class Members for violations of the right of publicity statutes of Illinois, Alabama, and California, citing Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA"), California Civil Code ("CRPA"); Alabama Right of Publicity Act ("ARPA").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA DuPage County Firm #11575 3701 W. Algonquin Rd., Ste 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: (847) 368-1500 Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com psolberg@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com The Defendants are represented by: Chirag H. Patel, Esq. CLARK HILL, LLP 130 E Randolph St # 3900 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 985-5900 Email: cpatel@clarkhill.com - and - Myriah V. Jaworski, Esq. CLARK HILL, LLP 350 Tenth Avenue, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 557-0404 Fax: (619) 557-0460 Email: mjaworski@clarkhill.com STRYDER CORP: Gaddam Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stryder Corp., et al. The case is styled as Pranav Gaddam, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stryder Corp. d/b/a Handshake, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26632824 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Stryder Corp. doing business as Handshake -- https://joinhandshake.com/ -- is an American employment website for job listings, primarily for college students.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn A. Danas, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: 213-788-4050 Email: glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com SUNRISE SOLAR: Brossard Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Solar LLC. The case is styled as Eve Brossard, on behalf of herself and others similarly situatedss v. Sunrise Solar LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00694 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 21, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Sunrise Solar -- https://www.sunrisesolarllc.com/ -- is New York's premier commercial and residential solar contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. MAROVITCH LAW FIRM, LLC 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 533-1605 Fax: (312) 488-4206 Email: dmarovitch@marovitchlaw.com TA OPERATING: Caraballo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Caraballo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TA OPERATING LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00157 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 21, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees were entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. the Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not include Defendant's commission pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA. The Defendant had a policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and all putative collective members the legally required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA. As a result of Defendant's willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and the putative collective members at a rate not less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant violated and continues to violate the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from February 1, 2023, through September 15, 2025 as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Mentor Technician. The Defendant is headquartered in Westlake, Ohio, and employs thousands of Hourly Employees in multiple locations throughout the United States, including the State of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 TARGET CORPORATION: Yarbrough Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jordan Yarbrough, Mason Stockman, and Chaise Avila, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-05057 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 20, 2026), is brought under the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("MWA"), and the Washington Industrial Welfare Act and alleging that Defendant has violated Washington law by failing to pay wages for time associated with certain required activities arising on Defendant's premises at the beginning and end of the workday, and at the beginning and end of rest and meal periods. The Plaintiffs and other class members similarly had to undergo the mandatory walk time when leaving the warehouse floor for their rest and meal breaks. Plaintiffs and other class members were significantly delayed and were not able to take a full 10-minute rest period and/or a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period. Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs their wages when they were not able to take a full 10-minute rest period and/or 30-minute uninterrupted meal period. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs and other class members at a rate equal to or greater than one and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay whenever Defendant, required, suffered, or permitted them to work more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant. The Defendant is a retailer offering "fashionable, differentiated merchandise and everyday essentials at discounted prices" available for purchase "in stores or through our digital channels."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq. RIVERSIDE NW LAW GROUP, PLLC 601 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 810 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 850-7011 Facsimile: (509) 703-7957 Email: mzc@rnwlg.com - and - Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: daaron@winebrakelaw.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 TEKGO INC: Ni Sues Over Denied Proper Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Ruoli Ni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tekgo, Inc.; Steris Instrument Management Services, Inc.; and Steris Corporation, against Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05063 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 22, 2026), is brought against Defendants to recover for Defendants' violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("MWA") and Washington wage and hour laws on behalf of current and former hourly or non-exempt employees who were denied proper overtime compensation and were denied meal and rest periods. The Defendants violated Washington law by knowingly and willfully permitting the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to perform overtime work without the proper compensation and/or remain on duty during meal and rest breaks. The Defendants received value from the work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees who worked more than forty hours in a workweek with no overtime compensation and who worked during meal and rest periods without compensating them for their services. The Defendants' conduct further violated and continues to violate Washington meal and rest period laws, Washington's requirement that all wages be paid upon separation of employment, Washington's prohibition on unlawfully withholding wages, and Washington's recordkeeping requirements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Traveling Sterile Processing Technician from July 2025 through August 2025. The Defendants are Foreign Profit Corporations, headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin Kathleen Epp, Esq. Derek Moretz, Esq. LAWYERS FORJUSTICE PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (424) 587-8423 Fax: (818) 265-1021 - and - Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Burge Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dena Burge, Leigh Hockett, Jordan Furlan, Cristine Ridey, Patricia Sawczuk, Anne Arundel County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., Case No. 2:25-mc-00121 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Jan. 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-mc-00202-DDC-TJJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Teva Pharmaceuticals -- https://www.tevapharm.com/en/ -- is a leading innovative biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants appear pro se. TEXAS ALLIANCE: Lively Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE LIVELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS ALLIANCE MEDICAL GROUP, a Professional Association, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00451 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2026) is a collective action brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged unlawful labor practices. The Defendant required Plaintiff Lively to work more than 40 hours in a work week as a nurse practitioner. The Defendant paid Plaintiff the same hourly rate for her overtime and non-overtime hours because it misclassified her as an independent contractor. The Defendant also misclassified other patient care employees and likewise denied them their proper overtime compensation, says the suit. The Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment because Plaintiff complained about Defendant's failure to properly compensate her for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff's complaints regarding overtime compensation and compensatory time were a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to terminate her employment, the suit asserts. Texas Alliance Medical Group operates under the trade name Doctors Clinic Houston. It operates at least six medical clinics in the Houston area of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com TFORCE FREIGHT: Henry Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aldie D. Henry, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV155365 was removed from the Superior Court of Alameda County, California, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 21, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00656. The Plaintiff's first cause of action for allegedly unpaid overtime compensation under Labor Code. The Plaintiff's second cause of action for allegedly missed (short, late, interrupted, and/or missed altogether) meal breaks under Labor Code. The Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for allegedly unreimbursed business expenses under Labor Code. The Plaintiff's seventh cause of action for allegedly unpaid vacation time at separation under Labor Code. The Plaintiff's eighth cause of action for allegedly unpaid reporting time is preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA because adjudication of the claim is "substantially dependent" on interpretation of Plaintiff's respective collective bargaining agreements.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq. Michael A. Pearlson, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Phone: 213-532-2000 Facsimile: 213-532-2020 Email: ebvicente@Hunton.com mpearlson@Hunton.com THOMPSON METAL: Underpays Wind Technicians, Hutchinson Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HUTCHINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMPSON METAL FAB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05060 (W.D. Wash., January 21, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington statutory law, including Washington Minimum Wage Act, Washington Wage Rebate Act, and Washington Administrative Code. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members are those similarly situated persons who have worked for Thompson Metals at any time during the relevant time period and have not been paid for all hours worked, nor the correct amount of overtime in violation of state and federal law. Thompson Metal also employs an improper and non-neutral time rounding policy that, over time, fails to compensate the Plaintiff and Putative Collective/Class Members for all the time they have actually worked -- including overtime hours. As a result, Thompson Metal's employees were not paid (and remain unpaid) for all hours worked, including overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA and various state laws. Plaintiff Hutchinson was employed by the Defendant as a wind technician from March 2021, through October 2023 Thompson Metal is a heavy metal fabrication corporation, operating primarily in the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 Facsimile: (206) 682-0401 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com THREE LITTLE: Fagnani Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. THREE LITTLE PIG'S BBQ & CATERING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00705 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website www.three-little-pigs-bbq.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January, 12, 2026, in an attempt to purchase BBQ Sauces & Rubs 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 FAGNANI is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant THREE LITTLE PIG'S BBQ & CATERING, LLC operates the Three Little Pig's BBQ online retail store, as well as the Three Little Pig's BBQ interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's BBQ 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 TRUFFOIRE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Tesch Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Truffoire Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-88 (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://truffoire.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. On October 7, 2025, Tesch was searching for anti-aging skincare products when she came across the Defendant's website, Truffoire.com, after reviewing online posts about the company's truffle-based products, including its bestseller, the Black Truffle Syringe. Positive customer reviews praising the product quality, advanced formulations, and overall effectiveness further encouraged her to explore the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website, Tesch encountered accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to proceed to checkout. 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 Indiana and throughout the United States, says the suit. 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 Truffoire Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase skincare and beauty products, including anti-aging creams, serums, moisturizers, eye treatments, masks, and cosmetic essentials from Truffoire's luxury collections.[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 TRUSTEES OF BAKERS UNIVERSITY: Peterson Files Suit in D. Kansas --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Trustees of Bakers University. The case is styled as Madeline Peterson, Kurt Power, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Trustees of Bakers University, Case No. 2:26-cv-02035-DDC-RES (D. Kan., Jan. 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Trustees of Baker University -- https://www.bakeru.edu/board-of-trustees/ -- offers educational services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucy McShane, Esq. Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com U.S. DEPARTMENT: Detainees Must Have Right to Counsel, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS and L.H.M., through her next friend C.A., Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MARCOS CHARLES, in his official capacity as the Acting Executive Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Enforcement and Removal Operations; DAVID EASTERWOOD, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Enforcement and Removal Operations St. Paul Field Office; U.S. FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE; and FARON K. PARAMORE, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Protective Service, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM (D. Minn., January 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unreasonably interfering with and/or entirely preventing Plaintiff L.H.M.'s and the proposed Class's ability to retain, consult, and communicate with counsel. The complaint relates that on January 27, 2026, L.H.M. arrived at the offices of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program in Bloomington, Minnesota for a check-in as part of Order of Supervision with Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). She was arrested after entering the ISAP offices, and, on information and belief, is currently being detained by Defendants at the Whipple Building. L.H.M. recently had cranial surgery and has significant medical needs that may be severely adversely affected by detention conditions or involuntary transfer out of state. L.H.M.'s family contacted her attorney in her removal and asylum proceedings, who immediately went to the Whipple Building to consult with her so that a habeas petition could be promptly filed. Defendants refused to allow L.H.M.'s attorney to speak with her. C.A., a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota, is representing L.H.M. as her next friend in this case. According to the complaint, the DHS and ICE have long recognized that those they detain have a right to counsel, and have established a straightforward legal framework to ensure some consistent minimum access to that right. But at Whipple, Defendants are feigning ignorance of these requirements, erecting artificial barriers to access, and preventing many detainees from contacting and conferring with their attorneys. The Defendants are following the same pattern here that they have followed in other American cities in recent months. In September, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered DHS, ICE, and many of the other Defendants in this case to provide ICE detainees at a New York facility with adequate access to counsel; in November, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois did the same for ICE detainees in an Illinois facility. These violations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies, statutes, and fundamental constitutional rights are not merely technical; without access to assistance from attorneys, immigration detainees face immediate transfer away from their counsel and family in Minnesota and, in some cases, rapid removal from the United States, all before the attorneys prepared to represent them have a meaningful opportunity to do so, says the suit. The proposed Class Representatives are committed to seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that will benefit all members of the Class equally, restoring meaningful access to counsel for pre-trial detainees initially detained in Minnesota. Plaintiff The Advocates for Human Rights is an independent, nonpartisan nonprofit organization founded in 1983 and headquartered in Minneapolis. Plaintiff L.H.M. is a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota, where she has lived since July of 2019. She is in removal proceedings with a pending asylum application. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is a federal executive agency responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws. DHS is, at the time of filing, a legal custodian of Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class. Defendant Kristi Noem is the Secretary of the DHS. Defendant Noem is, at the time of filing, a legal custodian of Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class. She is sued in her official capacity. Defendant United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") is a federal law enforcement agency within DHS. ICE is responsible for the enforcement of immigration laws, including detention and removal of immigrants. ICE is, at the time of filing, a legal custodian of Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class. Defendant Todd Lyons is the Acting Director of ICE. Defendant Lyons is, at the time of filing, a legal custodian of Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class. He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Marcos Charles is the Acting Executive Director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO"). Defendant Charles is, at the time of filing, a legal custodian of Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class. He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant David Easterwood is the Acting Field Office Director for ICE's ERO St. Paul Field Office, which has jurisdiction over the ERO detention at Whipple. Defendant Easterwood is, at the time of filing, a legal custodian of Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class. He is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Federal Protective Service ("FPS") is a federal law enforcement agency within DHS. FPS is responsible for security and protection of federal buildings, including Whipple.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alethea M. Huyser, Esq. Rachel L. Dougherty, Esq. Devin T. Driscoll, Esq. Sarah Theisen, Esq. Margaret G. Severson, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4400 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 E-mail: ahuyser@fredlaw.com rdougherty@fredlaw.com ddriscoll@fredlaw.com stheisen@fredlaw.com mseverson@fredlaw.com - and - Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq. Aman T. George, Esq. Mark B. Samburg, Esq. Anashua Dutta, Esq. Elena Goldstein, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: jdubner@c.democracyforward.org ageorge@democracyforward.org msamburg@democracyforward.org adutta@democracyforward.org egoldstein@democracyforward.org UCF HOTEL: Welsh File Suit Over FCRA Violation ---------------------------------------------- ANDREW WELSH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UCF HOTEL VENTURE V d/b/a Endless Summer Resort – Surfside Inn and Suites, a Florida general partnership, by and through its general partners, LOHP V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOTEL V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and LOEWS HOTELS HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Loews Hotels & Co., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00742 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation costs, including but not limited to disbursements, court expenses, and other costs, pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). The complaint relates that the Defendants own and/or operate the Loews Universal Endless Summer Surfside Inn and Suites, located at 7000 Universal Blvd in Orlando, Florida. In addition to the Surfside Inn, Loews Hotels owns and/or operates nine hotels at Universal Studios, in Orlando, Florida which are referred to collectively herein as the "Universal Hotels." Loews Hotels' parent corporation explains within its most recent letter to shareholders that Loews Hotels' portfolio of hotels (which includes the Universal Hotels) differentiates itself through Loews' role as both owner and operator. Likewise, Loews Hotels' website (www.loewshotels.com) explains that Loews Hotels & Co. "owns and/or operates" its portfolio of hotels (including the Universal Hotels) and takes pride "in every detail" and "each moment of your stay" from "the moment you arrive." According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's parents planned a family trip for June 17–22, 2025 (including their children and grandchildren, who all live together as a family unit, to assist with Plaintiff's care) to Universal Studios, in Orlando, Florida. The purpose of the trip was to do a "dry run" for a larger trip to Hawaii the following year (for Plaintiff's parents' 40th wedding anniversary), thus allowing Plaintiff to experience a shorter trip, in which he could be assured that with the right accessible room, he would be able to stay away from home in safety and comfortably, and to thus put Plaintiff more at ease about traveling in general, and in particular, traveling to Hawaii the following year. Even though the reserved accessible suite was paid and confirmed, because it was so critical go get the specific suite that was reserved, Plaintiff's mother called the Surfside Inn multiple times leading up to the trip, including on the day of the trip (just prior to boarding the airplane), to confirm and re-confirm that the specific reserved accessible suite was being held. The Plaintiff's mother was repeatedly assured that the reserved accessible suite was secure. Upon arrival at the Surfside Inn, Plaintiff and his party were informed that their reserved accessible suite was given away to another party and was no longer available. The Plaintiff and his parents were then placed into a non-accessible suite, with no accessibility features, no grab bars, no roll-in shower, and no Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant toilet. It was therefore impossible for Plaintiff to use the bathroom or shower. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff remained traumatized by the experience of needing his father's physical help to urinate, and refused to leave the suite, refused to come to any of the Universal Studios parks (despite having a prepaid ticket and "fast pass"), and continued to feel unsafe and insecure in his environment. Plaintiff's father stayed behind with him at the hotel to provide comfort and support while the rest of the family went to the parks. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff no longer feels safe or secure traveling away from home and has become more isolated. He has requested to be excluded from the family's upcoming Hawaii trip. His wishes have been honored, and Plaintiff's brother will also miss the trip, to remain home with Plaintiff, while the rest of the family go to Hawaii for the family's planned anniversary trip. The Plaintiff and the Class are each entitled to payment of compensatory and punitive damages in an amount deemed reasonable by a jury in this case for failure to block out accessible rooms that were reserved, and failure to guarantee that reserved accessible rooms would be available at the time of check-in, in violation of the FCRA. Plaintiff Andrew Welsh is over the age of 18 years, sui juris, and a resident and citizen of the State of Pennsylvania. He has at all times suffered from a "qualified disability" under the ADA. He was born with Spastic Triplegic Cerebral Palsy. He is severely disabled, cannot walk, and must use a large electric wheelchair for mobility purposes. Defendant UCF Hotel was and is a Florida general partnership, with two general partners: (i) LOHP V, LLC, which is located within Loews Hotels' headquarters, 9 West 57th St., New York, NY 10019; and (ii) Universal Studios Hotel V, LLC, with one or more members located, on information and belief, at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 1213 S.E. Third Ave. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Imhof Says --------------------------------------------------------- MONICA IMHOF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00332-JMC (D. Md., January 26, 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, including names, phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, genders, birth dates and purchase histories (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Under Armour has a resulting 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 Under Armour's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when a hacker using the online moniker 'Everest' posted on a popular hacking forum on or about November 2025, that it stole approximately 343 GB of sensitive data, including approximately 72 million email addresses, totaling more than 191 million customer records. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, 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 of 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 Monica Imhof is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois, and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Under Armour, Inc. is one of the largest athletic clothing producers in the United States, engaged in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of athletic apparel, footwear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Silverman, Esq. William N. Sinclair, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC 400 E. Pratt St., Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 410-385-2225 Facsimile: 410-547-2432 E-mail: ssilverman@silvermanthompson.com bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, 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 - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com UNITED PARKS: Ngo Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Johnny Ngo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARKS & RESORTS, INC., D/B/A SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 25CU066000C 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-00347-H-KSC. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges "Defendant unlawfully advertises and displays ticket prices on its websites without including all mandatory fees or charges that customers must ultimately pay. Defendant uses a deceptively low initial price to lure consumers into the purchase process—the 'bait.' Then, after the consumer has relied on that low advertised price and decided to buy, Defendant adds the hidden 'Service Fee'—the 'switch.'".[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence Y. Iser, Esq. Kristen L. Spanier, Esq. Katherine T. Kleindienst, Esq. KINSELLA HOLLEY ISER KUMP STEINSAPIR LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310.566.9800 Facsimile: 310.566.9850 Email: liser@khiks.com kspanier@khiks.com kkleindienst@khiks.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Hill Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Hill and Hailey Waller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04936-MTL (D. Ariz., Dec. 23, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated individuals (“Class Members”) personally identifying information, including names, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, bank account and routing numbers (collectively “PII” or “Private Information”). The Plaintiffs and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Private Information, UPX has a resulting 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 UPX’s duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, that Private Information in Defendant’s possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to its system via the Oracle E-Business Suite software platform (“EBS”) and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein between on or about August 13, 2025 and August 22, 2025 (the “Data Breach”). The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ PII was compromised by an unauthorized third-party. Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was informed that her that her Private Information. The University of Phoenix, Inc. is a private, for-profit university headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, that primarily offers online and flexible degree programs for working adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anasuya E. Shekhar, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-322-9243 Email: anasuya@lcllp.com VERA BRADLEY SALES: Valiente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vera Bradley Sales, LLC. The case is styled as Heriberto Valiente, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vera Bradley Sales, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-20416-XXXX (S.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. Vera Bradley Sales, LLC -- https://verabradley.com/ -- is an American luggage and handbag design company.[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 VERIFF OU: Reed Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veriff OU. The case is styled as Dustin Reed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Veriff OU, Verizon Value Inc d/b/a Total Wireless, Case No. 1:26-cv-00465 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Veriff -- https://www.veriff.com/ -- is an industry leader in online identity verification, helping businesses achieve greater levels of trust.[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 VOLVO CAR USA: Weinbach Sues Over Defective Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------- David Weinbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, and related entities, Case No. 6:26-cv-06088 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2026), is brought arising out of Defendants' manufacture and sale of over 400,000 defective Volvo vehicles (collectively the "Class Vehicles") which were recalled due to defects with the vehicles' rearview camera displays, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") and the New York General Business Law. The Class Vehicles' rearview camera display, a critical safety component, fails to operate or operate properly when the defective vehicles are placed in reverse--leaving them dangerous and noncompliant with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard no. 11, "Rear Visibility" (the "Defect"). These vehicles were advertised, sold, and delivered across the United States--including in New York--without adequate warnings to purchasers or operators of the vehicles and without safeguards to prevent the malfunctioning and failure of the vehicles' rearview camera software and display. These malfunctions are due to software defects and failures in the design, development, testing, and validation of Volvo's Android Automotive Operating System ("AAOS"). The Defendants' failure to disclose the Defect at the time of sale--and their refusal to assume responsibility for the damage and dangers inherent in operating the defective vehicles--constitutes consumer deception and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased the vehicles or would have paid significantly less had they known of defects and limited recourse available, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Class Vehicles. Volvo is a multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Sweden.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com WALGREEN CO: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Polk Suit Due May 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Polk v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 6:25-cv-00473 (D. Or., Filed March 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of discovery & PTO deadlines: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification to be filed by May 15, 2026. Discovery is to be completed by June 12, 2026. Dispositive Motions are due by Oct. 16, 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Employment Discrimination. Walgreen provides online pharmacy store.[CC] WE PACK IT ALL: Mantilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against WE PACK IT ALL, LLC. The case is styled as Beatriz Mantilla, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WE PACK IT ALL, LLC, Case No. 25STCV37769 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." WePackItAll -- https://www.wepackitall.com/ -- is a leading contract packaging and service company.[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 WELLS FARGO: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 5 --------------------------------------------------------- IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY HIRING PRACTICES DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTION Lead Case No. 3:22-cv-05173-TLT The Honorable Trina L. Thompson SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD WELLS FARGO & COMPANY COMMON STOCK AS OF OCTOBER 13, 2025 AND CONTINUE TO HOLD SUCH SHARES AS OF THE CLOSE OF TRADING ON MAY 5, 2026 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ACTIONS. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of the pendency of the following derivative action brought in federal court: In re Wells Fargo & Company Hiring Practices Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-05173-TLT (N.D. Cal.) (the "Action"). YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the Action have reached a proposed settlement ("Settlement"), the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered into on October 13, 2025 ("Stipulation"). A more detailed description of the allegations and the claims asserted in the Action is set forth in the Stipulation, as well as the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action ("Notice"), both of which are publicly available for review on the "Investor Relations" page of Wells Fargo's website at https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/investor-relations/stock-price-anddividends/and on Plaintiffs' Lead Counsels' websites at www.bfalaw.com, www.motleyrice.com, and www.cpmlegal.com. All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein have the meanings provided in the Stipulation and/or Notice. In consideration of the Settlement and the releases provided therein, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation, Wells Fargo has agreed to fund $100 million in mortgage assistance to benefit low- and moderate-income borrowers and borrowers in low- and moderate income census tracts (downpayment and closing cost assistance) in certain geographic regions in the United States ("Borrower Programs"). The Borrower Programs will remain in existence for a minimum of three (3) years after final approval of the Settlement, and the entire $100 million will be used to provide mortgage assistance to low- and moderate-income borrowers or borrowers currently residing in or purchasing property in low- and moderate-income census tracts, in the geographic areas set forth in Appendix A to the Stipulation. Wells Fargo reserves the right to modify the Borrower Programs to comply with any applicable laws, rules, and regulations; regulatory guidance; and executive orders; and to modify the geographic areas to maximize the effectiveness of the Borrower Programs. In addition, the Monetary Consideration of $10 million shall be paid by the Insurer on behalf of the Director Defendants to Wells Fargo. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (the "Court") will hold a hearing ("Settlement Hearing") before The Honorable Trina L. Thompson on May 5, 2026 at 2:00 p.m., at the San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo's shareholders; (b) determine whether a Judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (c) determine whether Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award and Lead Plaintiffs' application for a Service Award should be granted; (d) hear and address any objections; and (e) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, and/or Lead Plaintiffs' application for a Service Award (as defined in the Stipulation), you must provide in writing your full name, address, and telephone number, and if represented by counsel, the name and address of your counsel; appropriate proof of your ownership of Wells Fargo common stock as of October 13, 2025; and your signature. You may not ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the settlement. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing on May 5, 2026, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All written objections and supporting objections must: (a) clearly identify the case name and number (In re Wells Fargo & Company Hiring Practices Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-05173-TLT (N.D. Cal.)); (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102-3489, or by filing them in person at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3489, during regular business hours; and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before April 14, 2026, which is twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing. PLEASE NOTE: Because the Settlement involves the resolution of a shareholder derivative action, which was brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, the benefits from the Settlement will go to Wells Fargo. Individual Wells Fargo shareholders will not receive any direct payment from the Settlement. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR SHAREHOLDERS TO SUBMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SETTLEMENT. ALSO, SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions regarding this Summary Notice, the Action, and the Settlement should be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel by mail to Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Attn: Wells Fargo Settlement, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010 or email at WellsFargoSettlement@cpmlegal.com. Dated: January 13, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION WOOLRICH INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDERY HERRERA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. WOOLRICH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00766 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website https://www.woolrich.com/us/en/ 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 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Turtleneck Sweater in Merino Wool Blend 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 EDERY HERRERA is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant WOOLRICH, INC. operates the Woolrich online retail store, as well as the Woolrich interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's clothing, 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 WORKFORCE SOFTWARE: Brown Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- CHARLES BROWN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORKFORCE SOFTWARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-10318-FKB-DRG (E.D. Mich., January 28, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security procedures and practices, resulting in a data breach on January 20, 2026 wherein unauthorized third parties accessed and/or exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personal information, including but not limited to: names, phone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and other personal "personally identifiable information" ("PII") under applicable federal and state law. The complaint relates that the Defendant's servers and databases retain information on the employees of its customers, the businesses and organizations that use WorkForce. Defendant's failure to secure its servers and databases jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to fraud and identity theft. Defendant's conduct led to the Data Breach. Hackers exfiltrated Plaintiff and Class Members' data, invaded Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy, and exposed Plaintiff and Class Members to identity theft and fraud. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class Members now must take action to protect themselves from identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the Class, seeks appropriate injunctive relief designed to prevent Defendant from experiencing another data breach by adopting and implementing best data security practices to safeguard PII and to provide or extend credit monitoring services and similar services to protect against all types of identity theft. Plaintiff Charles Brown, Jr. is a Michigan resident who is paid by his employer through WorkForce. His information is kept on Defendant's databases, as his employer uses Defendant's databases to manage payroll and other workforce operations. Defendant WorkForce Software, LLC is a limited liability company headquartered in Livonia, Michigan. It provides workforce management software to businesses and organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com ********* 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 ***