260205.mbx

260205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 5, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 26 Headlines AETNA INC: Fertility Suit Allows Plaintiffs to Claim Up to $11,000 AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Schott Due August 17 ANTHROPIC PBC: Music Publishers Seek $3-Bil. Infringement Damages APPLE INC: Allowed Leave to Submit Class Cert Response in Hazlitt ARQIT QUANTUM: Settlement Deal Reached in Glick Suit AT&T MOBILITY: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Action for $1.8MM ATLANTIC UNION: Ray Suit Seeks to Certify Class BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Agrees to $2.5MM Data Breach Class Settlement BELVEDERE NRDE: "Rios" Settlement Set for April 13 Hearing BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Suit Over Violation of Securities Laws CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Drivers Suit CELGENE CORP: Reaches $239MM to Settle Securities Class Action COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Court Certifies BIPA Facial Recognition Class COMMUNITY HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Class Action Suit CONNECTAMERICA.COM LLC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Felix DNC TRAVEL: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline in Mendoza Tossed ENDEAVOR GROUP: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Privatization ENOVIX CORP: March 13 Class Cert Hearing Date Sought EXACT BENEFITS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Clark Due July 31 EXTREME NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Steamfitters Local Class Suit FLAGSTAR BANK: Solomon Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd FORD MOTOR: Chapter 93A Claim in "McCabe" Dismissed as Derivative GARRISON PROPERTY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Jones Due March 15 GIACARE INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Google Assistant Class Suit for $68MM GOOGLE LLC: Rendon Suit Transferred to N.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Settles Android Data Transfer Class Suit for $135-Mil. GRAND ACADEMY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cole Suit Due August 24 GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2025 Data Breach HENLEY PACIFIC: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Extended HOLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in New York HOLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend Southfield Fire & Police Suit HOLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend Thomas Class Suit in New York HP HOOD: Rubio Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 22 INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Court Certifies "Batchelar" Settlement Class JULIE WOLCOTT: Coleman Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice KB CUSTOM: Delgado-Bojorquez Seeks Collective Certification KB CUSTOM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Delgado KIND LLC: Faces Class Action Over Lead Content on Dark Chocolate KROGER CO: Womick Bid to File Class Exhibits Under Seal Granted KURA SUSHI USA: Faces Labor Suit in California Court LAKES EMERGENCY: Muniz Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Notice LIMBLE SOLUTIONS: Court Denies "Touani" FLSA Settlement LOUISVILLE, KY: Agrees to Settle Unlawful Detention Suit for $20MM LOYA INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle Underinsurance Suit for $1.95MM MDL 2724: Defendants Seek to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal MED ATLANTIC: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Klein Class Suit in California META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Plumbers Class Suit in Cal. META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. META PLATFORMS: DZ Reserve Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Resolution META PLATFORMS: Kadrey Summary Judgment Hearing Set for July 16 META PLATFORMS: Trial in Lovdahl-Gormsen Suit to Start Sept. 2027 MINNESOTA: Detainee Sues Over Unlawful Detention Practices MONEY MATCHMAKER: Needle Bid to Dismiss Suit Tossed MSC INDUSTRIAL: MCHRC Files Securities Suit in NY Court NOVO NORDISK: Faces Suit Over Pay-for-Delay Scheme of Diabetes Drug PELICAN INVESTMENT: Loses Judgment on Pleadings Bid in "Showers" PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Lead Content in Tampons RICKY DIXON: Barde Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid RYVYL INC: Obligated to Issue 122,164 Shares of Common Stock SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Software Update Failure SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Gomez PAGA Class Suit in Cal. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Guerrero Labor Class Suit in Cal. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Lobatos Labor Class Suit in Cal. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez Labor Class Suit in Cal. SIG SAUER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective P320 Pistols SIRIUS XM: Final OK Hearing in $28MM Telemarketing Suit Set May 11 SUNDAY APP: Faces Class Action Suit Over QR-Code Hidden Junk Fees SURDEX CORPORATION: Clarke Sues to recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TEMPEL STEEL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $175,000 TESLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas TESLA INC: FSD Capability Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration TOPPS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Box Set's Missing NBA Trading Cards TOURO COLLEGE: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Yodice TWIN VEE POWERCATS: Faces Youseph Suit over Forza Merger Deal TYSON FOODS: Agrees to Settle Pork Price Fixing Suit for $48MM UPSTART NETWORK: Agrees to Settle Debt Collection Suit for $435,000 VALVE CORP: Competition Appeal Tribunal Authorizes STEAM Class Suit WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Settle 401(k) Plan Class Action for $84MM WESTLAKE FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Illegal Fees Suit for $1.2MM X.AI LLC: Faces Class Action Over Grok Undressing Controversy [] Tony Andre Joins Stinson's Class Action Practice Division ********* AETNA INC: Fertility Suit Allows Plaintiffs to Claim Up to $11,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has preliminarily approved a settlement between Aetna and the plaintiffs in Berton v. Aetna, ensuring that Aetna's policy of guaranteeing equitable access to fertility treatments for LGBTQ+ policyholders is legally enforceable nationwide. The class action lawsuit was filed in April 2023 by plaintiff Mara Berton, who was represented by the National Women's Law Center, and law firms Katz Banks Kumin LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP. Eligible LGBTQ+ California residents who were, or would have been, denied coverage for artificial insemination under Aetna's California commercial and student insurance plan can file for compensation at www.californiainfertilitysettlement.com. The deadline to submit claims is June 29, 2026. Most eligible class members who submit a qualifying claim can receive approximately $11,000 in compensation. The National Women's Law Center press release on the Northern District of California's preliminary approval dated December 19, 2025, describes the history and impact of the settlement. If you believe you are in the class of individuals covered by this settlement, please file a claim for compensation at www.californiainfertilitysettlement.com. If you have questions about this settlement, please see the FAQs, call 1-800-842-7690 or email CaliforniaInfertilitySettlement@atticusadmin.com. [GN] AFFILIATED DERMATOLOGISTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that two U.S. dermatology practices have agreed to settle class action lawsuits stemming from cybersecurity incidents that exposed patient data. The settlements provide cash benefits to class members and credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Affiliated Dermatologists & Dermatologic Surgeons Class Action Settlement Affiliated Dermatologists & Dermatologic Surgeons, a dermatology practice based in Morristown, New Jersey, learned about a cybersecurity incident on March 4, 2025. The forensic investigation determined that an unauthorized third party had access to its computer network from December 19, 2023, to March 5, 2024. The review of the exposed files determined that they contained the protected health information of 373,630 individuals, including names, mailing addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, medical treatment information, and health insurance claims information. Compromised employee information includes names, mailing addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and passport numbers. Notification letters were mailed to the affected individuals in late May 2024. Shortly thereafter, class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division for Morris County and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The six class action lawsuits were consolidated -- Lepore, et al. v. Affiliated Dermatologists & Dermatologic Surgeons, P.A. -- in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division for Morris County as they had overlapping claims. Affiliated Dermatologists & Dermatologic Surgeons deny all claims of wrongdoing and liability and filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit. The legal challenge was partially successful, with a judge agreeing to dismiss some of the plaintiffs' claims; however, the lawsuit was allowed to proceed. Following mediation, all parties reached an agreement on the material terms of a settlement, and after several weeks of negotiations, a settlement was finalized, which has received preliminary approval from the court. The settlement provides cash payments for class members, which have been capped at an aggregate of $1,000,000. Should the total claims exceed that amount, the cash payments will be reduced pro rata. Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of up to $5,000 for documented, unreimbursed losses related to the data breach. Alternatively, class members may claim a cash payment, in the preset amount of $40. Regardless of the cash payment chosen, class members are entitled to three years of single-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance services. The deadline for exclusion from and objection to the settlement is January 31, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is February 15, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for March 2, 2026. U.S. Dermatology Partners Class Action Settlement U.S. Dermatology Partners, a network of more than 100 dermatology practices in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia, experienced a cyberattack and data breach in June 2024. The incident was detected on June 19, 2024, when network disruption was experienced. The forensic investigation determined that a threat actor exfiltrated files to an external location on June 19, 2024. The file review confirmed that the protected health information of 13,986 individuals was stolen in the incident, including names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, health insurance information, and other information related to the dermatology services received at one of its managed practices. Notification letters were mailed to the affected individuals on May 30, 2025. On April 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit -- Olson v. Oliver Street Dermatology Management LLC d/b/a U.S. Dermatology Partners -- was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in response to the data breach. The litigation was determined to be more appropriate for state court and was dismissed and refiled in the appropriate court. The lawsuit asserted claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. While the defendant denies all claims of wrongdoing and liability, all parties ultimately agreed to settle the litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members are entitled to claim two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. In addition, a claim may be submitted for reimbursement of lost time and documented losses due to the data breach. The lost time claims have been capped at $80 per class member (up to 4 hours at $20 per hour). Claims for reimbursement of ordinary losses have been capped at $400 per class member, and claims for reimbursement of extraordinary losses have been capped at $4,000 per class member. There is no alternative cash payment. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is February 2, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is February 17, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for April 1, 2026. [GN] ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Schott Due August 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCHOTT v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00136 (M.D. Ga., Filed Oct. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery. Fact Discovery Closes: April 17, 2026 Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures: April 28, 2026 Defendant's Deposition of Plaintiffs Expert: May 19, 2026 Defendant's Expert Disclosures: June 2, 2026 Plaintiffs' Deposition of Defendant's Expert: June 23, 2026 Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Report Disclosure: July 7, 2026 Defendant's Deposition of Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert: July 20, 2026 Expert Discovery Closes: July 20, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: August 17, 2026 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Damage Product Liability. Allstate provides personal lines insurance, including automobile, homeowners, and liability coverage.[CC] ANTHROPIC PBC: Music Publishers Seek $3-Bil. Infringement Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Music Business Worldwide reports that a coalition of music publishers has filed a second copyright infringement lawsuit against AI company Anthropic, and it's a big one. The companies, including Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO Music, are seeking more than $3 billion in potential statutory damages over alleged infringement of more than 20,000 songs. The complaint, filed on January 28 in the Northern District of California, represents a dramatic escalation from the publishers' first lawsuit against Anthropic, which was filed in October 2023 and covered around 500 works with potential damages of around $75 million. In a statement provided to MBW, the plaintiffs said: "We have been compelled to file this second lawsuit against Anthropic because of its persistent and brazen infringement of our songwriters' copyrighted compositions taken from notorious pirate sites." They added: "The new case also addresses Anthropic's ongoing violation of these rights by exploiting lyrics in the training of new AI models without authorization, as well as in the outputs generated. "In total, we are suing for infringement of more than 20,000 songs, with potential statutory damages of more than $3 billion. We believe this will be one of the largest (if not the single-largest) non-class action copyright cases filed in the U.S." The new complaint, obtained by MBW, makes two central allegations: -- That Anthropic's founders illegally downloaded millions of pirated books via BitTorrent, including songbooks containing the publishers' copyrighted musical compositions; -- And that Anthropic continues to infringe their works by training newer Claude AI models without authorization. According to the complaint, the publishers only discovered the alleged torrenting activities in July 2025, when Judge William Alsup issued a ruling in a separate copyright case (Bartz v. Anthropic) that publicly revealed the company's use of pirate library websites. The filing claims that in June 2021, Benjamin Mann "personally used BitTorrent to download via torrenting from LibGen approximately five million copies of pirated books" for Anthropic's use, and that Dario Amodei "personally discussed and authorized this illegal torrenting." The complaint alleges that Amodei himself had described LibGen as "sketchy," and that Anthropic's own Archive Team had deemed LibGen to constitute a "blatant violation of copyright" – yet the company proceeded with the torrenting regardless. The publishers previously attempted to add these piracy claims to their original lawsuit, but Judge Eumi Lee denied that motion in October 2025. At the time, Anthropic argued that the proposed amendment was an improper attempt to "fundamentally transform this case at the eleventh hour." As a result, the publishers have now filed this separate action to pursue the torrenting claims. The new lawsuit arrives just months after Judge Eumi Lee denied Anthropic's motion to dismiss the publishers' original case in October 2025. In that ruling, the judge found that the publishers had adequately argued Anthropic had "actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement by Claude users with respect to Publishers' lyrics." Anthropic has already agreed to pay $1.5 billion to a group of authors in a separate settlement over the use of pirated books to train its AI models. Songs cited in the new complaint include Wild Horses, Sweet Caroline, Bennie and the Jets, Eye of the Tiger, Viva La Vida, and Radioactive. This new lawsuit covers 714 works related to the alleged torrenting and 20,517 works related to ongoing AI training -- a significant expansion from the 499 works at issue in the original case. Anthropic's valuation has also surged dramatically since the first lawsuit was filed. In October 2023, the company was valued at approximately $5 billion. According to today's complaint, Anthropic is now valued at approximately $350 billion -- a 70-fold increase. Anthropic has not yet publicly responded to the allegations. The lawsuit notes that UMPG has entered licensing agreements with AI companies including Udio and KLAY, but argues that AI development must proceed "in a manner that protects the rights of Publishers and songwriters." [GN] APPLE INC: Allowed Leave to Submit Class Cert Response in Hazlitt ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hazlitt, et al., v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421(S.D. Ill., Filed May 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order granting motion for leave to submit response to plaintiffs' supplemental authority regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property. Apple is an American multinational technology company.[CC] ARQIT QUANTUM: Settlement Deal Reached in Glick Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Arqit Quantum Inc. disclosed in its FORM 6-K for the month of January 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 12, 2026, that on January 9, 2026, the company and counsel for the plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit filed against the company and certain of the company's directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, executed a settlement agreement that will resolve the federal action for $7 million, which has been submitted to the court for further documentation and approval. The case is captioned "Robert Glick v. Arqit Quantum Inc., Centricus Acquisition Corp., David Williams, Nick Pointon, Carlo Calabria, Stephen Chandler, Manfredi Lefebvre Dovidio, VeraLinn Jamieson, Garth Ritchie and Stephen Wilson (Case No. 1:22-cv-02604) filed on May 6, 2022. Upon court approval of the settlement, the company will seek dismissal of the previously disclosed putative class action lawsuit that was filed against the Company and certain of its directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York under Index No. 153555/2023, which has been stayed per order of the State Court pending final adjudication of the federal action because the State Court action falls entirely within the settlement classes of the federal action. Arqit Quantum Inc. is into prepackaged software and is based in London. AT&T MOBILITY: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Action for $1.8MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that AT&T Mobility Services has agreed to pay $1,837,500 plus an additional estimated $78,750 to resolve claims it violated California labor laws by failing to pay minimum wage, overtime wages and other compensation to employees. The AT&T settlement benefits current and former non-exempt AT&T Mobility Services employees who worked in California between Sept. 21, 2022, and Sept. 3, 2025. AT&T is a telecommunications company that provides internet, phone and other services to consumers and businesses. AT&T Mobility Services is the wireless division of AT&T. According to claims made in the class action lawsuit resolved by this settlement, AT&T Mobility Services violated California labor laws by failing to pay minimum wages, overtime wages and other compensation to employees. Plaintiffs in the AT&T class action case said they and other employees were denied compensation for all hours worked, including overtime, and were not provided with legally compliant meal and rest breaks. AT&T Mobility Services has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1,916,250 class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the AT&T class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period. Class members who worked a higher number of workweeks will receive a larger share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary. The AT&T settlement also includes a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) payment. Class members may receive a PAGA payment of up to $25,000 based on the number of pay periods they worked during the PAGA period. No payment estimates are available for this relief. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 6, 2026. The final approval hearing for the AT&T class action settlement is scheduled for March 23, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the AT&T settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Class members may update their address by contacting the settlement administrator to ensure they receive their payment at the correct location. Who's Eligible Current and former non-exempt AT&T Mobility employees who worked in California between Sept. 21, 2022, and Sept. 3, 2025. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion and Objection Deadline 03/06/2026 Case Name Gilbert, et al. v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, Case No. 23STCV24512, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Final Hearing 03/23/2026 Settlement Website GilbertATTSettlement.com Claims Administrator Gilbert v AT&T Mobility Services LLC c/o Atticus Administration P.O. Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 GilbertATTSettlement@AtticusAdmin.com (800) 738-0029 Class Counsel Norman B. Blumenthal Kyle R. Nordrehaug BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP David C. Hawkes BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH David A. Huch LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. HUCH Stephen Matcha MATCHA LAW Defense Counsel Elizabeth A. Brown GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN] ATLANTIC UNION: Ray Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATLANTIC UNION BANK, Case No. 3:25-cv-00132-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action on behalf of the following Class: "All of Defendant's checking account holders who, from Feb. 19, 2024 to present, were opted into overdraft protection for one time debit card transactions and ATM transactions and were assessed overdraft fees on these transactions." Furthermore, the Plaintiff moves the Court to appoint him as Class Representative and his counsel as Class Counsel. Atlantic is a bank holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bPIp6J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon J. Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD, P.C. 4235-A Colonial Ave. Roanoke, VA 24018 Telephone: (540) 283-9343 E-mail: dmunro@trialsva.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Lisa La Fornara, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com llafornara@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Martin F. Schubert, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mschubert@stranchlaw.com BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Agrees to $2.5MM Data Breach Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Bayhealth Medical Center has agreed to a $2.5 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a data breach discovered by the healthcare provider in July 2024 that allegedly allowed an unauthorized third party to access files containing private health information. The Bayhealth class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 18, 2025 and covers all individuals residing in the United States whose personal information may have been compromised in the data breach discovered by Bayhealth in July 2024, including all those who received notice of the breach. According to settlement documents, the private information of approximately 496,261 individuals may have been affected by the data breach. The court-approved website for the Bayhealth data breach settlement can be found at BayhealthDataIncidentSettlement.com. Per the settlement website, Bayhealth settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have two options for monetary reimbursement. The settlement site states that class members who submit with their claim form documented proof of out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 in reimbursement. The settlement agreement relays that reimbursable expenses include costs related to identity theft or fraud, purchasing credit monitoring or identity theft protection services, freezing/unfreezing credit, credit reports and other miscellaneous expenses. Settlement class members may not submit claims for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses already reimbursed by another source, the agreement reports. In place of a claim for documented losses, class members may instead submit a claim for a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $60. Settlement documents explain that the final amount of each class member's payout is subject to increase or decrease depending on the amount of money left in the settlement fund after the payment of lead plaintiff service awards, settlement administrative expenses, and attorneys' fees. Per the settlement agreement, Bayhealth class members may elect to receive their cash payouts via check or electronic payment, and all checks must be cashed within 60 days of issuance before expiration. Finally, in addition to any monetary benefits, all Bayhealth settlement class members are eligible to enroll in two free years of medical data monitoring services. The settlement site says the settlement administrator will distribute activation codes, which will remain active for 180 days after issuance, to each eligible class member within 14 days of final approval. To submit a Bayhealth settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique class member ID as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form from the settlement site to print, complete, and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the first page of the document. All Bayhealth settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by April 20, 2026. The court will hold a hearing to determine whether the Bayhealth settlement will receive final approval on June 5, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Bayhealth class action lawsuit alleged that the Delaware-based healthcare system failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to safeguard current and former patients' private information, which resulted in a data breach discovered by the company on or around July 31, 2024. [GN] BELVEDERE NRDE: "Rios" Settlement Set for April 13 Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Maria Camilla Valencia Rios, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Belvedere NRDE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:25cv474 (E.D. Va.), Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, issued an Order on January 30, 2026, setting a timeline for preliminary approval of class settlement and denying pending motions as moot. The Court reviewed the Notice of Settlement filed on January 28, 2026, and it appearing that the disputes in this action have been settled, the Court ordered that, by March 13, 2026, the plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement along with a supporting memorandum and documentation. The Court further ordered that a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement shall be held at 10:00 a.m. April 13, 2026. The hearing respecting a Motion for Class Certification scheduled for 10:00 a.m. February 27, 2026 is cancelled. The Court ordered that the following motions are denied as moot: Defendants Belvedere NRDE, LLC and Glenmoor Oaks NRDE, LLC's Motion to Dismiss; Defendant Pegasus Residential, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Amended Complaint Under Federal Rule 12(b)(6); and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=scfRxY from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Maria Camila Valencia Rios is represented by Andrew Joseph Guzzo of Kelly Guzzo PLC, email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com; James Patrick McNichol of Kelly Guzzo PLC, email: pat@kellyguzzo.com; Kristi Cahoon Kelly of Kelly Guzzo PLC, email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com; Matthew G. Rosendahl of Kelly Guzzo PLC, email: matt@kellyguzzo.com; and Casey Shannon Nash of Kelly Guzzo PLC, email: casey@kellyguzzo.com. Plaintiffs Aquarius Filali and Nadji Filali are represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly of Kelly Guzzo PLC, email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com. Defendants Belvedere NRDE, LLC and Glenmoor Oaks NRDE, LLC are represented by Jon Roellke of Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, email: jroellke@gentrylocke.com; and Jeffrey Paul Miller of Gentry Locke, email: miller@gentrylocke.com. Defendant Pegasus Residential, LLC is represented by James Willard Walker of O'Hagan Meyer Pllc, email: jwalker@ohaganmeyer.com; Dana Johannes Finberg of O'Hagan Meyer LLP, email: dfinberg@ohaganmeyer.com; Melisa Azak of O'Hagan Meyer, email: mazak@ohaganmeyer.com; and Christopher Quinn Adams of O'Hagan Meyer Pllc, email: cadams@ohaganmeyer.com BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Suit Over Violation of Securities Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Beyond Meat, Inc. ("Beyond Meat" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BYND) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 26-cv-00742, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Beyond Meat securities between February 27, 2025 and November 11, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Beyond Meat securities during the Class Period, you have until March 24, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Beyond Meat operates in the food industry, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling plant-based meat products under the "Beyond" brand name in the United States ("U.S.") and internationally. The Company owns and leases multiple production, warehousing, research and development, and other properties in the U.S. and abroad. Since at least early 2025, facing shrinking demand for its products and ballooning debt and losses, Beyond Meat's primary goal has been to achieve operations with positive earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") by the end of 2026. Indeed, on February 26, 2025, during Beyond Meat's earnings call for the fourth quarter and full year of 2024, the Company's President, Chief Executive Officer, and founder, Defendant Ethan Brown, stated that "I want everybody entirely focused on that" goal. At all relevant times, Defendants consistently and repeatedly touted their focused efforts to achieve EBITDA-positive operations by year-end 2026. Accordingly, throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly emphasized that they were rigidly focused on operating expense reduction, gross margin expansion, and broader operational efficiency and optimization at the expense of other aspects of the Company's business, such as revenue growth, which they explicitly deemphasized as a business concern. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at all relevant times, Defendants disclosed no anticipated or actual need to record significant asset impairment charges attributable to certain of Beyond Meat's long-lived assets, including its property, plant, and equipment ("PP&E"), operating lease right-of-use ("ROU") assets, or prepaid lease costs. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the book value of certain of Beyond Meat's long-lived assets exceeded their fair value, making it highly likely that the Company would be required to record a material, non-cash impairment charge; (ii) the foregoing was likely to impair Beyond Meat's ability to timely file its periodic filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint alleges that the truth began to emerge on October 24, 2025, when, during pre-market hours, Beyond Meat filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC, reporting the Company's preliminary financial results for the third quarter ("Q3") of 2025. Therein, Defendants revealed that the Company "expects to record a non-cash impairment charge for the three months ended September 27, 2025, related to certain of its long-lived assets," which it "expected to be material." On this news, Beyond Meat's stock price fell $0.655 per share, or 23.06%, to close at $2.185 per share on October 24, 2025. On November 3, 2025, during pre-market hours, Beyond Meat issued a press release announcing that it would delay reporting its financial results for Q3 2025, citing the need for additional time to complete its impairment review. On this news, Beyond Meat's stock price fell $0.265 per share, or 16.01%, to close at $1.39 per share on November 3, 2025. On November 10, 2025, during post-market hours, Beyond Meat issued a press release announcing its financial results for Q3 2025. Among other results, Beyond Meat reported that its loss from operations for the quarter was $112.3 million, which included " $77.4 million in non-cash impairment charges related to certain of the Company's long-lived assets." On this news, Beyond Meat's stock price fell $0.12 per share, or 8.96%, to close at $1.22 per share on November 11, 2025. Then, on November 11, 2025, during post-market hours, Beyond Meat hosted a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its financial results for Q3 2025. During the call, the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Defendant Lubi Kutua disclosed, in relevant part, that "[t]he total impairment amount of $77.4 million was . . . allocated to PP&E, operating lease ROU assets and prepaid lease costs on our balance sheet." On this news, Beyond Meat's stock price fell an additional $0.105 per share, or 8.61%, to close at $1.115 per share on November 12, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Drivers Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rita Martins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, DefendantCivil Action No. 1:24-cv-10357-MJJ (D. Mass.)Judge Myong J. Joun of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration but granted its motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Rita Martins, a delivery driver, against Capstone Logistics, LLC, in connection with her wage and classification claims. The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver in Massachusetts from at least November 2022 until September 2023. She testified that the Defendant recruited, interviewed, and hired her, and required her to form a corporate entity,Overcomer LLC, solely to receive payment. On November 21, 2022, while driving, she was directed to electronically sign multiple agreements through the Defendant's online portal without reading them. The agreements were executed between entities other than the Plaintiff and the Defendant directly -- specifically between Overcomer LLC and the Defendant's subsidiary, Priority Express, LLC, and between Overcomer LLC and a third-party administrator,Openforce. Upon careful examination, the Court found that the Plaintiff qualified for the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which exempts contracts of employment of workers engaged in interstate commerce from the Act's reach. According to the Court, although the Openforce TPA Agreement standing alone was not a contract of employment -- it was an agreement for payment services -- the circumstances surrounding the simultaneous execution of the agreements, the overlapping substance of those agreements, and the Defendant's role in orchestrating the entire arrangement justified treating them as a collective contract of employment. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration was denied. The Court further found that the Plaintiff's corporate entity, Overcomer LLC, was a sham corporation created at the Defendant's behest to circumvent the Federal Arbitration Act's transportation worker exemption. The Court declined to adopt a bright-line rule that agreements between business entities can never constitute a contract of employment, holding that where a plaintiff is forced to create such an entity to facilitate a defendant's attempted runaround of the exemption, it is appropriate to treat the individual and her corporate entity interchangeably. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to transfer the matter to the District of Delaware. The Plaintiff's arguments -- that neither she nor the Defendant signed the agreement containing the forum selection clause, that the condition precedent for enforcement had not been met, and that enforcement would violate public policy -- were each rejected. The Court noted that Capstone and Priority Express constitute one interdependent entity, and the Plaintiff and Overcomer LLC constitute another. The Plaintiff had not performedthe required choice-of-law or conflict-of-law analysis to support her public policy claim, and therefore could not show that enforcement of the forum selection clause violated public policy. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9WvmiN from PacerMonitor.com Defendant, Capstone Logistics, LLC, is represented by Charles Andrew Scavage, Adam Steel, Andrew J. Butcher, and Jared Sean Kramer of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., along with Daniel R. Sonneborn of Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP. Plaintiff, Rita Martins, is represented by Harold L. Lichten and Matthew W. Thomson of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. CELGENE CORP: Reaches $239MM to Settle Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE CELGENE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION Case No. 2:18-cv-04772 (MEF) (JBC) 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")[1]: 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 Tjanstepension AB, on behalf of itself and the Court-certified Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned 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.[2] 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 1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition and others are excluded pursuant to their prior request. The full definition of the Class, including a complete description of who is excluded from the Class, is set forth in the full Settlement Notice referred to below. 2 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 4, 2025 ("Stipulation"). The Stipulation can be viewed at www.CelgeneSecuritiesLitigation.com. [GN] COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Court Certifies BIPA Facial Recognition Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joshua Gaertner and Carson Koy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Commemorative Brands, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-02452-SPM (S.D. Ill.), Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on January 30, 2026. This proposed class action arises under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 14/1-99. BIPA regulates the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers and information. Section 15(b) of BIPA requires private entities that obtain biometric identifiers or information to provide written notice of the collection, to explain the purpose and retention period, and to secure a written release. Section 15(c) prohibits private entities from selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from a person's biometric identifiers or information. GradImages photographs graduation ceremonies nationwide and sells the images through its website, which can be searched by name, school, or graduation year. At each ceremony, GradImages captures a photograph of each graduate as they cross the stage and also takes candid public relations or PR photographs before and after the event. To streamline the process of identifying individuals in PR photographs, GradImages began using facial recognition technology. GradImages photographs graduates during commencement ceremonies and uploads the images to its servers. It then sends those images to Microsoft, its facial recognition vendor, whose Azure software analyzes each face and attempts to match it to a name previously identified when the graduate walked across the stage. Once the matches are made, the photos are returned to GradImages and posted on its website for sale. Plaintiff Josh Gaertner graduated from Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and attended the commencement ceremony held in May of 2023 in Edwardsville, Illinois. Plaintiff Carson Koy graduated from Loyola University Chicago and attended the school's commencement ceremony held in May of 2022 in Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiffs contend that GradImages photographed each of them at their ceremonies and transmitted those images for facial recognition processing. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct violated Section 15(b) of BIPA by collecting their biometric identifiers without the required written notices, and without obtaining a written release. Plaintiffs further allege a violation of Section 15(c) based on Defendant's use of their biometrics to facilitate the sale of photographs for profit. Plaintiffs sought to certify the following class: All individuals depicted in photos taken by GradImages in the State of Illinois and submitted for facial recognition on or after July 14, 2018. The Court addressed Defendant's argument that BIPA cannot be applied extraterritorially. The Court found that the relevant conduct occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois. The photographs were taken in Illinois, at Illinois universities, and were presumably uploaded in Illinois. Further, BIPA's requirement for a written release to collect and use biometric data would have been violated in Illinois. The Court noted that determining the location of online conduct is inherently difficult. Even if the scanning occurred at a physical location outside Illinois, that fact alone is not dispositive. The Court concluded that a preponderance of the evidence on the record shows that the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois. The Court rejected Defendant's argument that the proposed class definition is improper because it does not include the statutory elements of a BIPA violation. Rule 23 does not require that a class definition replicates the elements of the underlying cause of action and courts routinely certify classes defined by objective criteria rather than by ultimate liability. Whether GradImages collected or otherwise obtained biometric identifiers, complied with Section 15(b), or profited from biometrics under Section 15(c) are issues reserved for the liability phase. The Court found the numerosity requirement plainly satisfied. GradImages' own records show that during the Class Period, photographers captured images at more than 500 events involving approximately 190,000 graduates. The Court found commonality satisfied, noting that common questions of law and fact arise from GradImages' uniform conduct toward all putative class members. The Court identified several such questions, including: (1) whether GradImages obtained biometric identifiers or information through its facial-recognition process; (2) if so, whether GradImages complied with Section 15(b)'s notice and consent requirements; and (3) whether GradImages profited from Plaintiffs' and putative class members' biometrics in violation of BIPA Section 14/15(c). The Court found typicality satisfied, noting that Gaertner and Koy's claims are typical of the proposed class. Gaertner and Koy each had their photographs taken at a graduation ceremony and allegedly had those photographs scanned for facial geometry in violation of BIPA. This is the same conduct underlying the claims of all putative class members. Regarding adequacy of representation, the Court found both the class representatives and class counsel adequate. The record reflects that Gaertner and Koy demonstrated in their depositions that they understood the nature of the litigation and their responsibilities as class representatives. The Court rejected Defendant's challenges based on credibility concerns and limited familiarity with case details, noting that the role of the class representative is nominal as class counsel manages the litigation. The Court found that Plaintiffs' counsel, John J. Driscoll and Matthew Joseph Limoli, are adequate to serve as class counsel, noting Attorney Driscoll's extensive experience litigating complex and class matters, including service as class counsel in multiple actions involved BIPA claims. The Court found predominance satisfied, concluding that the core questions in this case concern whether GradImages obtained or possessed biometric data through a uniform facial recognition process and whether it failed to comply with BIPA's statutory requirements. The Court rejected Defendant's arguments concerning public and private universities, website Terms of Use and arbitration, and damages, finding that these issues do not overwhelm the common liability questions. The Court found the superiority requirement satisfied, noting that the common questions identified in this case are more efficiently resolved in a single class proceeding than through individual actions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was granted. A copy of the Court's decision dated January 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C5eRWE from PacerMonitor.com In this action, Defendant Commemorative Brands Illinois LLC, Defendant Commemorative Brands, Inc., and Defendant Iconic Group, Inc. are each represented by Jessica L. Dagley -- -- jessica.dagley@akerman.com -- John Roache, II -- john.roache@akerman.com -- and Ryan Williams -- ryan.williams@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP. The Plaintiff, Joshua Gaertner, is represented by John J. Driscoll of Driscoll Firm, LLC, reachable at 618-444-6049 and [john@jjlegal.com] and Matthew Joseph Limoli of The Driscoll Firm, P.C., reachable at 919-404-9510 and [matthew@thedriscollfirm.com] COMMUNITY HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Community Health Northwest Florida data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Community Health Northwest Florida data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Community Health Northwest Florida Security Incident: What Happened? Community Health Northwest Florida (CHNF), a community clinic offering comprehensive health services via its 18 locations, is notifying the public of a data breach that may have compromised personal information. The incident came to light on December 24, 2024, when suspicious activity was detected within Community Health Northwest Florida's network. The Community Health Northwest Florida data breach prompted the organization to secure its systems and enlist third-party cybersecurity experts to investigate. The investigation revealed unauthorized access to certain files on CHNF's systems. A review helped identify the individuals and types of data involved, which varied by person but included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license/state ID numbers, financial details, patient ID numbers, and medical and health insurance information. The process culminated in compiling a list of those affected by January 19, 2026. Community Health Northwest Florida is now sending notification letters by mail to those impacted. What You Can Do After the Community Health Northwest Florida Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Community Health Northwest Florida data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Community Health Northwest Florida to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] CONNECTAMERICA.COM LLC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Felix ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE FELIX, individually and on behalf : of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CONNECTAMERICA.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01695-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the consent motion for extension of time to complete discovery. The following case management schedule is enacted: 1. Fact discovery shall continue in good faith. 2. The following case management deadlines are so ORDERED: a. Class certification fact discovery shall be complete by June 9, 2026. b. Expert disclosures shall be complete by July 6, 2026. c. All expert discovery, including all depositions of expert witnesses, shall be complete by Oct. 2, 2026. d. Dispositive motions and class certification motions shall be filed no later than Oct. 29, 2026. Responses, if any, to such motions shall be filed no later than Nov. 30, 2026. 3. The Court previously referred the above-captioned matter to United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sanda Moore-Wells for a settlement conference, and said referral for a settlement conference shall remain in effect. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q8QwyM at no extra charge.[CC] DNC TRAVEL: Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline in Mendoza Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haydee Mendoza et al., v. DNC Travel Hospitality SVCS et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11233-WLH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' ex parte application for order to extend class certification motion deadline. The Court denies the (fourth) Application because it fails to meet the standard necessary to seek ex parte relief. The Plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence to conclude that they are without fault in creating the "crisis" or that the "crisis" occurred as a result of excusable neglect. The Plaintiffs also have failed to provide any explanation for why relief is warranted. The Plaintiffs were aware of the "incomplete" discovery responses as early as Dec. 19, 2025, yet waited several weeks to seek relief. The Plaintiffs do not explain this delay and have therefore failed to demonstrate: (1) that they were without fault in creating the crisis warranting ex parte relief; or (2) that they were diligent in pursuing discovery. The Plaintiffs' failure to manage their discovery deadlines or timely seek court intervention to do the same does not qualify as a judicial emergency requiring this Court to halt its other business to address the Plaintiffs' Application. DNC is engaged in hospitality and food service management. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6svAyW at no extra charge.[CC] ENDEAVOR GROUP: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Privatization ------------------------------------------------------------- Sports Business Journal reports that a new class action lawsuit was filed against Endeavor "over its privatization a year ago," according to Matthew Belloni of PUCK. The case is in federal court and is backed by litigation firm Susman Godrey, which "tends to swing for the fences." The case "deserves serious attention," though it has gone "mostly unnoticed, perhaps because it's being conflated with the ongoing Delaware fights over the company's valuation." In the lawsuit, investors claim to be "misled into selling at depressed prices, thanks to allegedly false assurances that private equity giant Silver Lake's $27.50-a-share buyout was 'fair.'" This being a securities fraud claim "means the plaintiffs have to clear higher hurdles." Plaintiffs point to nondisclosures by Endeavor that "may prove useful, such as third-party valuations, alternative bidding activity, and Endeavor selling OpenBet" to Ari Emanuel for $450M. The argument is that the company "presented a stale or incomplete picture of value just as insiders were consolidating control." Belloni: "This sort of opinion-fraud claim is certainly an uphill climb. Courts are notoriously wary of securities suits that second-guess statements of judgment, especially when companies can claim they sincerely believed what they said. Expect Endeavor to argue that fairness is inherently subjective and that any investor could have checked TKO's public stock price and drawn their own conclusions." An Endeavor spokesperson called the claims "flawed" and "meritless." They said, "We look forward to addressing them in court" (PUCK, 1/27). [GN] ENOVIX CORP: March 13 Class Cert Hearing Date Sought ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding sur-reply and setting hearing date on the Plaintiffs amended motion for class certification: 1. The Defendants may file a sur-reply of up to seven pages responding to the Plaintiffs' price impact arguments by Feb. 13, 2026. 2. The hearing on the Plaintiffs amended motion for class certification shall be set for Mar. 13, 2026. The Plaintiffs timely filed their amended class certification motion on Nov. 14, 2025, and the Defendants timely filed their opposition on Dec. 12, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their amended class certification motion on Jan. 16, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply contains new arguments and evidence responding to the Defendants' price impact arguments raised in the Defendants' opposition, arguments as to which Defendants bear the burden. There are scheduling conflicts with the Court's Feb. 27, 2026, and March 6, 2026, hearing dates, the Parties say. Enovix designs, develops, and manufactures lithium-ion battery cells in the United States and internationally. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K2SKiU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. Marc B. Kramer, Esq. Nicole T. Castiglione, Esq. Shane Kunselman, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: lrolnick@rksllp.com mkramer@rksllp.com ncastiglione@rksllp.com skunselman@rksllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily C. Kapur, Esq. Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Courtney C. Whang, Esq. Brenna D. Nelinson, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Sasha Boutilier, Esq. W. Jackson Vallar, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 E-mail: emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com courtneywhang@quinnemanuel.com brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com sashaboutilier@quinnemanuel.com jackvallar@quinnemanuel.com EXACT BENEFITS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Clark Due July 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY CLARK, v. EXACT BENEFITS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01346-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered a scheduling order as follows: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by February 27, 2026. The motion for class certification shall be filed by July 31, 2026. All discovery shall be completed by Sept. 30, 2026. Dispositive motions shall be filed by Oct. 30, 2026. Primary expert reports shall be produced by Aug. 21, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports shall be produced by Sept. 11, 2026. The Plaintiff Ashley Clark brings this putative class and collective action against Exact Benefits Group, LLC alleging she and other non-exempt customer service and sales agents were not paid for all hours worked, were not properly paid overtime, including because commissions and non discretionary bonuses were allegedly excluded from the regular rate. The Complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act as an opt-in collective action (29 U.S.C. section 216(b)) and under Ohio law as a Rule 23 class action, including claims under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and O.R.C. § 2307.60, and seeks unpaid wages/overtime, liquidated and other statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and related relief. The Complaint contains a demand for a jury trial. Exact is a nationwide, independent insurance brokerage specializing in Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement, and prescription drug plans. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j4Gws9 at no extra charge.[CC] EXTREME NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Steamfitters Local Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Extreme Networks, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension and Retirement Security Funds class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 13, 2024, a putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05102-TLT, naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Extreme Networks securities between July 27, 2022 and January 30, 2024. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects during the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. On December 30, 2024, the Court selected Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, Oakland County Employees' Retirement System as the lead plaintiffs. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted on August 15, 2025, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 9, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on October 3, 2025. Extreme Networks, Inc. develops and sells network infrastructure equipment and offers related services contracts for extended warranty and maintenance. FLAGSTAR BANK: Solomon Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TUNNY SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-24482-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Altman entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint. The Plaintiff may amend her amended complaint to address only two issues. First, the Plaintiff may remove references to a "Zombie CD." Second, the Plaintiff may amend her class definition, as discussed at our Jan. 22, 2026, status conference. The Plaintiff may not amend her complaint in any other way. The Court also entered an order denying as moot the Defendant's motion to deny class certification. Flagstar is an American commercial bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HYSAk3 at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Chapter 93A Claim in "McCabe" Dismissed as Derivative ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the Case Captioned as Daniel McCabe, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 23-10829-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendant's renewed motion to dismis Plaintiff Jeffrey Pollack's claim under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A in a consolidated putative class action alleging widespread transmission defects in Ford vehicles equipped with the 10R80 10-speed transmission. The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased or leased Ford vehicles equipped with the 10R80 transmission, representing putative classes across nine states. The complaint alleges that when Ford introduced the 10R80 in the 2017 F-150, it advertised improved acceleration, enhanced shifting performance, and responsiveness. However, vehicles equipped with the transmission were reported to slip gears, hesitate, jerk, lunge, and shift erratically. Some consumers reported loss of power while accelerating, whiplash, and safety concerns. Numerous complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicated the defects were widespread. Plaintiff Pollack purchased a 2023 Ford F-150 in April 2023 and a 2022 Ford Mustang in May 2023, both equipped with the 10R80 transmission.Prior to purchase, a Ford employee highlighted the fuel economy, smooth shifting, and towing capabilities of the transmission. The complaint alleges that almost immediately upon purchase, Pollack noticed the transmission shifting very hard and erratically, slamming between gears, as well as lunging and hesitating. He also reported complete loss of power in his F-150 while accelerating at highway speeds, and now avoids driving it whenever possible. Upon careful examination, the Court considered two arguments raised by Pollack in renewed briefing: (1) that his Chapter 93A claim was sufficiently pleaded as an independent cause of action, and (2) that the claim should survive as derivative of his breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, which had not been dismissed. According to the Court, the Chapter 93A claim did not stand independently. The complaint did not allege unique facts in support of that claim. Instead, it described a course of conduct by Defendant identical to that supporting the other claims and did not set forth a unique economic theory of injury. The Court noted that if the other claims were dismissed, nothing would remain to support the Chapter 93A claim. Regarding the derivative argument, the Court observed that Plaintiffs had previously conceded in prior briefing that the Chapter 93A claims were based on the same conduct alleged in their misrepresentation and fraudulent omission claims. The Court held that Plaintiffs are not permitted to shift their theories of recovery at will to avoid the impact of adverse legal rulings. Nonetheless, the Court considered the argument on the merits. Accordingly, the Court found that the complaint did not allege a Chapter 93A violation arising out of a breach of implied warranty. The Chapter 93A violation alleged was clearly based on allegations of misrepresentation and fraud, with a passing reference to breach of express warranty. The phrase not fit for ordinary use, which echoes implied warranty language, appeared in a paragraph that plainly asserted allegations of fraud. The phrase breach of implied warranty of merchantability did not appear anywhere in that paragraph, and the reference to warranty obligations clearly referred to express warranty obligations, not implied ones. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Chapter 93A claim as derivative of claims for misrepresentation and breach of express warranty that had failed as a matter of law and been dismissed, either by the Court or by stipulation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yc3FwG from PacerMonitor.com In this action, the defendant, Ford Motor Company, is represented by Jacob J. Lantry and Michelle I. Schaffer of Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, P.C., and Cindy Kelly, Stephen Thomasch, and Hector Torres of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP. The intervenor is Jeff M. Edwards of Cedar Park, Texas. The plaintiffs—Daniel McCabe, Jeffrey Pollack, and Daniel Wright—are represented by Ryan P. McMillan, Alex R. Straus, Tyler Litke, Leland Humphrey Belew, Mitchell Mark Breit, and Gregory F. Coleman of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, along with John R. Fabry and Jose Luis Munoz of The Carlson Law Firm, P.C. GARRISON PROPERTY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Jones Due March 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jimmie Jones, Jr., et al., v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03622-SHD (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Desai entered a case management order as follows: -- The deadline for completion of fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be Sept. 15, 2026. -- Expert depositions shall be completed no later than Feb. 12, 2027. -- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures in support of class certifications are due by Oct. 30, 2026. -- Depositions of class certification experts must be completed by Feb. 12, 2027. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by March 15, 2027. -- The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by April 14, 2027. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification is due by May 12, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7gcBJo at no extra charge.[CC] GIACARE INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the GiaCare data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the GiaCare data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. GiaCare Security Incident: What Happened? GiaCare, Inc., a subcontractor to GiaMed Alliance JV, LLC that provides healthcare staffing solutions to support various government agencies, was affected by a data breach involving personal information. On December 23, 2025, the company was alerted to a vulnerability in the file-sharing platform of third-party vendor Gladinet CentreStack. After discovering the issue, GiaCare engaged a security firm to investigate and ensure its systems remained secure. The firm confirmed GiaCare's systems were not compromised directly; the breach was due to a vulnerability in CentreStack's platform. GiaCare confirmed that unauthorized access to files maintained in the CentreStack platform occurred on December 6, 2025. Personal information including names, driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers may have been exposed in the GiaCare data breach. What You Can Do After the GiaCare Data Breach If your information was exposed in the GiaCare data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force GiaCare to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Google Assistant Class Suit for $68MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Google has agreed to a $68,000,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit alleging that devices enabled with Google Assistant have, unbeknownst to users, covertly recorded their surroundings and transmitted private communications to Google' s servers without the need to press a button or say a "hot word" to activate the listening feature. The Google Assistant class action settlement is pending preliminary approval, which is set to be determined by the court at a hearing on March 19, 2026. According to the proposed agreement, the $68 million Google Assistant settlement will cover two classes of consumers: -- All consumers who purchased a Google-Made device in the United States between May 16, 2016 and the date of preliminary approval (the "Purchaser Class"); and -- All consumers who are users of Google Assistant or were a member of a user' s household and whose communications were recorded or otherwise obtained by Google and potentially disclosed to a third-party between May 16, 2016 and the date of preliminary approval (the "Privacy Class"). -- Members of the Purchaser Class who file a claim form are eligible to receive four points for each Google-made device they purchased, up to three devices, for a maximum of 12 points; -- Members of the Privacy Class who file a claim form will be assigned a maximum claim value of one point; and -- Members of both the Purchaser Class and the Privacy Class who file a claim form are eligible to receive four points for up to three Google-made devices and one point for being a Privacy Class member, for a maximum of 13 points. The court-approved website for the Google Assistant class action settlement can be found at GoogleAssistantPrivacyLitigation.com. According to settlement documents, Google Assistant settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement fund after all administrative expenses, attorneys' fees, and lead plaintiff service awards have been paid. The proposed settlement agreement reports that the final amount of each class member' s payment will be determined by a points system: It is currently unknown how much each settlement class member will receive from the Google Assistant settlement, court documents note. Should the proposed Google Assistant settlement receive preliminary approval from the court, class members cannot expect to receive benefits until final approval is granted to the settlement, which will be determined at a hearing on a later date. The Google Assistant class action lawsuit alleged that Google Assistant and Google Assistant-enabled devices -- including Google Home speakers, Google Nest Hub smart displays, and Google Pixel smartphones -- surreptitiously recorded users' private conversations when no activation words, such as "Hey Google," were spoken to turn on the feature. The case stipulated that Google Assistant devices were susceptible to "false accepts," wherein the device misunderstood a verbal cue and activated, which allegedly resulted in the recording of private audio data that was then transmitted to Google's servers. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Rendon Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Isabel Rendon, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situate v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware entity; LULULEMON ATHLETICA INC., a Delaware entity,, Case No. 8:25-cv-02793 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00705-NC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Google LLC -- https://www.google.com/ -- is an American multinational technology corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua Hawkes Lerner, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (628) 235-1124 Fax: (628) 235-1001 Email: joshua.lerner@wilmerhale.com - and - Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq. Karin Dryhurst, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-5374 Fax: (213) 443-5400 Email: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com karin.dryhurst@wilmerhale.com - and - Adam R. Fox , Esq. Hannah Justine Makinde, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 624-2500 Fax: (213) 623-4581 Email: adam.fox@squirepb.com hannah.makinde@squirepb.com GOOGLE LLC: Settles Android Data Transfer Class Suit for $135-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google will pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action by smartphone users who accused Google of programming its Android operating system to collect their cellular data without permission. A preliminary settlement with the Alphabet (GOOGL.O), unit was filed late Tuesday night, January 27, in the San Jose, California federal court, and requires a judge's approval. Google denied wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, which covers users of Android-powered mobile devices since November 12, 2017. Users said Google needlessly collected cellular data, which they purchased from mobile carriers, even when they closed Google's apps, disabled location-sharing or locked their screens. They said the data supported Google's product development and targeted advertising campaigns and amounted to "conversion," when a party wrongfully takes another party's property with the intent to assert control. As part of the settlement, Google will not transfer data without obtaining consent from Android users when they set up their phones. The Mountain View, California-based company will also make it easier for users to stop the transfers by toggling, and will disclose the transfers in its Google Play terms of service. Glen Summers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a court filing he believed the $135 million payout is the largest ever in a conversion case. Payments are capped at $100 per class member. A trial had been scheduled for August 5. Google had no immediate comment on Wednesday, January 28. The plaintiffs' lawyers may seek up to $39.8 million, or 29.5% of the settlement fund, for legal fees. [GN] GRAND ACADEMY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cole Suit Due August 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEN COLE v. THE GRAND ACADEMY OF BALLET LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-08607-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles F. Eick entered an order setting the following schedule: Fact discovery cut-off: July 22, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 24, 2026 certification due: The Defendant's opposition to motion Oct. 8, 2026 for class certification due: The Plaintiff's reply to defendant's Oct. 29, 2026 opposition due: The Plaintiff's opening expert Sept. 22, 2026 disclosures due: The Defendant's expert disclosures due: Nov. 6, 2026 Rebuttal expert disclosures due: Nov. 27, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 28, 2026. ADR procedure, if necessary, shall occur before a neutral selected from the Court's Mediation Panel. The Court will set other dates and deadlines if and when necessary. The Defendant is a professional ballet and performing arts center. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LxYYSd at no extra charge.[CC] GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2025 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Grubhub failed to defend its customers' and employees' sensitive personal and financial information from a 2025 data breach. The 29-page lawsuit claims that in January 2025, cybercriminals gained access to Grubhub's internal systems, where the personal information of an estimated tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people was stored, including Social Security numbers. The complaint alleges that Grubhub failed in its legal obligation to safeguard the confidential data in its possession. Per the case, Grubhub willfully ignored affected users' privacy rights by failing to implement known and reasonable measures to protect their sensitive information. Additionally, while Grubhub published a notice of the data breach on February 3, 2025, allegedly at least a month after the breach was first detected, the lawsuit argues that this wait cost affected customers and employees valuable time they could have used to begin discovering or remedying the effects of the data breach. Per the suit, affected current and former Grubhub users remain unsure of exactly what personal information of theirs has been exposed, where it has been transferred or used, and the extent of the breach's impact on their lives. The filing states that information exposed in the Grubhub data breach may include: -- Social Security numbers; -- Names; -- Vehicle insurance information; -- Home addresses; -- Phone numbers; -- Driver's license numbers; -- Email addresses; and -- Dates of birth. The Grubhub class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States whose personally identifiable information or financial information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the January 2025 Grubhub data breach. [GN] HENLEY PACIFIC: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Extended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN P. STAPLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HENLEY PACIFIC LA LLC, a Delaware limited liability; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02965-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting continuance of the deadline for filing the motion for class certification from April 18, 2026, to a later date after the Court has ruled on the Defendant's anticipated motion to compel arbitration. The deadline for filing the Motion for Class Certification is continued to 100 days from the date of the Court's ruling on any Motion to Compel Arbitration. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FAq7si at no extra charge.[CC] HOLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Hologic, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Smith class suit in New York over breach of directors' fiduciary duties. Purported stockholders of the Company have filed a class action lawsuit and individual actions against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors, captioned as Smith v. Hologic, Inc., et al., No. 650252/2026 (filed on January 14, 2026). The Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain purportedly material information regarding the Merger in breach of the directors' fiduciary duties or in violation of New York state law. The Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and until the purportedly material information is disclosed. Additionally, beginning on December 15, 2025, the Company has received demand letters from purported stockholders of the Company, alleging that, among other things, the Preliminary Proxy Statement and the Definitive Proxy Statement contain certain disclosure deficiencies and/or incomplete information regarding the Merger. Although the outcome of, or estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from, these Matters cannot be predicted, the Company believes that the allegations contained in these Matters are without merit. Hologic, Inc. is a medical technology company primarily focused on women's health and beauty; it sells medical devices for surgery and medical imaging. HOLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend Southfield Fire & Police Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hologic, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Southfield Fire & Police Retirement System class suit in New York over breach of directors’ fiduciary duties. Purported stockholders of the Company have filed a class action lawsuit and individual actions against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors, captioned as Southfield Fire & Police Retirement System v. Hologic, Inc. et al., Case No. 2026-0060-BWD (Del. Ch. January 14, 2026). The Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain purportedly material information regarding the Merger in breach of the directors’ fiduciary duties or in violation of New York state law. The Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and until the purportedly material information is disclosed. Additionally, beginning on December 15, 2025, the Company has received demand letters from purported stockholders of the Company, alleging that, among other things, the Preliminary Proxy Statement and the Definitive Proxy Statement contain certain disclosure deficiencies and/or incomplete information regarding the Merger. Although the outcome of, or estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from, these Matters cannot be predicted, the Company believes that the allegations contained in these Matters are without merit. Hologic, Inc. is a medical technology company primarily focused on women's health and beauty; it sells medical devices for surgery and medical imaging. HOLOGIC INC: Continues to Defend Thomas Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Hologic, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Thomas class suit in New York over breach of directors' fiduciary duties. Purported stockholders of the Company have filed a class action lawsuit and individual actions against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors, captioned Thomas v. Hologic, Inc., et al., No. 650272/2026 (filed on January 15, 2026). The Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain purportedly material information regarding the Merger in breach of the directors' fiduciary duties or in violation of New York state law. The Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and until the purportedly material information is disclosed. Additionally, beginning on December 15, 2025, the Company has received demand letters from purported stockholders of the Company, alleging that, among other things, the Preliminary Proxy Statement and the Definitive Proxy Statement contain certain disclosure deficiencies and/or incomplete information regarding the Merger. Although the outcome of, or estimate of the possible loss or range of loss from, these Matters cannot be predicted, the Company believes that the allegations contained in these Matters are without merit. Hologic, Inc. is a medical technology company primarily focused on women's health and beauty; it sells medical devices for surgery and medical imaging. HP HOOD: Rubio Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 22 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rubio v. HP Hood, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03621 (E.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order adopting in part the parties' scheduling stipulation as follows: The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Motion for Class Certification is continued to May 22, 2026. The Plaintiff's Designation of Class Certification Expert(s), Production of Expert Report(s), and Production of Supporting Declarations is continued to May 22, 2026. The Defendant's Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is continued to July 23, 2026. The Plaintiff's Reply to the Motion for Class Certification is continued to Sept. 22, 2026. The Hearing on the Motion for Class Certification is continued to October 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26 before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The nature of suit states Labor/Management Relations. HP Hood is an American dairy company.[CC] INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Court Certifies "Batchelar" Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ROBERT SCOTT BATCHELAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC and INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01836-AWT (D. Conn.), Judge Alvin W. Thompson of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement and preliminarily certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Court finds that, subject to a Final Fairness Hearing, it will likely be able to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class and that the Settlement substantially fulfills the purposes and objectives of the class action and provides beneficial relief considering the risks and delay of continued litigation. The Court states that the Settlement is the result of arm’s length negotiations involving experienced counsel, satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act, and does not constitute an admission of liability by defendant. The Court held that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties and preliminarily approves a Settlement Class of United States residents who, from December 18, 2013 to July 14, 2025, held margin accounts with Interactive Brokers in which trades were executed by the A-L Software within a specified margin improvement to cost range, subject to detailed exclusions for judges, court staff and families, employees of defendant and its affiliates, certain attorneys and their families, prior litigants and arbitrants, specified FX transactions, certain forced liquidations, and Litigated or Excluded Accounts. The Court orders that the full list of Settlement Class members be filed under seal and used to provide personal notice and that, after opt outs, a final sealed list will define the Settlement Class for all purposes, including compensation and release. The Court appointed Plaintiff Robert Scott Batchelar as Settlement Class Representative and appoints specific law firms and attorneys as Class Counsel, finding that they are competent and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. The Court approved Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement Administrator, approves the Notice Plan and the Email, Mail, and Long Form Notices, and found that the Notice Plan satisfies due process and Rule 23 by reasonably informing Settlement Class Members of the nature of the action, the Settlement terms, the Settlement Class scope, and the rights to object and opt out, as well as the date, time, and location of the Final Fairness Hearing. The Court ordered that the Notice Plan be implemented within forty five days of the Order (the Settlement Notice Date), that the Settlement Administrator maintain a Settlement Website, and that Class Counsel file a declaration confirming completion of notice before the Final Fairness Hearing. The Court directs that any Settlement Class Member seeking exclusion must submit a written Request for Exclusion within seventy five days of Notice, with specified case information, personal details, and a clear statement of the desire to be excluded; timely opt outs will not receive benefits and will not release claims, while untimely opt outs will be ineffective and those members will be bound by the Settlement and Final Judgment. The Court establishes procedures for objections, requiring written objections within seventy five days of Notice that identify the case, provide contact information, state all grounds with evidence and legal authority, identify any attorneys involved, and include the objector’s signature, and it warns that noncompliant or late objections are invalid and deemed waived. The Court permits objectors who have properly preserved objections to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing personally or through counsel, though appearance is not required, and states that any challenge to the Settlement or Final Judgment must proceed by appeal, not collateral attack. The Court sets a Final Fairness Hearing to decide whether to grant final approval of the Settlement, enter a Final Approval order and Final Judgment or Order of Dismissal, approve the plan of allocation, rule on Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and rule on requested service awards to the Settlement Class Representative. The Court orders Class Counsel to file motions for final approval and for fees, expenses, and service awards within thirty days after the Settlement Notice Date, with any reply due seven days before the Final Fairness Hearing, and notes that the hearing may be postponed or continued without additional notice. The Court issues a deadlines summary, including a deadline of February 10, 2026, for defendant to provide an updated Settlement Class list to Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator and additional deadlines tied to the Settlement Notice Date for opt outs, objections, and filings. The Court emphasizes that the Settlement does not constitute an admission of the truth of any allegation or of liability, fault, or wrongdoing, and provides that if the Settlement is terminated or does not become final, the Settlement and this Order will be null and void, negotiations and related materials will be without prejudice and not used as admissions, and the Parties may seek to implement these restoration provisions. The Court retains jurisdiction over all further matters arising out of or connected with the Settlement and may approve the Settlement with non-material modifications agreed to by the Parties without further notice to the Settlement Class. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FZLxzE from PacerMonitor.com JULIE WOLCOTT: Coleman Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINDSOR COLEMAN, V. JULIE WOLCOTT, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-06182-MAV (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vacca entered an order that Coleman's request for class certification is denied without prejudice. The Court further entered an order that the Clerk of Court shall sever and transfer the claims arising from Coleman's confinement at Clinton and Midstate to the Northern District of New York. Accordingly, Coleman's remaining First Amendment retaliation claims, First Amendment access to court's claims, Fourth Amendment privacy claims, Eighth Amendment inadequate nutrition claims, remaining Eighth Amendment strip frisk claims, and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims are dismissed with prejudice. Coleman alleges violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at ,r 66. Coleman requests money damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants include WILLIAM: TOMPOROWKSI, JOHN DOE/MR.H., ANTHONY ANNUCCI, DANIEL MARTUSCELLO, III, FIVE POINTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY SUPERINTENDENT JOHN DOE, ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, C.O. EBERT, C.O. CORNMILLER, C.O. FORD, JOSEPH NOETH, SORC LITTLEJOHN, ANNE MARIE MCGRATH, CHAD FREDERICKSON, CYNTHIA KAHN, LAKEVIEW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY SUPERINTENDENT KUBIK, MIDDLEBROOK, GEORGE POFF, C.O. FITSHANS, D.S.S. STACKOWSKI, D.S.S. RACZKOWSKI, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS ENTITY/OFFICE, NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR ENTITY/OFFICE, AND JOHN DOE## 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sF84t1 at no extra charge.[CC] KB CUSTOM: Delgado-Bojorquez Seeks Collective Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME ALBERTO DELGADO-BOJORQUEZ, OSCAR JOVANNY DIAZ-RAMIREZ, JOSE ANIEL LOPEZ-VALDEZ, and REY DAVID AVIÑA-COTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KB CUSTOM AG SERVICES, LLC, and KYLE BEAUCHAMP, Case No. 1:25-cv-00847-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by failing to pay them and other similarly situated heavy tractor-trailer truck drivers overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiffs therefore move the Court for an order finding that they are similarly situated to Defendants’ other H-2A heavy tractor-trailer truck drivers and authorizing the sending of notice. Plaintiffs seek Court approval for a notice to be issued to similarly situated workers defined as: "All individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign workers who were employed by the Defendants as heavy tractor-trailer truck drivers at any time within 3 years of when Notice is sent." Plaintiffs additionally move the Court to order Defendants to provide Plaintiffs the names, addresses (U.S. and foreign), email addresses, and telephone numbers (U.S., foreign, cell phone, and WhatsApp) of the similarly situated H-2A truck drivers within fourteen (14) days in order to assist with the issuance of Notice. The Plaintiffs are individuals from Mexico who were admitted to the United States with H-2A visas and worked as hourly compensated heavy tractor-trailer truck drivers for Defendants. KB operates a custom harvesting business that provides harvesting and trucking of silage for Defendants' dairy customers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jruuT6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawson Morton, Esq. James M. Knoepp, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca Hause-Schultz, Esq. Vance O. Knapp, Esq. FISHER PHILLIPS, LLP 621 Capital Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 E-mail: rhause-schultz@fisherphillips.com vknapp@fisherphillips.com KB CUSTOM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Delgado ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME ALBERTO DELGADO-BOJORQUEZ, OSCAR JOVANNY DIAZ-RAMIREZ, JOSE ANIEL LOPEZ-VALDEZ, and REY DAVID AVIÑA-COTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KB CUSTOM AG SERVICES, LLC, and KYLE BEAUCHAMP, Case No. 1:25-cv-00847-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to file responses in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action and/or Motion for Certification of a Rule 23 Class Action, up to and including March 6, 2026. The Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that they would not consent to the relief requested in this Motion. KB operates a custom harvesting business that provides harvesting and trucking of silage for Defendants' dairy customers. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ry9GkM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawson Morton, Esq. James M. Knoepp, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca Hause-Schultz, Esq. Vance O. Knapp, Esq. Monica L. Simmons, Esq. FISHER PHILLIPS, LLP 621 Capital Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 E-mail: rhause-schultz@fisherphillips.com vknapp@fisherphillips.com msimmons@fisherphillips.com KIND LLC: Faces Class Action Over Lead Content on Dark Chocolate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that KIND Healthy Grains Dark Chocolate Clusters contain a "substantial" amount of lead per serving despite representations that the product is made with healthy, premium ingredients. According to the 25-page KIND lawsuit, a single 65-gram serving of the granola product contains 2.34 micrograms of lead, which is "more than four times" the daily Maximum Allowable Dose Level for reproductive toxicity outlined by California law. Even in small doses, lead can be incredibly dangerous as it can lead to irreversible health consequences, the case explains. "Lead affects almost every organ and system in the body and accumulates in the body over time, leading to severe health risks and toxicity, including inhibiting neurological function, anemia, kidney damage, seizures, and in extreme cases, coma and death," the lawsuit states. The alleged lead amount in the KIND Dark Chocolate clusters, the case continues, was ascertained through testing commissioned by the plaintiff's counsel at an accredited independent laboratory in May and June 2025. Because the purported lead levels were at no point displayed on the KIND packaging, consumers were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding the safety of the product and suffered economic injury upon purchasing a falsely advertised product with high levels of lead, the case argues. "The Representations are likely to lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Products provide 'HEALTHY GRAINS' and 'SUPER GRAINS' that are 'kind . . . for your body,'" the complaint states. "The Representations are misleading based on the lead contained in the Products, which is not disclosed anywhere on the labels." The plaintiff, a California resident, says she purchased KIND Dark Chocolate Clusters on numerous occasions for personal use for approximately $5.50 to $6 per unit. Had the plaintiff known of the alleged lead levels in the product, she would not have purchased it or would have purchased it "on different terms," the suit claims. The KIND Dark Chocolate Clusters class action lawsuit looks to represent all California residents who, within the four years prior to the filing of the complaint on January 15, 2026, purchased KIND Dark Chocolate Clusters within California and do not claim any personal injury from consuming them. [GN] KROGER CO: Womick Bid to File Class Exhibits Under Seal Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Womick v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574 (S.D. Ill., Filed June 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to file exhibits under seal. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file Exhibits 2, 7, and 11 of his Motion to Certify Class under Seal. The Defendant is directed to show cause, on or before Feb. 6, 2026, as to why Exhibits 2 and 11 should remain sealed. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Kroger operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States.[CC] KURA SUSHI USA: Faces Labor Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------- Kura Sushi USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2026, that on December 9, 2024, a former employee filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Company alleging certain violations of California labor laws. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. Kura Sushi USA is a technology-enabled Japanese restaurant based in California. LAKES EMERGENCY: Muniz Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Notice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLY MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. LAKES/NATIONAL EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12050-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting step-one notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the following collective so that putative opt-in plaintiffs may receive notice of the lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All current and former hourly employees of NES employed at any of its facilities throughout the country who were not paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in at least one workweek between Aug. 9, 2021 and the present;" 2. Directing the Defendant to, within 30 days, produce the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for all potential class members; 3. Approving the issuance of the Notice and Consent To Join Form attached hereto as Exhibit A; and 4. Allowing individuals 90 days from the date of mailing of the Notice to opt-in to the collective action and authorizing a reminder notice to be sent 45 days prior to the close of the opt-in period. The Defendant is a Massachusetts-based organization operating as a clinic/group practice specialized in emergency medicine. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W7gpNi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. Matthew Patton, Esq. ORTIZ & MOESLINER, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com LIMBLE SOLUTIONS: Court Denies "Touani" FLSA Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Stefan Touani and Nick Mazza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Limble Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00033 (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied the Stipulated Motion for Approval of the FLSA Settlement Agreement without prejudice on January 30, 2026. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant who allege that Limble Solutions, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying certain employees as exempt from overtime compensation and by failing to pay non-exempt employees the amount they were owed. The Defendant denied these allegations. Prior to filing this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs informed the Defendant of the allegations in May 2025. After engaging in informal discovery and pre-litigation negotiations, the parties mediated their disputes in October 2025. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendant would pay $255,000 into a settlement fund. One-third, or $85,000, would go to the Plaintiffs' attorneys as fees, with up to $7,500 in costs. Each representative Plaintiff would receive a $10,000 service award. The remainder would be divided among fifty-seven prospective collective members based on weeks worked during the period of June 17, 2023, to October 27, 2025. Upon careful examination, the Court applied a three-step inquiry to determine whether to approve the settlement. The Court found that the parties provided sufficient information to indicate the existence of a bona fide dispute, as the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant misclassified employees who worked as sales development representatives as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements, while the Defendant maintains that the employees were properly classified. Accordingly, the Court determined that these issues raise at least some doubt about the Plaintiffs' ability to succeed on their FLSA overtime claims. According to the Court, the settlement appears fair and reasonable. Both sides engaged in informal discovery and debated the merits of the case for months before participating in a day-long mediation before a neutral mediator. The Court further found that the requested attorneys' fee of one-third of the common fund is reasonable, as courts routinely find that contingent fees of one-third of a settlement amount are reasonable. Therefore, the request for fees and costs is reasonable. However, the Court identified two procedural deficiencies that prevented approval. First, the parties did not request conditional certification of the proposed collective. The settlement motion makes no arguments showing why the fifty-seven prospective collective members are similarly situated, except to say that they were all sales development representatives. Second, the proposed opt-in mechanism would have prospective collective members opt in by signing a check within a 120-day period, with consents filed with the Court only after the deadline passed. The Court noted that no employee is a party plaintiff in an FLSA collective action until consent is filed in the court, and a named plaintiff is not authorized to settle claims on behalf of putative collective members who have yet to opt in. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. Before the Court will approve this final settlement, the parties must move for conditional certification and either (1) propose a notice procedure that would allow putative collective members to opt in prior to final approval, or (2) submit a new motion explaining, with authoritative caselaw, how Section 216(b) permits the Court to simultaneously resolve the named Plaintiffs' claims and authorize a binding settlement on behalf of putative collective members who have not yet joined the case as parties. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=96Yxta from PacerMonitor.com. LOUISVILLE, KY: Agrees to Settle Unlawful Detention Suit for $20MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ WDRB reports that Metro Louisville agreed to pay $20 million to the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit who claimed they were improperly detained in jail for several hours, days, weeks and even months after they were supposed to be released. Garry Adams, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said the amount still needs to be approved by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings. "LMDC has implemented new policies and software designed to prevent future over-detentions, which will be outlined in the final agreement," Adams said in a written statement Tuesday. Metro government has already paid about $2 million to a Texas-based company Analytic Focus to conduct an audit of the issue. For the entire seven-year period starting in February 2017, the company estimated about 6,865 inmates were detained too long, according to the 2023 report. The lawsuit applies to anyone since February 2016 who was held at least four hours after serving out a jail sentence and those who were detained at least 12 hours after being ordered released by a judge after making bond or qualifying for home incarceration, among other reasons. The city had asked the Sixth Circuit to deny class-action status for the lawsuit. But in a unanimous 3-0 decision, the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling, allowing the suit to proceed as a class action case. Jennings, whose role was limited to determining whether the case had class action arguments, ruled Jan. 15 that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the jail's "failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates." Retired Metro Corrections Director Mark Bolton and the man who replaced him — Bolton's longtime deputy, Dwayne Clark — knew since at least 2012 that problems in the jail's records department were causing people to be jailed illegally but did little about it, according to testimony and an audit by the city. Attorneys described Bolton and Clark as having a "laissez faire" attitude about the issue. Clark, who oversaw the records unit, had no policy that late releases be reported or explained to him, for example, attorneys said in court records. And he estimated in court testimony that around 10 people or less are detained too long each year while shifting much of the blame to court employees. "One is too many, don't get me wrong, but ten people?" Clark said in his deposition years ago. "It isn't this big issue as you're portraying to me. It's not." Bolton said in 2021 that while he couldn't talk about specifics of the lawsuit, the courts were the main source of the problems being created. But a city audit showed only about 7% of the release problems came from problematic court orders. The cause of the problems, according to a 2017 letter from an FOP representative to a judge, is inadequate staffing and training, as well as outdated procedures and equipment. [GN] LOYA INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle Underinsurance Suit for $1.95MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Loya Insurance agreed to pay $1.95 million to resolve claims it misrepresented the value of underinsured motorist coverage and applied an offset to claims. The Young America Insurance settlement benefits Young America Insurance Co. (YAIC) and Loya Insurance Co. policyholders who resided in New Mexico and purchased UM/UIM coverage between Oct. 1, 2010, and Feb. 28, 2022, including those who later filed underinsured motorist claims and had benefits reduced or denied due to undisclosed third-party insurance offsets. Loya Insurance is an insurance company that offers various insurance products, including auto insurance. Young America Insurance is a Loya Insurance affiliate. According to two class action lawsuits, Loya Insurance misrepresented the value of its underinsured motorist coverage and applied an illegal offset when paying claims. The offset allegedly reduced UIM benefits based on the insurance coverage limits of third parties responsible for bodily injuries or property damage. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits say this practice violates New Mexico law. Loya Insurance has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.95 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the underinsured motorist insurance settlement, eligible class members may receive a readjustment of their bodily injury and/or property damage UIM claims. The total amount available for all approved UIM claim readjustments is capped at $800,000. Class members who wish to receive a claim readjustment must submit a valid claim form. Class members who do not wish to receive a claim readjustment can receive a refund of a portion of the uninsured/underinsured motorist premiums they paid between Oct. 1, 2010, and Feb. 28, 2022. These refunds will be based on the amount of UM/UIM premiums paid by each class member. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 26, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Young America Insurance settlement is scheduled for March 24, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 12, 2026. Who's Eligible YAIC and Loya Insurance policyholders who resided in New Mexico and purchased UM/UIM coverage between Oct. 1, 2010, and Feb. 28, 2022, including those who later filed underinsured motorist claims and had benefits reduced or denied due to undisclosed third-party insurance offsets. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Previous claim form Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/12/2026 Case Name Apodaca v. Young America Insurance Co., Case No. 18-cv-00399-KK-JMR, and Swiech v. Loya Insurance Co., Case No. 25-cv-00047-KK-JMR, both in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico Final Hearing 03/24/2026 Settlement Website LoyaUIMSettlement.com Claims Administrator Swiech and Apodaca v. Loya Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2078 Portland, OR 97208-2078 info@LoyaUIMSettlement.com (877) 708-7677 Class Counsel Kedar Bhasker LAW OFFICE OF KEDAR BHASKER LLC Corbin Hildebrandt CORBIN HILDEBRANDT P.C. Geoffrey Romero ROMERO, HARADA, WINTERS LLC Andrea D. Harris Matthew J. Zamora VALLE, O'CLEIREACHAIN, ZAMORA & HARRIS Defense Counsel Michael E. Mumford BAKER HOSTETLER LLP [GN] MDL 2724: Defendants Seek to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal the Defendants' opposition to Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' ("IRPs") motion for class certification and accompanying exhibit Nos. 1-12. Defendants have conferred with counsel for IRPs who affirmed that this motion is unopposed. The Memorandum and Exhibit Nos. 1-12 reference or contain materials designated as Protected Material pursuant to the Protective Order. The Defendants are also seeking to seal similar materials such as the expert report of Dr. John Johnson, dated Jan. 19, 2026, the expert report of Subramaniam Ramanarayanan, PhD, dated Jan. 19, 2026, the expert report of Lawrence Wu, PhD, dated Jan. 19, 2026, and excerpts from the deposition transcripts of Dr. Williams and Dr. Link. The Court subsequently granted IRPs' motion to seal. As such, the Defendants believe good cause exists to seal Defendants’ Opposition and accompanying exhibits, such that disclosure of the materials would work a clearly defined and serious injury, as materials the same or similar to those previously approved to be sealed for the same briefing would be disclosed if not sealed in this instance. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lkRAmQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Colin R. Kass, Esq. David A. Munkittrick, Esq. Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq. Grant Esposito, Esq. David Fioccola, Esq. Christopher Ondeck, Esq. Bart Williams, Esq. Kyle Casazza, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 416-6890 E-mail: ckass@proskauer.com bruskin@proskauer.com dmunkittrick@proskauer.com gesposito@proskauer.com dfioccola@proskauer.com condeck@proskauer.com bwilliams@proskauer.com kcasazza@proskauer.com - and - Meg Slachetka, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS 601 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 2004 Telephone: (202) 742-4300 E-mail: meg@competitionlawpartners.com Attorneys for Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. Jason R. Parish, Esq. Bradley J. Kitlowski, Esq. Caroline Bassett Warren, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 452-7900 Facsimile: (202) 452-7989 E-mail: Jason.parish@bipc.com Bradley.kitlowski@bipc.com Caroline.warren@bipc.com Attorneys for Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Sheron Korpus, Esq. Seth A. Moskowitz, Esq. Seth Davis, Esq. KASOWITZ LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-1700 E-mail: skorpus@kasowitz.com smoskowitz@kasowitz.com sdavis@kasowitz.com Attorneys for Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA Robert W. Manoso, Esq. Dimitra Doufekias, Esq. Michael B. Miller, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2100 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 887-1500 Facsimile: (202) 887-0763 E-mail: rmanoso@mofo.com ddoufekias@mofo.com mbmiller@mofo.com MED ATLANTIC: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Med Atlantic data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Med Atlantic data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Med Atlantic Security Incident: What Happened? Virginia Urology, a medical provider with seven office locations in central Virginia, has announced a data breach affecting Med Atlantic, Inc., which provides services to Virginia Urology and other regional urology providers. Med Atlantic detected the data breach on November 10, 2025 and acted to stop the breach, secure the data and enlist third-party experts to investigate. According to a sample data breach notice provided to the Vermont Attorney General's Office, the Med Atlantic data breach may have allowed unauthorized access to personal information processed by human resources, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and employment information. A report from the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation indicates that medical records may have also been compromised, and a notice posted on Virginia Urology's website (pictured below) states that an unauthorized individual may have accessed health information related to services received at Mid Atlantic. In December 2025, DataBreaches.net reported that hackers going by the name MS13-089 claimed to have breached Virginia Urology's systems and stolen 927 GB of data on November 9, 2025. Sample files reviewed by the publication reportedly indicated that patient information, including names, dates of birth, contact information, health insurance data and detailed medical information, may have been exposed. What You Can Do After the Med Atlantic Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Med Atlantic data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Med Atlantic to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Klein Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Klein class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Multiple putative class actions have also been filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in the United Kingdom against the Company alleging violations of antitrust laws and other causes of action in connection with these acquisitions and/or other alleged anticompetitive conduct, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. Several of the cases brought on behalf of certain advertisers and users in the United States were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Klein et al., v. Meta Platforms, Inc.). On December 30, 2024, the Company filed its motion for summary judgment in the putative class action brought on behalf of certain advertisers, which is pending with the court. On January 24, 2025, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the action brought on behalf of users, permitting it to proceed only on an individual basis as to the named plaintiffs. On September 29, 2025, in the user action, the court granted its motion, entering judgment in its favor. On October 27, 2025, plaintiffs in the user action filed a notice of appeal. Meta Platforms Inc. owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Plumbers Class Suit in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend the Plumbers & Steamfitters class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 8, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the disclosure of its earnings results for the fourth quarter of 2021 and seeking unspecified damages (Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust v. Meta Platforms, Inc.). On July 18, 2023, the court dismissed the claims against Meta and its officers with leave to amend. On September 18, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on September 17, 2024, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice. On October 14, 2024, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal and oral argument was held on January 6, 2026. Meta Platforms Inc. owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit related to the earnings results disclosure for the second quarter of 2018. Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in federal court in the United States against the Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the disclosure of its earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking unspecified damages. These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (In Re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litigation) with the putative securities class action described above relating to its platform and user data practices. In a series of orders in 2019 and 2020, the district court granted its motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. On January 17, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the order dismissing their case, and on October 18, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the district court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' case. The Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari on March 4, 2024 with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's order. The Supreme Court granted in part its petition for writ of certiorari on June 10, 2024, and following oral argument issued an order on November 22, 2024 dismissing the grant of certiorari as improvidently granted. On January 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit returned the case to the district court. On July 1, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint. On September 2, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. Meta Platforms Inc. owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. META PLATFORMS: DZ Reserve Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Resolution ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2026, that the DZ Reserve class suit is stayed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pending resolution of its appeal. Beginning on August 15, 2018, multiple putative class actions were filed against the Company alleging that it inflated its estimates of the potential audience size for advertisements, resulting in artificially increased demand and higher prices. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (DZ Reserve v. Facebook, Inc.) and seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In a series of rulings in 2019, 2021, and 2022, the court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' claims, but permitted their fraud and unfair competition claims to proceed. On March 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the order granting class certification. On May 3, 2024, it filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Ninth Circuit. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 2, 2024, which was denied. It then moved to compel arbitration, which the district court denied. The Company appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration to the Ninth Circuit on December 3, 2025. The matter is stayed in district court pending resolution of its appeal. Meta Platforms Inc. owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. META PLATFORMS: Kadrey Summary Judgment Hearing Set for July 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2026, that the Kadrey class suit summary judgment motions hearing is scheduled on July 16, 2026. Beginning on July 7, 2023, multiple cases, including putative class actions, were filed against the Company in the United States and elsewhere, alleging that it improperly acquired, distributed, and used various copyrighted materials and/or other types of data to train its artificial intelligence models and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In the United States, statutory damages for copyright liability are calculated on a per work basis, which may result in substantial damages, particularly given the large volumes of data required to train AI models. The cases in the United States, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Kadrey, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Chabon, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Farnsworth v. Meta Platforms, Inc.) and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Huckabee, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., which was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California), have been consolidated into Kadrey, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Motions for summary judgment were heard in this case on May 1, 2025, including on the issue of the applicability of the fair use defense to use of copyrighted books for generative AI model training. On June 25, 2025, the court granted its motion for summary judgment on fair use as to the named plaintiffs in the case. The parties will proceed to brief the remaining claim of copyright infringement due to alleged distribution of books to third parties during the downloading process. The court is scheduled to hear summary judgment motions on July 16, 2026. Meta Platforms Inc. owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. META PLATFORMS: Trial in Lovdahl-Gormsen Suit to Start Sept. 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2026, that the Lovdahl-Gormsen class suit trial is set to start in September 2027. On February 11, 2022, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the UK Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) under the UK collective proceedings regime (Lovdahl-Gormsen v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.). On October 6, 2023, following the denial of class certification, the class representative submitted an amended claim alleging abuse of dominance relating to aspects of its data processing practices and seeking damages. The CAT certified the amended claim on February 15, 2024. Trial is scheduled to begin in September 2027. Meta Platforms Inc. owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. MINNESOTA: Detainee Sues Over Unlawful Detention Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Luetkemeyer, writing for Courthouse News Service, Federal immigration agents in Minnesota are pressuring detainees into waiving their rights while holding them in a facility unfit for human habitation, according to a class action from a Minnesota advocacy group. The Advocates for Human Rights and a detained individual filed the 18-page complaint in federal court on January 27, challenging "unlawful detention practices" at federal facilities in Minnesota -- specifically at the Bishop Henry Whipple Building, named in honor of a 19th-century activist who fought for the rights of noncitizens. The advocacy group claims the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with other federal agencies and officials, are violating the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act. "We continue to oppose the Trump-Vance administration's form of 'catch me if you can' justice," Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, said in a press release Wednesday, January 28. "The administration is detaining people in a federal facility that was never meant for long-term custody, denying them access to counsel, shackling them during secretive transfers, and using fear and exhaustion to pressure them into giving up their rights." The lead unnamed plaintiff has been a St. Paul resident since 2019, and was arrested during a routine check-in while her asylum application was pending. Her attorneys state that ICE refused to let them speak with her so that a habeas petition could be filed. The advocacy group details a pattern of obstruction in the complaint, claiming ICE agents have refused to allow detainees to make outgoing phone calls until after they are "booked" -- a process that often results in a detainee being transferred out of the state. The group says that even when detainees are permitted to make a phone call, there is no place to do so privately, and ICE personally "can and do listen" to their phone calls -- adding to the pressure on those in custody. Attorneys have also reportedly been threatened with arrest for attempting to visit their clients at the Whipple building, despite receiving permission from officials to use the designated visitation rooms. The plaintiffs also point to two federal judge rulings in New York and Illinois ordering ICE to provide detainees with adequate access to counsel in their respective states. The lawsuit follows a formal demand for transparency from Minnesota's top lawmakers. Last week, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith called on ICE to immediately restore access to counsel for detainees. The dramatic increase in detentions in Minnesota follows "Operation Metro Surge," a large-scale DHS enforcement campaign that began last month in the Twin Cities. On Jan. 19, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed ICE had arrested somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000 immigrants in Minneapolis since the operation began. The vast majority of those arrested have reportedly been transported to the Whipple building just outside of Minneapolis -- previously used only for short-term holding due to lacking beds, adequate toilets and other infrastructure. The advocacy group is seeking immediate court intervention to restore detainees' right to access counsel, and prevent retaliatory and obstructive practices by ICE and DHS agents that block legal representation. The plaintiffs also challenge the government's use of the civilian federal building as an unauthorized detention center. The Whipple building has recently become a central point of tension in Minneapolis, drawing mass protests following the fatal shootings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers. This case adds to a growing pile of litigation between Minnesota and the federal government, and comes just days after a chief federal judge threatened to hold the acting ICE director in contempt for flouting previous court orders to release certain detained individuals. [GN] MONEY MATCHMAKER: Needle Bid to Dismiss Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADEAN HILL, JR. v. MONEY MATCHMAKER CO., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00558-ALM-BD (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Bill Davis recommended that Needle's motion for summary judgment, Needle's motion to dismiss, and Brooks's motion to dismiss be dismissed without prejudice as premature. The defendants may re-urge their motions after class certification discovery is complete. Within 14 days after service of this report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. A party is entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the findings and conclusions contained in this report only if specific objections are made. Failure to timely file written objections to any proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report will bar an aggrieved party from appellate review of those factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Adean Hill, Jr., sued Money Matchmaker Co., Alternative Solutions Media LLC, and their CEOs for violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and related provisions of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, Tex. Bus. & Com. The Defendant specializes in providing businesses with access to boutique lending solutions. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Jan. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OGyHcA at no extra charge.[CC] MSC INDUSTRIAL: MCHRC Files Securities Suit in NY Court ------------------------------------------------------- MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2026, that on March 14, 2025, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund (MCRHC) against the company and certain officers, directors and shareholders of the company. In June 2025, the MCRHC filed an amended complaint. The action is purportedly brought by MCRHC individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, as a class action or in the alternative, as a derivative action on behalf of the company. The amended complaint also asserts a breach of contract claim against the Company. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties for actions related to its financial reporting and seeks disgorgement, unspecified damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On November 14, 2025, the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied. MSC is a North American distributor of a broad range of metalworking and maintenance, repair and operations products and services. NOVO NORDISK: Faces Suit Over Pay-for-Delay Scheme of Diabetes Drug ------------------------------------------------------------------- Khac Phu Nguyen, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that a class action lawsuit filed on Friday, January 30, is bringing Novo Nordisk (NYSE:NVO) back into the spotlight, with allegations that its handling of competition around Victoza may have delayed the arrival of cheaper alternatives. The complaint, filed in New York federal court by South Carolina-based wholesaler Smith Drug, argues that Novo entered into a settlement arrangement with Teva Pharmaceutical that could have postponed generic competition for the diabetes drug, a claim that may matter to investors assessing the durability of Novo's older GLP-1 portfolio. According to the lawsuit, the alleged agreement dates back to a 2019 settlement that resolved a patent dispute between Novo and Teva (NYSE:TEVA). The filing contends that if not for that deal, generic versions of Victoza could have been available as early as 2023. While Teva is not named as a defendant, the suit characterizes the arrangement as a pay-for-delay scheme, suggesting Novo may have compensated Teva in exchange for deferring the launch of its generic product. Teva ultimately launched the first generic version of Victoza in 2024, following years in which the branded drug continued to generate significant revenue for Novo. Victoza, Novo's first-generation GLP-1 treatment, had amassed $1.7 billion in annual sales as of April 2024. Reuters reported that the lawsuit is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of a proposed class of Victoza buyers, a development that could introduce legal and financial uncertainty around one of Novo's legacy diabetes franchises. [GN] PELICAN INVESTMENT: Loses Judgment on Pleadings Bid in "Showers" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Angelina Showers, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC, Dimension Service Corporation, and Sing for Service, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-CV-02864-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in a Memorandum and Order filed January 30, 2026. The Plaintiff alleges that she received unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls even though her number is on a national Do Not Call list. She brings this action against Defendants alleging claims under federal and state law. On September 30, 2024, the Court partially granted Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 16, 2024. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint advances two causes of action: violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq. and violation of the Illinois Telephone Solicitations Act, 815 ILCS 413/1, et seq. Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot maintain a TCPA claim because her phone number is associated with a cell phone and thus ineligible for registration on the national DNC list. They also argue that their alleged use of automatic dialing technology is fatal to Plaintiff's claim under ITSA. Plaintiff alleges that Dimension, in concert with a company called Sunpath, Ltd., administered an aggressive telemarketing campaign to sell Vehicle Service Contracts across the country, including in Illinois. Pelican initiated and carried out these calls on Dimension's behalf, thus acting as Dimension's agent in the scheme. Mepco acted as a payment processor, facilitating monthly premium payments from consumers for the VSCs they purchased. All Defendants acted in concert and had full knowledge of the calling campaign, ratified it, and profited from it. Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all natural persons in the United States of America who, during the applicable statute of limitations, received a telephone call from Defendants that was initiated to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government. The Illinois subclass is defined as all natural persons in the State of Illinois who, during the applicable statute of limitations, received a telephone call from Defendants wherein: the live operator did not immediately state his or her name, nor the name of the business or organization being represented; the live operator represented that they were soliciting Extended Warranties; and/or the consumer made payment over the telephone. Regarding the TCPA violation claim, Defendants' dispositive argument turns on the phrase residential telephone subscriber. The implementing regulations prohibit calls to a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the Federal Government. Plaintiff's phone number, however, is assigned to a cell phone. Defendants point to Section 227(b)'s express distinction between calls placed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service and those placed to a residential telephone line to argue that Congress was aware of the difference between residential and cell phones and chose to regulate them differently. The Court found the implementing regulations are clear in their scope. While subsection 64.1200(c)(2) forbids calls to numbers on the DNC list, subsection (e) extends that prohibition to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages to wireless telephone numbers. The FCC found that it is more consistent with the overall intent of the TCPA to allow wireless subscribers to benefit from the full range of TCPA protections. It also concluded that wireless subscribers may participate in the national do-not-call list. According to the Court, Section 227(b) forbids the use of artificial and prerecorded messages to enumerated categories of phone technologies. But Section 227(c) provides protections to a certain type of phone user, regardless of the technology. It directs the FCC to craft regulations that protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. The FCC did exactly that by creating the DNC list and making it unlawful to initiate telemarketing calls to residential telephone subscribers whose numbers are on it. The Court stated that cellular telephones are a kind of telephonic communications technology. A residential subscriber, by contrast, does not refer to the specific phone technology, but to the type or identity of the subscriber to the technology. Thus, a residential subscriber and a cellular telephone are not members of the same genus. Congress's deliberate choice to address residential telephone lines exclusively in Section 227(b)(1)(B) suggests that residential telephone subscribers under Section 227(c) are entitled to their own protections. The Court's adoption of the FCC's determination that cell phone users may qualify as residential telephone subscribers under the TCPA is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). The FCC was directed to prescribe regulations that protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. Regarding the ITSA violation claim, Defendants contest Plaintiff's standing to bring an ITSA claim because the calls in question were allegedly made using an ATDS. Defendants are correct that ITSA, by its terms, shall not apply to telephone calls made by an autodialer. Thus, they argue that Plaintiff pleaded herself out of court by claiming that they used an automatic telephone dialing system to call her. The problem with Defendants' argument is that all of them have denied this allegation in the Second Amended Complaint. For these reasons, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was denied. Mepco's Motion in Concurrence was granted insofar as the Court has considered Mepco a proponent of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. With this Order, the discovery stay issued on August 18, 2025 is lifted. The parties are directed to submit a proposed amended scheduling order for the case on or before February 6, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nNpunk from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Angelina Showers is represented by Michael E. Vinding of Brady & Vinding, email: mvinding@bradyvinding.com; Derek Y. Brandt of Mccune, Wright Et Al, LLP, email: dyb@mccunewright.com; Gene J. Stonebarger of Stonebarger Law Apc, email: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com; and Leigh M. Perica of Mccune Wright Et Al, LLP, email: lmp@mccunewright.com. Defendants Dimension Service Corporation and Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC are represented by Jamie L. Filipovic of Ohagan Meyer, email: jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com. Defendant Sing For Service, LLC is represented by Y'Noka Bass of Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC, email: ybass@tdrlaw.com; and Michael J. Grant of Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC, email: mgrant@tdrlawfirm.com. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Lead Content in Tampons --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble. Why: The plaintiffs claim the company's Tampax Pearl tampons contain lead, a known neurotoxin. Where: The Tampax tampons class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. Procter & Gamble is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging its Tampax Pearl tampons contain lead. Plaintiff Olga Otkina and seven others filed the class action complaint against Procter & Gamble in Illinois federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, P&G falsely advertises its Tampax Pearl products as free from harmful substances while failing to disclose that they contain or are at risk of containing lead, a powerful neurotoxin. The plaintiffs' independent testing reportedly confirmed the presence of lead in the portion of the tampon that is inserted vaginally, raising concerns about direct absorption into the bloodstream. Lead exposure through vaginal absorption is especially dangerous because it bypasses the liver's metabolic functions, the lawsuit alleges. Tampax tampons allegedly contain up to 40 times more lead than EPA standard The class action lawsuit alleges that P&G sold the tampons at a premium price based on false advertising and misrepresentations. The plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased the products had they known about the lead contamination. The lead levels found in the tampons are reportedly between 12.6 and 40.8 times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency's action level standard for lead in drinking water. The class action lawsuit further alleges that P&G failed to update its product labeling or warn consumers of the potential risks despite being aware of the issue due to prior lawsuits and studies. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent anyone in the United States, excluding California, who purchased Tampax tampons within the applicable statute of limitations period. They are suing for violations of state and federal consumer laws and seek certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In November, a group of consumers sued Procter & Gamble over similar allegations that its Tampax-brand tampons contain unsafe levels of lead. The plaintiffs are represented by Andrea R. Gold of Tycko & Zavareei LLP; Jason P. Sultzer and Chuck Schimmel of Sultzer & Lipari; Charles E. Schaffer, Daniel C. Levin and Nicholas J. Elia of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP; and D. Aaron Rihn and Sara Watkins of Robert Peirce & Associates P.C. The Tampax tampons class action lawsuit is Otkina, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00773, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] RICKY DIXON: Barde Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL BARDE and CARLA VARNER, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, v. RICKY D. DIXON, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department Corrections; and CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, a company registered and doing business in Florida, Case No. 4:25-cv-00463-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file for class certification pending the Court's consideration of the Parties' Rule 26 report with proposed alternative deadlines for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on Oct. 31, 2025. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TX4h90 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erica S. Downs, Esq. Dante P. Trevisani, Esq. FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE 40 NW 3rd Street, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33128 Telephone: (305) 358-2081 Facsimile: (305) 358-0910 E-mail: edowns@fji.law dtrevisani@fji.law - and - Kristin McGough, Esq. Gabriela Plasencia, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1901 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 282-5000 E-mail: kmcgough@winston.com gplasencia@winston.com RYVYL INC: Obligated to Issue 122,164 Shares of Common Stock ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryvyl Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2026, that pursuant to a previously disclosed stipulation and agreement of settlement, dated as of July 9, 2025, in connection with the putative class action lawsuit Case No. 3:23-cv-00185-GPC-SBC, on January 2, 2026, the company became obligated to issue 122,164 shares of its common stock, par value $0.001. The settlement agreement required the company to issue 700,000 settlement shares or, in the event of a reverse stock split, a number of settlement shares such that the value of such shares equals no less than $700,000. The company effected a one-for-thirty-five (1-for-35) reverse stock split of its outstanding shares of common stock pursuant to the order approving the settlement agreement by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The company issued the settlement shares in consideration for settlement with the plaintiffs in the class action in reliance on the exemption from registration under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Pursuant to the settlement agreement and court order, the company also provided a put option for the benefit of the settlement class, exercisable by counsel in its sole discretion, pursuant to which it may the sell the settlement shares back to the company at a price being reformulated pursuant to the agreement in light of the reverse split in the event that the 10-day average closing price of the common stock falls below the closing price on the date of the issuance of the settlement shares. RYVYL Inc. is a financial technology company that develops, markets, and sells innovative blockchain-based payment solutions, which offer significant improvements for the payment solutions marketplace. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Software Update Failure ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of classAction.org reports that Samsung faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges an October 2024 software update rolled out to Galaxy S22 users nationwide rendered many of the mobile devices inoperable, and that the electronics giant failed to offer any meaningful relief to consumers. The 50-page defective product lawsuit contends that the October 2024 One UI 6.1.1 update, which Samsung promoted as a system upgrade to enhance device performance, particularly through AI-driven features, had a "devastating impact" on Galaxy S22, S22+ and S22 Ultra devices, with many smartphones left trapped in an endless reboot loop characterized by repeated crashing, data loss and ultimately failure. According to the class action lawsuit, Samsung was aware prior to selling the Galaxy S22 devices that the products were "susceptible to critical and potentially fatal defects" stemming from the 6.1.1 software update, including catastrophic motherboard damage and total device loss, yet failed to disclose the risk to consumers or timely stop the update. The case alleges Samsung also denied warranty coverage or refused to offer repairs free of charge, "even when the damage was clearly caused by its own software." Despite "widespread and immediate" complaints from users, Samsung has not recalled the impacted Galaxy S22 devices or offered refunds or any other meaningful support, the suit states. The defendant, a global powerhouse in the personal electronics industry, continues to profit from its sale of the Galaxy S22 smartphones without disclosing the alleged defects, the lawsuit says. Galaxy S22 devices were touted as professional-grade, AI-powered smartphones, case says The Samsung Galaxy lawsuit says that the S22 devices were launched in early 2022 with "great fanfare and aggressive marketing," as Samsung promoted the products as professional-grade, AI-powered smartphones designed for long-term performance. Per the case, the Galaxy S22 smartphones were designed not merely as a communication device but as an "intelligent productivity tool" capable of handling remote work, creative production, and multitasking. Further, the suit notes that Samsung, in response to consumer concerns about device durability and security, announced it would support the new S22 phones with four years of "major Android OS upgrades and give years of security updates," a first in the Android ecosystem. The promise was "designed to assure consumers that their investment in Samsung hardware would be supported and warranted well into the future," the case says. According to the complaint, Samsung was aware of the 6.1.1 update defect "prior to or shortly after" it was rolled out globally, and shortly after the update was released, online forums were flooded with complaints from users demanding answers from the company. "Affected consumers lost access to stored data, contacts, and cloud-linked services," the filing says. "Many were forced to perform factory resets or pursue costly third-party repairs -- despite Samsung's warranty still being active in many cases." Although Samsung eventually acknowledged that its SmartThings Framework app -- a system service that enables the UI and backend functionality of Galaxy smartphones to control smart home devices directly -- was "causing some Galaxy devices to reboot," the company did not issue a recall, and instead advised users to fix their devices themselves, the case continues. Lawsuit takes issue with Samsung's Galaxy S22 alleged refusal to help users The class action lawsuit summarizes that Samsung's advertising representations about the Galaxy S22 devices' longevity, software support and update reliability were "materially misleading," particularly given that Samsung, the suit alleges, "failed to adequately test its own updates" to ensure compatibility with device hardware. According to the suit, Samsung made no mention of the risk posed by the 6.1.1 update despite having rolled the update out in phases and "likely receiving internal bug reports" before it was released globally. Samsung offers a number of guarantees with the purchase of a Galaxy device, including a standard one-year manufacturer's warranty that excludes coverage for software-related issues unless they result from a defect in materials or workmanship, the filing says. The case reiterates that Samsung also includes with the Galaxy smartphones up to four years of Android OS updates and five years of security updates. However, Samsung outright "refused to honor such extended warranties for phones damaged by the 6.1.1 update," leaving consumers to bear the cost of device repairs and replacements, the lawsuit claims. The suit calls the terms of Samsung's limited warranty "procedurally and substantively unconscionable" in light of the widespread damage caused by the software update. Further, the complaint says that users who have contacted Samsung Support have been frequently met with "generic troubleshooting suggestions," such as restating their phones in safe mode or performing a factory reset, none of which address the underlying update defect. Multiple users who sought assistance at authorized Samsung dealers reported being informed that their devices needed motherboard replacements, or could not be repaired at all, and that repair costs would not be covered under warranty, the filing states. The plaintiff's experience aligns with the reported defects The plaintiffs in the case are two New York residents who, after being prompted by Samsung to install the 6.1.1 update, were left with devices experiencing severe malfunctions and eventual failure. One plaintiff, after sending her device in for repair, was quoted $500 by Samsung to replace the motherboard as the device was out of warranty, the suit shares. Per the case, the second plaintiff held out on installing the 6.1.1 update for months because of the widespread issues being reported until May 2025, when, the complaint says, it became "necessary" to install the update to run all features on his device. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff similarly experienced device failure and went to Verizon to obtain a replacement phone under his insurance plan, but also had to pay out-of-pocket for an additional device while waiting for the new phone to arrive. Had the plaintiffs known that the 6.1.1 software update would impact their devices and render them unusable, they would not have purchased their Galaxy S22 smartphones or would have paid less for them. "In a competitive market where consumers are asked to pay upwards of $1,000 for a device, assurances of long-term functionality and reliable software support are not only material -- they are central to the purchase decision," the suit summarizes. Who does the Samsung Galaxy S22 lawsuit look to cover? The Samsung Galaxy S22 class action looks to cover all United States residents who, within the four years prior to the filing of the complaint, purchased a Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+ or S22 Ultra device. I own a Samsung Galaxy device. How do I join the lawsuit? Typically, there is nothing a consumer needs to do to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. The time to take action typically occurs in the event of a class action settlement, at which point the people covered by the case, called class members, may receive notice of the settlement with instructions on how to submit a claim form for benefits. [GN] SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Gomez 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 Gomez PAGA class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On August 12, 2024, former employee Mando Gomez filed a class and PAGA action in the Alameda County Superior Court (the "Gomez Case") alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Gomez Case seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between August 12, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. 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 Guerrero Labor 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 Guerrero labor class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On September 20, 2024, former employee Frank J. Leon Guerrero filed class in the Alameda County Superior Court (the "Guerrero Cases") alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases, alleging violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of business expenses. The Guerrero class action seeks certification of several classes comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between September 20, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. 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 Labor 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 Lobatos labor class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On May 16, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos filed class action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. It alleges violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of business expenses. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company within the State of California at any time between March 1, 2021 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Lobatos class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between May 16, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. 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 Labor 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 Labor Code and Wage 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 (together, the "Ramirez Case"). The putative class action, alleges violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of business expenses. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company within the State of California at any time between March 1, 2021 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. 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. SIG SAUER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective P320 Pistols ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that P320 pistols manufactured by Sig Sauer are defective as they do not possess certain expected safety features and are effectively ready to fire as soon as a round of bullets is loaded. According to the 30-page Sig Sauer lawsuit, the company regularly dismisses concerns from both consumers and law enforcement agencies over the "needlessly dangerous" design of the P320 and attempts to "uniformly conceal the defect" from the public. The defect is said to consist of three components and impacts all models of the purportedly lightweight, easy-to-use P320 regardless of size or add-ons, the suit relays. Firstly, the case explains that P320s are fully energized, or charged up with the mechanical energy required for firing, as soon as a round is chambered. Second, the trigger pull of the P320 is much shorter and lighter than that of competitors' pistols, the case further relays, which means a user does not need to exert as much force to fire the gun. Though the design makes the pistol lighter and easier to use, it also means that the P320 can "discharge a bullet any time a round is chambered" with significantly less effort, the class action lawsuit says. Despite this, the case points out that Sig Sauer elected not to design the P320 with any external safety features regularly used on other pistols, such as manual safeties, trigger safeties, or grip safeties that prevent the guns from activating. Per the complaint, this third design choice exacerbates the dangers of the first two by minimizing external safety controls that gun users regularly rely on to prevent a loaded gun from firing. "Because the P320 is effectively cocked when loaded, the P320 is functionally equivalent to a single action pistol with the hammer cocked back, i.e., ready to fire and without any safety features to prevent it from firing," the case states. According to the complaint, the P320 was originally designed using "leftover parts" of a past Sig Sauer pistol that was taken off the market for safety concerns. The complaint further states that Sig Sauer's engineering team was "sidelined" during the design phase of the P320 and that "[b]efore working on the P320, no one on the P320's design team had ever designed a striker fired pistol." Since its unveiling, the lawsuit mentions, Sig Sauer has received over 200 complaints of unintended discharges of the P320, many of which have led to serious accidents and fatalities, including those of police officers. Moreover, a 2017 report that Sig Sauer provided to the U.S. Army found that the P320 is at "a 'high' risk for having an accidental discharge that could kill a person unintentionally," the suit says. Taken together, the lawsuit argues, the evidence indicates that Sig Sauer is well aware of the P320's design defect yet continues to sell the gun without any warning about its risks. "Indeed, Sig Sauer's response to customer complaints and media reports about the P320 has been a strategy of denial. Sig Sauer's internal documents show that the company blames the 'anti-gun media' . . . the injured officers and their lawyers . . . or even its competitor, Glock," the lawsuit discloses. Notably, Sig Sauer allegedly leans into advertising campaigns based on military combat and the company's relationship with the U.S. Armed Forces, but the complaint points out that the military-grade Sig Sauer pistol includes "several design modifications" and is not the same as the standard P320 model available to consumers. The Sig Sauer class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who purchased a Sig Sauer P320 pistol without an external thumb safety in Washington state between November 17, 2021 and the present. [GN] SIRIUS XM: Final OK Hearing in $28MM Telemarketing Suit Set May 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $28 million class action settlement ends a lawsuit that alleged Sirius XM Radio, Inc. illegally placed telemarketing calls to consumers registered on either the National Do Not Call Registry or the company's internal do-not-call registry. The Sirius XM class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on November 10, 2025 and covers anyone in the United States who received more than one telemarketing call to their landline, wireless, cell or mobile phone number(s) within a 12-month period between April 27, 2019 and October 31, 2025, where the calls were received either: -- After the person asked to register the relevant phone number on Sirius XM's internal do-not-call list; or -- More than 31 days after the relevant phone number was registered with the National Do Not Call registry, and the number holder was not a self-paying Sirius XM subscriber at the time of the first call or before the start of the second call. The court-approved website for the Sirius XM settlement can be found at SXMTCPASettlement.com. Sirius XM settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a cash payment from the $28 million settlement fund after the payment of legal and administrative fees and lead plaintiff awards, the settlement website shares. To submit a Sirius XM claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and either log in with the unique notice ID and confirmation code found in their copy of the settlement notice or enter their contact information before proceeding with the claim. Alternatively, a PDF claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the document. All Sirius XM settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by March 21, 2026. Additionally, as part of the class action settlement, Sirius XM has agreed to implement certain business practices to ensure clear communication with its customers and third-party telemarketing vendors regarding its phone call policies to better comply with state and federal laws. A hearing is scheduled for May 11, 2026 to determine whether the Sirius XM settlement will receive final court approval. Payments will begin to be distributed only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Sirius XM class action lawsuit alleged that the satellite radio giant illegally placed unsolicited telemarketing calls to both subscribers who were registered on the company's internal do-not-call list and non-subscribers whose numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. [GN] SUNDAY APP: Faces Class Action Suit Over QR-Code Hidden Junk Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that the Sunday QR-code payment platform wrongfully tacks hidden junk fees onto the restaurant bills of consumers who use the mobile app to pay their checks. The 27-page fraud lawsuit contends that although Sunday touts its QR-code-based payment as a way for consumers to quickly pay their bills and for restaurants to streamline operations and improve customer experience, the company has generated millions by imposing a hidden, mandatory "convenience" fee at the end of the checkout process, after consumers have already committed to using Sunday to complete their payment. "Sunday prioritizes hidden revenue over transparency, exploiting consumer trust at each transaction," the class action lawsuit summarizes, characterizing the Sunday app "convenience" fee as no more than a wrongful junk fee. The complaint explains that restaurant-goers who use Sunday to pay their bill are expected to scan the QR code displayed on their receipt and proceed through the platform's multi-step payment flow, which includes inputting their payment information and identifying details into the system. Throughout this process, customers are shown a "total price" for the transaction with an individual breakdown of products on the Sunday app, which, the case argues, implies the total amount that a consumer is expected to be charged. The filing charges that Sunday fails to clearly and prominently disclose, before consumers reach the payment process, that it will automatically add an additional, mandatory "platform fee" to the transaction total. "This fee is not optional, is not tied to any consumer-selected add-on, and is assessed solely because the consumer pays through Sunday which is encouraged and even required by many restaurants," the lawsuit states. "This deceptive practice is intentionally designed to catch consumers off guard and extract additional revenue without their informed consent." The suit asserts that many consumers do not notice the additional fee tacked onto their order, and those who do often decide to continue to go through with the transaction anyway due to the substantial time and effort already invested into using Sunday's platform and completing the multi-step payment flow. "This is a classic form of digital 'drip pricing' that exploits consumer inertia and effectively deprives consumers of meaningful choice," the complaint says. Furthermore, the case argues that, because the Sunday platform fees are issued in varying amounts, often tied to the total amount of a customer's transaction, the "variability" of Sunday's fees is indicative of their unreasonable, wrongful inclusion, leaving no indication of how the platform fee contributes to the operation of the platform. "This coercive setup turns convenience into a trap, forcing consumers to pay more for no added value," the suit alleges. The Sunday App class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who paid a "Sunday Platform Fee" after making a purchase through the Sunday platform during the applicable statute of limitations period preceding the filing of the lawsuit to the date of class certification. [GN] SURDEX CORPORATION: Clarke Sues to recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Clarke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SURDEX CORPORATION, HOFFMANN AVIATION SERVICES, INC., and BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD., Case No. 4:26-cv-00086 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 21, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants employ survey pilots on rotational schedules of 15 consecutive days on duty followed by 13 consecutive days off duty. During their on-duty rotations, the Defendants' survey pilots regularly work more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants' policy and practice has been to misclassify its survey pilots as "exempt" under the FLSA to avoid paying them overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff prays that all similarly situated workers be notified of the pendency of this action to apprise them of their rights and provide them an opportunity to opt-in to this lawsuit. The Plaintiff also asserts an individual claim for unpaid overtime compensation under Missouri's wage laws that is not pursued on behalf of the putative collective action members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a survey pilot. The Defendants operate an aerial mapping and surveying business that utilizes "survey pilots" to perform flight operations and data collection for clients throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Doyle, Esq. John F. Doyle, Esq. Brittany K. Ussery, Esq. DOYLE & BRUCE LLC 748 Ann Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone: (913) 543-8558 Facsimile: (913) 543-3888 Email: Daniel@KCLaw.com John@KCLaw.com Brittany@KCLaw.com TEMPEL STEEL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $175,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Tempel Steel Company has agreed to pay $175,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging the steel manufacturer failed to safeguard the sensitive consumer information stored in its systems, leading to a February 2025 data breach. The Tempel Steel class action settlement received preliminary court approval on November 21, 2025, and covers approximately 5,192 individuals in the United States whose information may have been disclosed in the February 2025 data breach, including those who received notice from Tempel of the breach. The court-approved website for the Tempel Steel data breach settlement can be found at TempelDataSettlement.com. Settlement documents explain that Tempel Steel settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Those who submit a claim form with documented proof of ordinary losses related to the breach are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $1,000 in reimbursement. Per the settlement agreement, reimbursable expenses must have been incurred as a result of the data breach, and include those related to fraud, identity theft, credit monitoring, and credit repair services. Under the ordinary loss reimbursement option, the settlement agreement describes that class members may also file a claim for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach at a rate of $20 per hour, for a maximum of $80. According to the settlement site, the lost time cash payout is also subject to the $1,000 ordinary loss cap, and actions covered under this category include changing passwords, investigating suspicious account activity, and researching the data breach. The settlement agreement reports that class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of extraordinary expenses are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $4,000 in reimbursement. The settlement site further notes that claims for extraordinary expenses must be accompanied by documentation proving that the losses were a result of the data breach, are not covered by reimbursement for ordinary expenses or lost time, and that the class member attempted to prevent or remedy the loss by exhausting other avenues, such as insurance. In lieu of a documented loss payment, Tempel Steel settlement class members may alternatively submit a claim for a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the net settlement fund after all administrative expenses, attorneys' fees, and lead plaintiff service awards have been paid. No proof is required from class members to claim this benefit, and settlement documents estimate the alternative cash payment will be approximately $25. Finally, in addition to any monetary benefits, all Tempel settlement class members may submit a claim to enroll in two free years of CyEx Identity Total Defense, which offers one-bureau credit monitoring, dark web scanning and public records monitoring. To submit a Tempel Steel settlement claim form online, class members can visit this page and enter the unique ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the settlement site to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Tempel Steel settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than April 6, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the Tempel Steel settlement at a hearing on May 6, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Tempel Steel class action lawsuit claimed that the steel manufacturer failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the private consumer information on its network, leading to a targeted cyberattack occurring approximately between February 6, 2025 and February 7, 2025. Per court documents, the data potentially compromised in the February 2025 data breach included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, tax ID numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical information, driver's license numbers and financial account information. [GN] TESLA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas related to the effectiveness of Autopilot, Full-Self Driving (Supervised), and Robotaxi. On August 4, 2025, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk, and certain current and former Company executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws through alleged material misrepresentations in public filings regarding the effectiveness of Autopilot, Full-Self Driving (Supervised), and Robotaxi. The complaint seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025. Tesla is an electric car manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California. TESLA INC: FSD Capability Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2026, that the Full Self-Driving Capability (FSD Capability) class suit is stayed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pending arbitration. On September 14, 2022, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims about the Company's driver assistance technology systems under state and federal law. This case was later consolidated with several other proposed class actions, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 28, 2022, which seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased from Tesla between January 1, 2016, to the present. On March 22, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to order Tesla to (1) cease using the term "Full Self-Driving Capability" (FSD Capability), (2) cease the sale and activation of FSD Capability and deactivate FSD Capability on Tesla vehicles, and (3) provide certain notices to consumers about proposed court-findings about the accuracy of the use of the terms Autopilot and FSD Capability. Tesla opposed the motion. On September 30, 2023, the Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, compelled four of five plaintiffs to arbitration, and dismissed the claims of the fifth plaintiff with leave to amend the complaint. On October 31, 2023, the remaining plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which Tesla moved to dismiss, and on May 15, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Tesla’s motion. On May 6, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which Tesla opposed, and on August 18, 2025, the Court certified a limited class comprised of California consumers who are not subject to an arbitration agreement. On September 1, 2025, Tesla filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the class certification order, and on December 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted Tesla's petition. On January 5, 2026, the district court stayed the case pending resolution of the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit. Tesla's opening brief in the Ninth Circuit is due on March 12, 2026. On October 2, 2023, a similar proposed class action was filed in San Diego County Superior Court in California. Tesla subsequently removed the San Diego County case to federal court and on January 8, 2024, the federal court granted Tesla's motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Tesla moved to compel arbitration, which the plaintiff did not oppose, and on June 27, 2024, the Court stayed the case pending arbitration. Tesla is an electric car manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California. TOPPS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Box Set's Missing NBA Trading Cards ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Topps of misleading consumers after the trading card company revealed in an email that its 2025-26 NBA Chrome Basketball Trading Card Mega Box sets were missing the ultra-rare Blue X-Fractor cards, which were central to the company's marketing of the product. The 15-page lawsuit contends that Topps, one of the largest trading card producers worldwide, deceptively labeled the NBA Mega Box sets at issue with statements about the Blue X-Fractor cards, the most prized, valuable cards with the highest resale value. However, Topps revealed in a mid-January 2026 email that, due to an apparent printing error on product packaging, there was "zero chance" a consumer would pull a Blue X-Fractor card out of a Mega Box, the suit states. Though the defendant initially told consumers that only some Mega Boxes did not contain any Blue X-Fractor cards, Topps thereafter confessed that no Mega Boxes contained the prized cards, the complaint says. According to the case, the Topps Mega Boxes are sold as a collection of random player cards from a given professional league, with each card varying in value and consumers unable to discern which trading cards the box will contain before it is opened. Specifically, the case argues that because Topps included statements on its Mega Boxes that encouraged consumers to "Chase Exclusive Blue X-Fractors," buyers were reasonably led to believe that they had a chance to obtain a rare X-Fractor card within a Mega Box. " . . . Topps' Misrepresentation deprived Plaintiff and the Class of the benefit of their bargains, in that they purchased the Mega Box based on Topps' express representation they could pull an 'Exclusive Blue X-Fractor' card, when in reality that was never a possibility," the complaint states. After the email was sent, Topps changed the packaging of its Mega Boxes to remove any references to the X-Fractor cards and also slashed the price of the set from $84.99 to $49.99, the lawsuit continues. The suit argues that the price drop amounted to an "acknowledgement" by Topps that the false chance to obtain a Blue X-Fractor card increased the Mega Boxes' market value. The Topps class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in the United States who purchased a Mega Box from Topps or any of its authorized retailers during the applicable statute of limitations period, excluding purchases made on a secondary market. [GN] TOURO COLLEGE: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Yodice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK YODICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOURO COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cote entered an order granting the Defendant's Oct. 30, 2025, motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's July 29, 2025, motion for class certification is denied. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment for the Defendant and close the case. Touro is entitled to summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. Yodice has provided no evidence that Touro was enriched, let alone at Yodice’s expense, by collecting tuition from Yodice for the Spring 2020 semester. Yodice has failed to carry his burden to present evidence that the Defendant was enriched, much less unjustly enriched by his payment of tuition. Yodice received educational benefit and the anticipated course credits for his tuition; TCDM lost money in the course of providing Yodice with that education in the midst of a pandemic. Yodice filed this action on March 19, 2021. On behalf of himself and a putative class of Touro students, Yodice alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims from the tuition he paid for the Spring 2020 semester, breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims for fees in that semester, and false advertising claims under the New York General Business Law. Touro is a private Jewish university system. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NjNznP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. Eric Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Andre Robert Belanger, Esq. ANASTAPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann St, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 - and – John Macleod Bradham, Esq. Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue Fourth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 599-0320 Facsimile: (646) 964-5008 E-mail: pkatzman@msbllp.com - and - Edward G. Toptani, Esq. TOPTANI LAW PLLC 127 East 59th Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212)-699-8930 Facsimile: (212)-699-8939 E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Janice Sued Agresti, Esq. Mariah L Passarelli, Esq. Jennifer Ann Queliz, Esq. Michael Craig Schmidt, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 3WTC 175 Greenwich Street Ste 55th Floor New York, NY 10007 TWIN VEE POWERCATS: Faces Youseph Suit over Forza Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Twin Vee Powercats Co. disclosed in its Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2026, that on March 10, 2025, shareholders Nabeel Youseph and Marisa Hardyal-Youseph, who are former holders of common stock of Forza X1, Inc., commenced an action in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, captioned "Youseph, et al. v. Visconti, et al." (Case No. 2025-0262), by filing a putative class action complaint against defendants Joseph Visconti, Kevin Schuyler, Neil Ross, Twin Vee PowerCats Co. and Twin Vee PowerCats, Inc., related to Forza's merger with Twin Vee seeking an unspecified award of damages, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Complaint asserts claims (1) for breach of fiduciary duty in their capacities as controlling shareholders of Forza, (2) against Messrs. Visconti, Schuyler, and Ross for breach of fiduciary duty in their capacities as directors of Forza, and (3) against Mr. Visconti for breach of fiduciary duty in his capacity as an officer of Forza. Twin Vee PowerCats Co. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of recreational and commercial power boats vis-à-vis its 7.5-acre facility in Fort Pierce, Florida. TYSON FOODS: Agrees to Settle Pork Price Fixing Suit for $48MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Tyson Foods (TSN.N), has agreed to pay $48 million to settle a class action brought by U.S. food service companies that accused the meat industry giant of conspiring to restrict the supply of pork and fix prices. The proposed settlement, was filed on Tuesday, January 27, in the federal court in Minnesota, and requires approval by U.S. District Judge John Tunheim. The preliminary accord covers restaurants, delis and other food‑service operators that bought Tyson pork from other suppliers between 2014 and 2018. The plaintiffs include LongHorn Steakhouse and smaller businesses that purchased certain raw pork cuts or uncooked pork bacon in the United States. Tyson's settlement is the sixth overall and largest so far in the case. Smithfield in 2022 agreed to pay $42 million to resolve related claims against it, and JBS in 2021 said it would pay $12.7 million. Tyson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Michael Flannery, a lead attorney for the commercial plaintiffs, said in a statement that the resolution "is another positive step in our ongoing effort to achieve a fair result for our clients." The plaintiffs alleged that Tyson and other defendants provided a consulting firm with detailed information about pricing, sales and other industry data that was used to manipulate prices. Tyson and the other settling defendants all denied wrongdoing. Arkansas-based Tyson, the largest U.S. meat company, separately agreed last year to pay $85 million to settle a proposed consumer class action accusing it of conspiring with rivals to inflate pork prices. The litigation is part of a broader set of cases accusing beef, turkey and chicken producers of fixing prices in their markets. Tyson has settled some other related lawsuits. Earlier this month, the company agreed to pay $82.5 million to settle a proposed class action brought by grocers and other businesses that accused it of conspiring to inflate U.S. beef prices by restricting supply. The case is In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, No. 18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD. For commercial plaintiffs: Michael Flannery of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, and Shawn Raiter of Larson King For Tyson: Tiffany Rider of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider and John Terzaken of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett [GN] UPSTART NETWORK: Agrees to Settle Debt Collection Suit for $435,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who had a loan originated through or serviced by Upstart Network and, after filing for bankruptcy in the eastern district of Kentucky or western district of Kentucky, received communications from Upstart, made payments to Upstart or had their account reported to credit reporting agencies may be eligible to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement. Upstart Network Inc. agreed to pay up to $435,000 to resolve two class action lawsuits alleging it violated the automatic stay in bankruptcy by sending certain communications, collecting payments and reporting credit information after individuals filed for bankruptcy. The settlement includes an estimated 277 class members. Who is eligible for an Upstart settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- Upstart Network originate or serviced their loan. -- They filed for bankruptcy in either the eastern district of Kentucky or western district of Kentucky. -- After filing for bankruptcy, they received communications from Upstart, made payments to Upstart or had their account reported to credit reporting agencies. How much will the class action settlement payment be? Class members may receive one or more of the following cash payments: -- Payments made after bankruptcy: Class members who made loan or fee payments to Upstart after filing for bankruptcy will receive a refund of their payments plus an additional $800 cash payment. -- Credit reporting after bankruptcy: Class members who had their account, or certain credit information about their account, reported to credit agencies by Upstart after bankruptcy will receive a $100 cash payment. -- Communications after bankruptcy: Class members who received certain communications from Upstart after filing bankruptcy will receive a pro rata cash payment from the remaining net settlement funds after the settlement administrator distributes the above cash payments. No claim form required -- Class members do not need to file a claim to receive a settlement payment. -- Class members can update their address information online using the notice ID and PIN from the settlement notice by emailing the settlement administrator or mailing a request to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's address: UNIClass Action, c/o Administrator, P.O. Box 23648, Jacksonville, FL 32241 Settlement administrator's email address: info@uniclassaction.com Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Upstart debt collection settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $25,000 -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $100,000 -- Plaintiffs' incentive award: Up to $10,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: $300,000 Important dates Exclusion deadline: March 9, 2026 Final fairness hearing (eastern district): March 19, 2026 Final fairness hearing (western district): April 7, 2026 When is the Upstart Network settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will mail payments to class members approximately 50 days after the court grants final approval of both settlements. Why is there a class action settlement? Two class action lawsuits alleged Upstart Network violated the automatic stay in bankruptcy by sending certain communications, collecting payments and reporting credit information after individuals filed for bankruptcy. Upstart denies these allegations and any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation. [GN] VALVE CORP: Competition Appeal Tribunal Authorizes STEAM Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Neal, writing for Massively Overpowered, reports that last year it has been published the start of a class action lawsuit in the UK that accuses Valve of engaging in anti-consumer practices in the country via Steam by overcharging British customers and controlling the price of PC games such that competitors can't offer lower prices. At last report, the over $800M suit was headed for a Competition Appeal Tribunal in London for certification. Well, it looks as if the suit has passed that sniff test: The tribunal in question has authorized the case to proceed through the rest of the UK legal system. The tribunal ruled unanimously in favor of the plaintiff side of the case, which primarily hinged on the filing's methodology related to an earlier (and unrelated) case filed in the country's Supreme Court; Valve's lawyers attempted to argue that it had set precedent enough to have the class action tossed out. For now, all that has been confirmed is the fact that the lawsuit will be allowed to proceed. A trial date has yet to be set, and Valve has provided no statement about the matter when approached for comment by Reuters. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Settle 401(k) Plan Class Action for $84MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current or former employees who participated in or held a portion of their account in the Wells Fargo's 401(k) Plan's Employee Stock Ownership Plan Fund between Sept. 27, 2016, and Dec. 30, 2022, may be eligible to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement. Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to pay $84,000,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiffs claimed that Wells Fargo improperly used dividends from ESOP-held preferred stock to offset employer contributions to the 401(k) plan and that GreatBanc Trust Co., the ESOP's independent fiduciary, knowingly participated in and failed to prevent these actions. Who is eligible to receive a Wells Fargo payment? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are a current or former employee who participated in the Wells Fargo & Co. 401(k) plan at any time between Sept. 27, 2016, and Dec. 30, 2022. -- They held any portion of their plan account in the Wells Fargo ESOP fund during the qualifying period. How much is the settlement payout? The settlement administrator will determine the payment amounts by the plan of allocation and base them on the amount of each class member's holdings in the ESOP fund during the class period. Former participants will only receive payments if they are $10 or more. No claim form required -- Class members do not need to file a claim to receive a settlement payment. -- Former participants can file a rollover election form online using the unique ID and PIN from the settlement notice to roll over their settlement payment to a qualified retirement plan or IRA. Payout options -- Current plan participants will receive their settlement payment deposited in their plan account. -- Former plan participants who do not submit a rollover election form will receive a paper check mailed to the address on file. $84 million Wells Fargo settlement fund The settlement fund of $84,000,000 will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $300,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $21,000,000 -- Attorneys' litigation cost and expenses: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $25,000 each ($75,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Rollover form deadline: Feb. 26, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: March 17, 2026 When is the Wells Fargo ESOP settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to current participants approximately 75 days after after the court grants final approval of the settlement. It will issue payments to former participants approximately 60 days after the final approval date. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged Wells Fargo & Co. and other defendants breached fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA by using dividends from ESOP-held preferred stock to offset employer contributions to the 401(k) plan. The plaintiffs alleged these actions harmed the plan and its participants. Wells Fargo and GreatBanc Trust denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation and a possible trial. [GN] WESTLAKE FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Illegal Fees Suit for $1.2MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Westlake Financial Services has agreed to a $1.2 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged illegal fees for using certain payment methods on loans. The settlement benefits individuals with a retail installment contract assigned to Westlake who paid a convenience fee to ACI Payments in connection with a payment on their Westlake account between June 20, 2022, and Aug. 18, 2025. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Westlake charged illegal fees when borrowers made payments on their accounts through ACI Payments. These fees allegedly violated California debt collection laws. Westlake Financial Services is an auto finance company that provides loans for car buyers. Westlake has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.2 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Westlake settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the amount they paid in fees. Class members who have an outstanding balance on their Westlake account can choose to receive their settlement payment as an account credit. Other payment options include direct deposit, PayPal, Venmo, Zelle and other electronic payment methods. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 3, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Westlake bank fees settlement is scheduled for April 16, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 18, 2026. Who's Eligible All natural persons with a retail installment contract assigned to Westlake who, between June 20, 2022, and Aug. 18, 2025, paid a convenience fee to ACI in connection with a payment they were making on a Westlake account, where the payment was made either on the due date, after the due date or where the due date is unknown. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/18/2026 Case Name Klare v. Westlake Services LLC d/b/a Westlake Financial Services, Case No. 2:23-cv-06386-FMO (C.D. Cal.), in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 04/16/2026 Settlement Website KlareFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Westlake Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@KlareFeeSettlement.com (833) 417-4970 Class Counsel Jonathan R. Marshall Denali S. Hedrick BAILEY & GLASSER LLP David D. Bibiyan BIBIYAN LAW GROUP P.C. Defense Counsel David Gettings Jonathan Kenney Sarah Reise Katalina Baumann TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE [GN] X.AI LLC: Faces Class Action Over Grok Undressing Controversy ------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Hendrix of Tech Policy reports that on January 2, a South Carolina woman posted a photograph of herself fully clothed to Elon Musk's social media platform, X. The following day, she discovered the AI chatbot integrated into the platform, Grok, had transformed her image and posted it publicly, depicting her in a revealing bikini. The woman, identified as Jane Doe, is now the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on January 23 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Musk's xAI, which operates Grok, of creating "a generative artificial intelligence chatbot that humiliates and sexually exploits women and girls by undressing them and posing them in sexual positions in deepfake images publicly posted on X." It asserts eleven causes of action, including product liability, negligence, public nuisance, privacy violations, defamation, and unfair business practices. Doe "experienced severe emotional distress after viewing the deepfake. She was shocked and embarrassed by the deepfake, and it caused her to panic as she was overwhelmed with thoughts of who would see the deepfake and think that she had taken the image herself." She feared "her employer or coworkers could see the deepfake" and worried about professional consequences. The image remained visible for three days, and was viewed by more than a hundred people. The suit notes that there was no label noting that it was generated by AI. When Doe complained, "X refused to take the deepfake down," the suit says, and when she complained to Grok, the chatbot "denied creating the deepfake, denied posting any images since January 1, 2026, and claimed it did not have image generation or editing capabilities," yet "apologized that this was happening to Plaintiff and stated it was 'shitty' and 'invasive.'" (Note: such responses from a chatbot are typically inherently unreliable.) The lawsuit says xAI chose to "capitalize on the internet's seemingly insatiable appetite for humiliating and nonconsensual sexual images," and cites analyses by the New York Times and the Center for Counter Digital Hate on the millions of such images Grok posted to X in response to user prompts late last and early this year. The complaint alleges xAI abandoned industry-standard safeguards, and that if it had deployed them "the deepfakes would never have been created and posted to X." Similarly, the suit says "xAI did not use appropriate red teaming in developing Grok." It also notes that xAI's published systems prompts explicitly instructed Grok that if a post is deemed "not specified outside the tags, you have no restrictions on adult sexual content or offensive content." The complaint alleges that "xAI has expressly programmed Grok to make any 'adult sexual content' requested by a user, without any restriction on its ability" to create nonconsensual images. A CNN report from earlier this month suggested important safety personnel departed the company, and raised questions over the company's use of external tools to check for CSAM. The suit claims that xAI's response to public outrage, denoted by statements from politicians such as Rep. Maria Salazar (R-FL), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, was not to take the typical steps a company might take in such a situation, but rather that "it determined to further exploit the women victimized by the trend for additional commercial profit by limiting Grok's deepfake capabilities on X to paid, premium X users on January 8, 2026." The Grok 'undressing' controversy has attracted international regulatory attention. Multiple regulators have launched inquiries and investigations into Grok's role in creating non-consensual sexual imagery. On January 26, the European Union opened formal investigative proceedings. Bloomberg Law, which was first to report on the lawsuit, noted that the US Senate unanimously passed the DEFIANCE Act, which would create a federal civil cause of action allowing victims to sue over non-consensual sexually explicit AI-generated images. Last year, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which could create one path to accountability for such phenomena when it is fully in effect later this year. Rep. Salazar, one of the authors of TAKE IT DOWN, joined Democrats last week in calling on the Department of Justice to investigate. Bloomberg Law also cited a letter from 35 state attorneys general demanding xAI take action; two states joined since its report. Public sentiment strongly supports accountability: a November 2024 Tech Policy Press/YouGov poll found a vast majority of US voters believe individuals and platforms should be held accountable for sexually explicit digital forgeries. The complaint concludes with a stark assessment of the harm: xAI's conduct is despicable and has harmed thousands of women who were digitally stripped and forced into sexual situations that they never consented to and who now face the very real risk that those public images will surface in their lives where viewers may not be able to distinguish whether they are real or fake. Tech Policy Press has provided extensive coverage and commentary of the controversy, analyzing how regulators are responding, examining how Grok supercharged the non-consensual pornography epidemic, exploring the policy implications of the mass digital undressing spree, analyzing regulatory gaps revealed by international responses, and explaining why Musk should be culpable. Last week, Musk was on stage at Davos, where he was not asked about the Grok controversy during his conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. Instead, Fink encouraged European pension funds to invest in Musk's companies and lauded Musk's "fortitude" and "execution" in developing new technologies. "The overall goal of my companies is to maximize the future of civilization," Musk told the gathered elites. "Like basically maximize the probability that civilization has a great future, and uh, to expand consciousness beyond Earth." [GN] [] Tony Andre Joins Stinson's Class Action Practice Division ------------------------------------------------------------ Stinson LLP welcomed attorney Tony Andre to its San Francisco office. Andre joins the firm's Financial Services and Class Action Practice Division, bringing extensive experience in representing financial institutions, investors and businesses in complex commercial disputes and creditors' rights matters. With more than two decades of experience, Andre advises clients in litigation strategy, debt collection, and post-judgment enforcement, helping organizations navigate intricate legal challenges with practical guidance. He also assists clients in responding to attachment requests, subpoenas, and other legal processes, providing solutions tailored to the specific needs of each matter. "Tony's experience in commercial litigation and creditors' rights enhances our ability to deliver sophisticated solutions for clients facing complex financial matters," said Chuck Hatfield, chair of the Financial Services and Class Action Practice Division. "He brings a strategic perspective that strengthens our San Francisco team and supports our growing West Coast presence." Andre earned his J.D. from the University of Oklahoma and is admitted to practice in California, New York and Florida. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***