260216.mbx

260216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 16, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 33 Headlines 85 WINE CORP: Mendez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ADASA LTD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jenkins Alleges ALRO STEEL: Veeley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tencza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ARKEMA INC: Faces Kroll Class Suit Over Asbestos Products BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Bid to Toss "Warshaw" Lawsuit BASIC AMERICAN: "Waldrop" Class Cert Hearing Set for April 28 BEST BUY: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Fla.'s Local Rules BETTERMENT LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Daley Says BLAST TRANS: Hires Law Offices of Michael L. Walker as Counsel BON CHARGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in King Suit Due Nov. 13 BOYCE HAMLET: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass CALLONDOC.COM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jones Alleges CANTON DROP: Lambi Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CARMAX AUTO: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grabiec Suit Says CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE: Renner Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend Stradford Class Suit in Cal. CONTANGO RESOURCES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 19 COUPANG INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Lee Says CWP CALIFORNIA CORP: Buchanan Suit Removed to E.D. California DELTA AIRLINES: Haley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply DENNY'S INC: Vaughan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California DESIGNLIBRO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Figueroa Says DESIGNS BY NIKKI: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DNC TRAVEL: Simmons' Bid for Class Cert. Tossed DOLLAR TREE: Opposition to Class Cert Denial Bid Due Feb. 20 DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE: Lee Suit Removed to E.D. California DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE: Morales Suit Removed to N.D. California E. GLUCK CORP: Committee Hires Porzio Bromberg as Counsel EASTERN GROUP: Black Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ELC ONLINE INC: Bahena Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois EMS LINQ INC: Wilkins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. EQT CORPORATION: Seeks Leave To File Opposition Sur-Reply FCA US: Bid for Class Certification Modified to April 27 FCA US: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification Deadlines FELT AND FAT: Hires Clarke & Cohen Inc. as Consultant FLUENCE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Hartman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts FYF-JB LLC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GAP INTERNATIONAL: Cooper Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania GARY BARNETT: Shin Files Suit in D. Delaware GEO GROUP: Intervenors Seek to Unseal Court Records in Gonzalez GMAP LOGISTICS: Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification GOODLEAP LLC: Harada Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation HCH AUTOMOTIVE: Jones Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana HEATHER HILL: Bid for Partial Dismissal Granted in Part HOLLYWOOD FEED: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Albert Class Cert. Bid Tossed as Moot HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Scarbrough Cert. Bid Tossed as Moot HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Tripoli Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot IAEDP Foundation: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Class Cert Bid INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Domenichello Says INSPIRE MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Zeller Files Suit in D. Minnesota INSPYR SOLUTIONS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Williams Says INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Continues to Defend da Vinci Class Suit in Cal. JM SMUCKER: Seeks to File Identifying Info Under Seal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NJ Appeals Court DQs Beasley Allen in Talc MDL JT4 LLC: Abelyan Suit Removed to E.D. California KEURIG DR PEPPER: Davin Sues Over Product Misrepresentations KING LASIK: Bid for Class Cert. Due July 24 KNOXVILLE TVA: Rouse Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data LEGACY CONTRACTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Alleges LIFE PROTECT: Warren Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 22 LUXEXPERIENCE BV: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says MANE HAIRCARE: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit Hearing Set for March 11 MAREX GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits MATCH GROUP: Kelechian Files Suit Over Data Breach MAXWELL LEADERSHIP: Sumrell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia MCBC MEDICAL: Cline Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Court Narrows Claims in Hossain Suit MEDUSIND INC: Class Settlement in Owings Suit Gets Final Nod MICROGENICS CORP: DOCCS Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Warrick" MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Ploss Suit in Ill. NBT BANCORP INC: Vazquez Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas NEW SABINA: Schroeder Sues Over Unpaid Straight Time and Overtime NEW YORK, NY: Court Recommends to Certify Rule 23 Class NISSAN NORTH: Parties' Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines Granted NVIDIA CORPORATION: Youngblood Sues Over Unlawfully Accessed Works ORION REAL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says OTTNO INC: Glaze Files Suit Over Data Breach PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT: Moore Wins Bid for Conditional Cert PELICAN INVESTMENT: Court Amends Discovery Schedule in "Showers" PETROSIAN ESTHETIC: Firlej Balks at Personal Info Disclosure PHIA GROUP: Faces Johnson Suit Over Inadequate Data Security PICARD MEDICAL: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Louie Says PNC BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Lyons Suit RATP DEV USA: Pompeo Suit Removed to C.D. California RED LOBSTER: Gray Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois REMEMBER ME: Hires Newmark Group Inc. as Appraiser RESER'S FINE FOODS: Dunion Suit Removed to S.D. California RICKY DIXON: Class Certification Deadline in Barde Suspended ROSS HUNTER: Bid for Pre-Class Cert Protective Order Due Feb. 20 RPM LIVING: Escareno Suit Removed to S.D. California SHIMANO NORTH: Class Settlement in Hawkins Gets Final Approval SKY-FRAME INC: Hires Mentor Group Inc. as Valuation Consultant SKYLINE BEAUTY SUPPLY: Smith Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California SPALLINGER MILLWRIGHT: Farley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime SPECTRAFORCE TECHNOLOGIES: Ntseful-Dubose Sues Over Unpaid Wages SPRING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Private Info, Keith Alleges STABILITY AI LTD: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 11 STUCKMAN SALVAGE: Papenbrock Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions SUPERPOWER HEALTH: Standing Order Entered in Function Health Suit SV SUPER: Ruben Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Suit in Massachusetts TELLURIDE RESORT: Court OKs Alvarez Bid to Certify Class TELLURIDE RESORT: Velez Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice THOMPSON CREEK: Jacobs Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages TOPIX MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Khan Suit Says TRAVELSCAPE LLC: Uses Trackers to Collect Personal Info, Fried Says TUTOR TIME: Removes Dyrda Class Action Suit to C.D. Calif. TYSON FOODS INC: Parties Engaged in Expert Discovery TYSON FOODS INC: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final OK UNDER ARMOUR: Grandstaff Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Info UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in USAID Workers' Suit UNITED STATES: Garcia Sues Over Race Discrimination Against Latinos UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Tripp-Daniels Sues Over Unpaid Overtime VALOR PROTECTION: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Edwards Alleges VARONIS SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Molchanov Securities Suit VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court OKs Class Notice in "Ford" VGW US INC: Baker Sues Over Illegal Websites WELLCARE HEALTH: Vandermarliere Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan WESTLAKE SERVICES: Woodson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 22, 2027 WHC WORLDWIDE: Garrett Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement WILD OAK: SFR Services Must File for Class Cert. Bid by April 3 ********* 85 WINE CORP: Mendez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Mendez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 85 WINE CORP. f/d/b/a MUNCHIES KORNER d/b/a GIACOMO'S PIZZA & RESTAURANT, BEAR NOAH CORP d/b/a JACQUES BRASSERIE, HAMIMI JACQUES OUARI, a/k/a JACQUES OUARI, and MELISSA OUARI, Case No. 1:26-cv-00780 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, due to an illegal fixed salary scheme; unpaid overtime premiums, due to an illegal fixed salary scheme; unpaid spread of hours premiums; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and Class Members at or above the minimum wage rates mandated by the NYLL. The Defendants paid Plaintiff at a fixed rate of $1,000.00 per week for approximately 72 hours of work per week, with no agreement that such a rate would account for compensation of Plaintiff's overtime hours. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were also paid at a fixed rate for all hours worked, even when they worked more than 40 hours in a week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Colllective Plaintiffs, and Class Members their proper overtime premium of one-and-a-half times their regular rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a Cook at their restaurant in January 2021. The Defendants operated the two restaurants collectively as a single integrated enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1180 Fax: 212-465-1181 ADASA LTD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jenkins Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL JENKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADASA LTD INC., d/b/a "COUTURE CANDY," Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00875 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2026) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.couturecandy.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's online services on multiple occasions but was unable to do so due to persistent and discriminatory accessibility barriers that denied her equal access to the goods and services offered to sighted consumers. Independent audits conducted by Plaintiff's counsel revealed a pervasive pattern of violations across the site: product pages containing hundreds of images with no alternative text, form fields and interactive elements left unlabeled, keyboard traps that strand users during checkout, misapplied or missing ARIA roles, and the complete absence of skip links, semantic landmarks, or structured headings necessary for screen-reader navigation, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its website becomes and remains fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Adasa Ltd Inc., d/b/a "COUTURE CANDY," operates the website that offers designer dresses, formalwear items, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ALRO STEEL: Veeley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Veeley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ALRO STEEL CORPORATION, ALRO STEEL CORPORATION LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00110-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 30, 2026), is brought for their collective failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Accordingly, Defendants regularly improperly deducted 30 minutes from the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees' daily hours worked, resulting in unpaid overtime. During their employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendants deducted meal breaks from their hours worked regardless of whether these employees received full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks. The Defendants' policies esulted in unpaid overtime for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees. As a result of Defendants' companywide policy and/or practice, thw Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not compensating the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at their facility in Columbus, Ohio, as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the role of Laborer from March 2025 until October 2025. Alro Steel Corporation is a foreign corporation that is registered to conduct business in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. Kevin A. Nickel, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com knickel@mcoffmanlegal.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tencza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Tencza, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00102-P (N.D. Tex., Jan. 30, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and unpaid straight time wages pursuant to Tennessee common law. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. During the relevant time periods, American Airlines knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek, and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, American Airlines' regular practice--including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the clock"--was (and is) to automatically deduct a 30-minute meal period from Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' daily time even though they regularly performed (and continue to perform) compensable work "off the clock" through their respective meal-period breaks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by American Airlines in Tennessee during the relevant time periods. The Defendant American Airlines is one of the largest commercial airline companies in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. Maureen Villarreal, Esq. 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com maureen@a2xlaw.com ARKEMA INC: Faces Kroll Class Suit Over Asbestos Products --------------------------------------------------------- DORA LOPEZ-KROLL and CARY ROLL v. ARKEMA, INC., f/k/a Pennwalt Corporation, et al., Case No. 241209642 (Fla. Cir. Broward Cty., Feb.6, 2026) is a class action alleging that the Defendants' concealed the dangers of asbestos from Plaintiff, her household members, and others similarly situated, without properly testing Asbestos Products to determine the harmful effects to persons exposed to asbestos from the use of Defendants' Asbestos Products, seeking damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Lopez-Kroll was diagnosed as having asbestos-related disease, specifically malignant epithelioid mesothelioma, on or about July 9, 2025, satisfying the criteria of the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act. The Defendants include ARKEMA, INC., f/k/a Pennwalt Corporation; AVENTIS INC.; BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., Individually and as successor-in-interest to The Gold Bond Sterilizing Powder Company, a/k/a The Gold Bond Company COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; CONOPCO, INC. COSMETIC SPECIALTIES, INC., Individually and formerly d/b/a G&G Specialty Products CO. COTY US LLC; COTY, INC.; COTY, INC.; CVS PHARMACY, INC., d/b/a CVS Health; DOLGENCORP, LLC, f/k/a Dolgencorp, Inc., a subsidiary of Dollar General Corporation; DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; FISONS CORPORATION; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, f/k/a SmithKline Beecham Corp.and SmithKline Beecham PLC; GOLD BOND CO LLC; GSK CONSUMER HEALTH, INC., f/k/a Novartis Consumer Health Inc., f/k/a CIBA Self Medication, Inc.; L'OREALUSA, INC.; L. PERRIGO COMPANY; MARY KAY INC.; MERCK & CO., INC.; MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC.; MIYOSHI AMERICA, INC., f/k/a U.S. Cosmetics Corporation; NOVARTIS CORPORATION, Individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba-Geigy Corporation; NOXELL CORPORATION; PERRIGO COMPANY; PERRIGO COMP ANY OF TENNESSEE, Individually and as successor to Cumberland-Swan, Inc.; FIZER, INC.; PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY; PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC.; PUIG NORTH AMERICA; PUIG USA, INC.; REVOLUTION BEAUTY, INC.; SHULTON, INC.; SPECIALTY MINERALS INC., Individually and as a subsidiary of Minerals Technologies Inc.; TARGET CORPORATION; VI-JON, LLC, f/k/a Vi-Jon, Inc.,f/k/a Cumberland Swan Holdings, Inc.; WALGREEN CO.; and WALMART INC., f/k/a Walmart Stores, Inc. Arkema Inc. was founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of alkalies and chlorine.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawn Besserman, Esq. MAUNERAICHLE HARTLEY FRENCH & MUDD, LLC 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Ste. 255 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (314) 241-2003 Facsimile: (314) 241-4838 E-mail: dbessennan@mrhfmlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Bid to Toss "Warshaw" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lynne Warshaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 25-60136-CIV-SMITH (S.D. Fla.), Judge Smith of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, dismissing all claims and closing the case. Plaintiff Lynne Warshaw brought this action against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. for alleged errors and misrepresentations related to its obligation to respond to requests for information and requests to correct errors concerning her residential mortgage loan. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant refused to provide call recordings to which borrowers are entitled, gave the illusion of timely responses despite not timely sending such responses, and misled borrowers as to how long Defendant had to respond to such requests. Plaintiff sent requests for information to Defendant at its designated address, requesting call recordings and transcripts for phone calls that occurred between June 2007 and September 2007. Although Defendant responded to each request, Plaintiff contended that the responses were untimely. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant's responses claiming her requests were unduly burdensome were improper and unreasonable, and that she suffered harm including postage expenses and attorneys fees as a result. Plaintiff sought to establish three classes: the Acknowledgment Letter Class, the Inaccurate Response Date Class, and the Call Recording Class. The Acknowledgment Letter Class alleged that Defendant wrongfully advised class members as to the proper response date under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Regulation X, stating it would respond within 30 business days of its acknowledgment letter rather than within 30 days of receipt. The Inaccurate Response Date Class alleged that Defendant sent responses outside applicable deadlines, with postmarks indicating letters were not sent until after those deadlines expired. The Call Recording Class alleged that Defendant refused to provide requested call recordings using a boilerplate excuse of undue burden. RESPA Claims Plaintiff alleged two counts under RESPA premised on allegedly withheld call recordings and untimely-mailed letters. Defendant argued it had no obligation to respond to Plaintiff's inquiries after entry of the final judgment of foreclosure dated April 27, 2023, and that it was not a servicer within the meaning of RESPA at the time Plaintiff sent her inquiries in February 2024. The Court found Defendant's arguments persuasive. Under RESPA, the term servicer means the person responsible for servicing of a loan, and servicing means receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any loan. The Court noted that under Florida law, the terms of a mortgage merge into a foreclosure judgment and thereafter no longer provide the basis for determining the obligations of the parties. Applying this reasoning, the Court found that the mortgage loan ceased to exist following the judgment of foreclosure as a matter of law. Therefore, when Plaintiff sent her inquiries in February 2024, Defendant was no longer a servicer under RESPA and had no obligation to respond. The Court further found that amendment would be futile because the allegations Plaintiff had already made established that Defendant was not required under RESPA to respond. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the RESPA counts with prejudice. Plaintiff alleged a single count under the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act premised on allegedly mischaracterized due dates, contending that boilerplate language in Defendant's responses indicated it was a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. The Court construed Plaintiff's FCCPA claim in accordance with the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, noting that courts have developed a factor-based analysis examining the nature of the relationship of the parties, whether the communication expressly demanded payment, whether it was sent in response to an inquiry by the debtor, whether the statements were part of a strategy to make payment more likely, and whether it threatened consequences for nonpayment. Considering these factors, the Court concluded as a matter of law that the letters received by Plaintiff were not communications sent in connection with the collection of a debt. First, the subject mortgage was extinguished months before the communications as evidenced by the final judgment. Second, each communication was a response to correspondence initiated by Plaintiff. Third, the communications did not demand payment or threaten additional fees if Plaintiff failed to make payment. Accordingly, the FCCPA count was also dismissed. The Court ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in part. Named Plaintiff Lynne Warshaw's claims were dismissed with prejudice. The class action Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice. All other pending motions were denied as moot, and the case was closed. A copy of the Court's decsion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O3xCzR from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Bank of America, N.A., is Represented By: Adam Michael Foslid Winston & Strawn/chicago 305-910-0646 afoslid@winston.com Mediator: Joseph Huss Krinzman Huss & Lubetsky 800 Brickell Ave Ste 1501 Miami, FL 33131 Plaintiff Lynne Warshaw is Represented By: Michael Andrew Smith, Jr. Dann Law 216-254-1034 msmith@dannlaw.com Scott David Hirsch Scott Hirsch Law Group, PLLC 561-569-6283 scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com BASIC AMERICAN: "Waldrop" Class Cert Hearing Set for April 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Auston Waldrop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Basic American Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:25-CV-00382-MKD (E.D. Wash.), Judge Mary K. Dimke of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued a Jury Trial Scheduling Order on February 6, 2026, setting out key procedural deadlines, including a class certification hearing scheduled for April 28, 2027. Following a video scheduling conference held on January 9, 2026, in which April Rheaume appeared for Plaintiff and Aaron R. Doyer appeared for Defendant, the court issued the scheduling order after reviewing the Joint Status Reports and hearing from counsel. On expert disclosures, Plaintiff's initial expert reports are due August 24, 2026, Defendant's initial expert reports are due September 21, 2026, and Plaintiff's rebuttal expert reports are due October 19, 2026. Plaintiff's deadline to move to add or replace class representative(s) is October 26, 2026. The motion for class certification is due January 20, 2027, with a response due February 17, 2027, a reply due March 3, 2027, and the class certification hearing set for April 28, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. in Spokane. Discovery cutoff, dispositive motions, trial, and all remaining deadlines are to be set following the class certification ruling. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UGsdl6 from PacerMonitor.com BEST BUY: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Fla.'s Local Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG, v. BEST BUY CO. OF MINNESOTA, INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-00272-GAP-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Presnell entered an order directing the parties to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. While not exhaustive, the Order establishes deadlines for filings required at the initial stages of an action. The Court makes an active effort to review each case to identify parties and interested corporations in which the assigned District Judge or Magistrate Judge may have an interest, and for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, counsel and any pro se party shall comply with Local Rule 1.07(c) and shall file and serve a certification as to whether the instant action should be designated as a similar or successive case pursuant to Local Rule 1.07. The parties shall utilize the attached form titled Notice of Pendency of Other Actions. The parties are directed to consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management conference and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). If a CMR is required, utilization of the attached CMR form is mandatory. The Defendant is an American multinational consumer electronics retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pccxbU at no extra charge.[CC] BETTERMENT LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Daley Says ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN DALEY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BETTERMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01058 (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the Class are current and former users of Defendant's financial services. As part of its business practices, Betterment obtains, collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. On January 10, 2026, Betterment discovered that an unauthorized third party had gained access to certain Betterment information systems. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation which determined that the unauthorized access came from a successful social engineering scheme. The notorious cybercriminal group "ShinyHunters" has claimed at least partial responsibility for the Data Breach, and they subsequently leaked tens of millions of Betterment records on the dark web. In addition to accessing the PII of Plaintiff and the Class, the threat actor also sent a fraudulent email on January 9, 2026, to Plaintiff and the Class using Betterment's marketing system. This email (which looked like any other email from Betterment) informed the Class to send crypto to a crypto wallet owned by the threat actor in return for "tripling Bitcoin and Ethereum deposits." As a result of Defendant's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and on January 9, 2026, and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives, adds the complaint. This class action seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to reasonably protect the sensitive PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, in violation of Defendant's legal obligations. Plaintiff Steven Daley is a Betterment customer that received the fraudulent email and is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Betterment LLC is financial technology firm that offers a variety of financial services including investing, savings, cryptocurrency, and checking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com BLAST TRANS: Hires Law Offices of Michael L. Walker as Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- Blast Trans Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York to The Law Offices of Michael L. Walker, Esq., PLLC as its counsel. The firm will render these services: (a) advise the Debtor of its rights, powers, and duties in the management of its business and property under Chapter 11; (b) prepare on behalf of the Debtor all necessary and appropriate legal documents and review financial and other reports to be filed in this Chapter 11 case; (c) advise the Debtor concerning, and prepare responses to, legal papers that may be filed by other parties in this bankruptcy case; (d) advise the Debtor with respect to, and assist in the negotiation, and documentation of, financing agreements and related transactions; (e) review the nature and validity of any liens asserted against the Debtor's property and advise concerning the enforceability of such liens; (f) advise the Debtor regarding its ability to initiate actions to collect and property for the benefit of its estate; (g) advise and assist the Debtor in connection with any potential asset sales and property dispositions; (h) advise the Debtor concerning executory contract and unexpired lease assumptions, assignments, and rejections as well as lease restructuring and re-characterizations; (i) advise the Debtor in connection with the formulation, negotiation, and promulgation of a plan or plans of reorganization, and related transactional documents; (j) assist the Debtor in reviewing, estimating, and resolving claims asserted against its estate; (k) commence and conduct litigation necessary and appropriate to assert rights held by the Debtor, protect the assets of its Chapter 11 estate, or otherwise further the goal of completing its successful reorganizations; and (l) provide non-bankruptcy services for the Debtor. Michael Walker, Esq., will be paid at his hourly rate of $500, plus reimbursement for expenses incurred. Mr. Walker disclosed in a court filing that his firm is a "disinterested person" as defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached through: Michael L. Walker, Esq. The Law Offices of Michael L. Walker, Esq., PLLC 9052 Fort Hamilton Parkway, 2nd Floor Suite Brooklyn, NY 11209 Telephone: (718) 680-9700 Email: mwalker@michaelwalkerlaw.com About Blast Trans Inc. Blast Trans Inc., filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Case No. 1-25-45666) on Nov. 24, 2025. The firm hires The Law Offices of Michael L. Walker, Esq., PLLC as its counsel. BON CHARGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in King Suit Due Nov. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS KING, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. BON CHARGE, an Australian company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00105-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All motions to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the Rule 26(f) conference, or on or before July 14, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall move for class certification by Nov. 13, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall disclose experts in support of class certification by Nov. 13, 2026. -- The Defendant shall file its opposition to class certification by Jan. 15, 2027. -- The Defendant shall disclose experts in opposition to class certification by Jan. 15, 2027. -- The Plaintiff shall file her reply in support of class certification by March 1, 2027. The Defendant is an Australian-based, Perth-headquartered wellness technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PafNfN at no extra charge.[CC] BOYCE HAMLET: Davis Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calvin Davis; Todd Fason; NeDraya McGowan; and Robby Riedel, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. Boyce Hamlet, in his official capacity as Chair of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board; Lindsay Wallace, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections; Jim Cheek, in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Division of Community Correction; and Jamie Barker, in his official capacity as Chair of the Arkansas Board of Corrections, Case No. 4:26-cv-00089-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a Plaintiff Class consisting of: "all adult parolees who are in the custody, or under the supervision, of the ADC, and who currently face, or will in the future face, parole revocation proceedings administered by the Defendants"; -- Certifying a Disability Subclass consisting of: "all adult parolees who are in the custody, or under the supervision, of the ADC; who have a disability, as defined by 42 U.S.C. section 12102 and 29 U.S.C. section 705(9)(B); who need accommodations in order to meaningfully access and participate equally in the parole revocation process; and who currently face, or in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings administered by the Defendants; -- Appoint Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; -- Appoint the Plaintiffs Todd Fason and Robby Riedel as Subclass Representatives; and -- Appoint the undersigned attorneys of the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Latham & Watkins LLP, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas as counsel for the Class and Subclass. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3BVAtg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Williams, Esq. Hadiyah Cummings, Esq. ARKANSAS CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC. 904 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-2842 E-mai: john@acluarkansas.org hadiyah@acluarkansas.org - and - Bridget Geraghty, Esq. Emily C. Keller, Esq. Olivia Fritz, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 160 East Grand Avenue, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 503-8282 Facsimile: (312) 503-0891 E-mail: bridget.geraghty@macarthurjustice.org emily.keller@macarthurjustice.org olivia.fritz@macarthurjustice.org - and - Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. S.Y. Jessica Hui, Esq. Christine C. Smith, Esq. Chanelle N. Jones, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: samir.deger-sen@lw.com jess.hui@lw.com christine.smith@lw.com chanelle.jones@lw.com CALLONDOC.COM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jones Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALLONDOC.COM INC. d/b/a CALL-ONDOC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00244-N (N.D. Tex., Jan. 30, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Callondoc.com Inc. d/b/a Call-Ondoc is an online telehealth provider that offers virtual medical consultations, prescriptions, and laboratory services to patients nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com CANTON DROP: Lambi Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- ERIC LAMBI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CANTON DROP FORGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00271-JRA (N.D. Ohio, February 2, 2026) is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying their non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, including overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a manufacturing employee from approximately June 2024 through September 2024 at its Canton, Ohio facility. Canton Drop Forge, Inc. makes custom forging projects for the aerospace, transportation, mechanical power, power generation, pump and compressor applications, and oilfield industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Blvd. Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com CARMAX AUTO: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grabiec Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTINE GRABIEC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00079-REP (E.D. Va., February 2, 2026) is a class action against Defendant CarMax for its failure to secure its customers' sensitive personal information and other personally identifiable information. In or around January 2026, a criminal threat actor known as ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for gaining unauthorized access to CarMax's systems and data, which included the sensitive personal information of millions. The Defendant was well aware of or should have known of its data security shortcomings. Nevertheless, CarMax failed to implement industry standard data privacy measures, exposing its customers and other affiliated individuals to the risk of being impacted by a breach, alleges the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct and the resulting data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their personal information is now in the hands of criminals, and they now face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud, asserts the complaint. CarMax is one of the largest used-vehicle retailers in the United States and operates a nationwide automobile sales and financing business through physical locations and online and digital platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 E-mail: lee@floydpc.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com CENTURY 21 REAL ESTATE: Renner Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century 21 Real Estate, LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Renner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Century 21 Real Estate, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00934 (D.N.J., Jan. 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Century 21 Real Estate LLC -- https://www.century21.com/ -- is an American real estate agent franchise company founded in 1971.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (989) 574-5262 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend Stradford Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Stradford class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Chipotle and several of its executive officers are defendants in Michael Stradford v. Chipotle et. al., a purported shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that statements and omissions by Chipotle regarding portion sizes were materially false and misleading, resulting in the market price of Chipotle's stock being artificially inflated during the claimed class period, as well as allegations regarding purportedly improper insider trading by the individual defendants in the case. The case seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and other relief as determined to be appropriate by the court. On December 18, 2025, the court issued an order granting Chipotle's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, with leave to amend, and on January 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint repeating substantially the same allegations as the original complaints. Chipotle intends to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Chipotle is an American multinational chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos, and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer. CONTANGO RESOURCES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RISING PHOENIX ROYALTY FUND III LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CONTANGO RESOURCES, LLC and CONTANGO RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00238-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Klosterman entered an order granting the parties' fifth joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines. Event Deadline Documents previously produced by parties Apr. 23, 2026 shall be deemed authenticated under FED. R. EVID. 901 except as to those objected to by this date: The Plaintiff's class certification motion: Oct. 19, 2026 The Defendants' class certification response: Nov. 26, 2026 The Plaintiff's class certification reply: Dec. 27, 2026 In Person class certification hearing: Jan. 21, 2027, at 2:00 PM MST Given the complex nature of this case and the addition of a new buyer, the Court finds good cause exists for the requested extensions. Since the last scheduling order, one or possibly both Defendants has been sold. Contango is an independent oil and natural gas company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lnMkc3 at no extra charge.[CC] COUPANG INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Lee Says ------------------------------------------------------- CHEOL HEE LEE and SEBASTIAN PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUPANG, INC. and BOM KIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00687 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Coupang's failure to secure and safeguard its customers' personal identifying information, including but not limited to names, phone numbers, mailing addresses, email addresses, and order histories. The complaint relates that on November 18, 2025, Coupang became aware that its South Korean subsidiary, Coupang Corp., suffered a material cybersecurity incident. A further investigation revealed that a former Coupang employee had stolen a security key while employed by Coupang and for over a month had conducted an undetected breach of Coupang's internal systems with the intent to expose sensitive information about tens of millions of Coupang customers. The former employee accessed 33.7 million accounts and retained information from thousands of accounts such as names, phone numbers, delivery addresses, email addresses, order histories, and 2,609 building access codes. The Data Breach is widely recognized to be the most damaging data breach in South Korean history. On December 16, 2025, Coupang retrieved some of the devices used in the Data Breach by the former employee. On December 18, 2025, Coupang retrieved an additional device used by the former employee in the Data Breach. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was caused and enabled by Coupang's knowing violation of its obligations to abide by best practices and industry standards in protecting customers' Personal Information. Coupang's failure to comply with security standards allowed its customers' Personal Information to be compromised. Victims of the Data Breach have had their Personal Information compromised and their privacy rights violated. Such victims have also been exposed to the increased risk of fraud and identity theft, lost control over their personal information, and otherwise been injured. Moreover, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been forced to spend significant time associated with, among other things, detecting and expending effort to close out and open new credit or debit card accounts; obtaining fraud monitoring services; losing access to cash flow and credit lines; monitoring credit reports and accounts; or other losses, adds the complaint. The Plaintiffs assert claims against Coupang for violation of state consumer protection statutes, state data breach statutes, negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated consumers, seek to recover damages, including actual and statutory damages, and equitable relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent a recurrence of a similar data breach and resulting injury, restitution, disgorgement, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Cheol Hee Lee is a frequent user of Defendant Coupang's e-commerce platform in both the United States and South Korea. Plaintiff Sebastian Park, a user of Defendants' services, is a citizen of the United States currently domiciled in the Republic of Korea. Defendant Coupang, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal executive offices located in Seattle, Washington. Defendant Bom Kim is the Founder of Coupang and served as Coupang's CEO.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Meaney, Esq. Tal Hirshberg, Esq. SJKP, LLP 76G, 1 World Trade Center 285 Fulton St, New York NY, 10007 Telephone: 855-529-7557 E-mail: james.meaney@sjkplaw.com tal.hirshberg@sjkplaw.com CWP CALIFORNIA CORP: Buchanan Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Buchanan, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CWP CALIFORNIA CORP., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CV-25-011476 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00244-CSK. The nine causes of action are as follows: Unpaid Overtime in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 & 1198; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 & 512; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums in Violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7; Unpaid Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; Final Wages Not Timely Paid in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 & 202; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment in Violation of California Labor Code Section 204; Non-Compliant Wage Statements in Violation of California Labor Code Section 226; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records in Violation of California Labor Code Section 1174(d); Unreimbursed Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 & 2802; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter Hering, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 714-641-5100 Facsimile: 714-546-9035 Email: phering@rutan.com DELTA AIRLINES: Haley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK HALEY, RANDAL REEP, individually and BENJAMIN BEST, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01076-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending their time to file their reply memorandum in support of renewed motion for class certification from Feb. 9, 2026 to Feb. 13, 2026. Delta Air provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RaVwTR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BARTON & DOWNES LLP 1633 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com - and - Stephen J. Anderson, Esq. KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C. 4227 Pleasant Hill Road Building 11, Suite 300 Duluth GA 30096 Telephone: (770) 820-0893 E-mail: sanderson@attorneykennugent.com - and - Michael J. Scimone, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com - and - Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. Robert Friedman, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 2001 K Street NW, Suite 850 North Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 E-mail: peter@guptawessler.com robert@guptawessler.com - and - Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq. CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC 905 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 404 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 850-7011 E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com - and - Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD LLC 1020 N. Washington St. Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (425) 239-7290 E-mail: Tjarrard@att.net - and - Crystal L. Matter, Esq. MATTER LAW, APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 735-7495 E-mail: crystal@matterlawapc.com - and - Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq. Kneupper & Covey PC 11720 Amber Park Dr Ste 160 PMB 1271 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (678) 928-6806 Facsimile: (855) 596-3707 E-mail: cyclone@kneuppercovey.com DENNY'S INC: Vaughan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denny's Inc. The case is styled as Joe Esquivel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Denny's Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00567-WQH-BJW (S.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Denny's -- https://www.dennys.com/ -- is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com DESIGNLIBRO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Figueroa Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DESIGNLIBRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1379 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.petjuice.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on October 29, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a smart fountain. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant DESIGNLIBRO, INC. owns and operates the website which features a range of automatic feeders, water fountains, monitoring devices, and other smart pet-care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com DESIGNS BY NIKKI: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DESIGNS BY NIKKI LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00166-BHL (E.D. Wis., Jan. 30, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://beachriot.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Designs By Nikki LLC sells women's products, including swimwear, apparel such as dresses, sweaters, jackets, pajamas, shorts, pants, and related accessories such as hats, bags, swim glasses, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law DNC TRAVEL: Simmons' Bid for Class Cert. Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYDEE MENDOZA and JAMAI SIMMONS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DNC TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SVCS, an entity of unknown form; DELAWARE NORTH, an entity of unknown form; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-11233-WLH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order denying Simmons' motion for class certification. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to satisfy the numerosity requirement. Because Simmons fails to meet the numerosity requirement, the Court declines to analyze the remaining three prerequisites. Accordingly, Simmons' motion for class certification is denied. Simmons proposes to certify the following class and subclasses as follows: The Class: "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the period from Nov. 20, 2023, up to the deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later date, by which class members may opt out after being provided notice of certification (the "Class Period") to whom the Defendant issued at least one wage statement that included compensation for non-work time in the same pay period as actual work time. Subclass One: Break Premium Wage Statement Subclass "All members of the Class who worked for the Defendant within the State of California on or after Nov. 20, 2023, who received a wage statement from Defendant with the pay code "Break Premium."" Subclass Two: Guaranteed Hours Paid Wage Statement "All members of the Class who worked for the Defendant within the State of California on or after Nov. 20, 2023, who received a wage statement from Defendant with the pay code "Guaranteed Hours Paid." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mg5yKn at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR TREE: Opposition to Class Cert Denial Bid Due Feb. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA GODINES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01743-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order granting stipulation as to briefing schedule on Dollar Tree's continued motion to deny class certification: 1. The Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's motion to deny class certification is due Feb. 20, 2026; 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to deny class certification is due March 13, 2026; and 3. The hearing on the Defendant's motion to deny class certification is continued to April 2, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Dollar Tree is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BlWHaI at no extra charge.[CC] DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE: Lee Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shannelle Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC., a Tennessee corporation; DAVITA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CU25-10886 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00175. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants under the California Labor Code for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, improper meal periods, improper rest periods, failure to timely pay wages due at termination, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. She also asserts a claim for unfair competition based on the foregoing alleged Labor Code violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. Jennifer J. McDermott, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-557-2900 Facsimile: 310-557-2193 Email: gknopp@proskauer.com jslowik@proskauer.com jmcdermott@proskauer.com DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE: Morales Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yvette Blanca Morales, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC., a Tennessee corporation; DAVITA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. C25-03435 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00935. The Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants under the California Labor Code for unpaid overtime, improper meal periods, improper rest periods, failure to timely pay wages due at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to indemnify necessary business expenses. She also asserts a claim for unfair competition based on the foregoing alleged Labor Code violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. Jennifer J. McDermott, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-557-2900 Facsimile: 310-557-2193 Email: gknopp@proskauer.com jslowik@proskauer.com jmcdermott@proskauer.com E. GLUCK CORP: Committee Hires Porzio Bromberg as Counsel --------------------------------------------------------- The official committee of unsecured creditors of E. Gluck Corporation seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to employ Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C. as counsel. The firm will provide these services: a) advise the Committee with respect to its rights, duties, and powers under Bankruptcy Code section 1103; b) assist the Committee in connection with the Debtor's proposed sale of assets; c) participate in in-person and telephonic meetings of the Committee and subcommittees formed thereby, if any; d) assist and advise the Committee in its meetings and negotiations with the Debtor and other parties in interest regarding this Chapter 11 case; e) assist the Committee in analyzing the claims of the Debtor's creditors and the Debtor's capital structure and in negotiating with holders of claims, including analysis of possible objections to the priority, amount, subordination, or avoidance of claims and/or transfers of property in consideration of such claims; f) assist the Committee in analyzing the Debtor's assets and liabilities, including in its review of the Debtor's Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, Statements of Financial Affairs, and other reports prepared by the Debtor, investigating the extent and validity of liens and participating in and reviewing any proposed transfer, sale, or disposition of the Debtor's assets, financing arrangements, and cash collateral stipulations or proceedings; g) assist the Committee in its investigation of the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, management, and financial conditions of the Debtor, the Debtor's historic and ongoing operations of its business, and any other matters relevant to this Chapter 11 Case; h) advise and represent the Committee in connection with matters generally arising in this case, including the Debtor's motions to incur DIP financing and for approval of a proposed sale of their assets; i) review and analyze all applications, motions, orders, statements of operations, and schedules filed with the Court by the Debtor or third parties, advising the Committee as to their propriety, and, after consultation with the Committee, taking appropriate action; j) assist the Committee in its analysis of, and negotiations with the Debtor or any third party related to, financing, asset disposition transactions, and compromises of controversies, reviewing and determining the Debtor's rights and obligations under leases and executory contracts, and assisting, advising, and representing the Committee in any manner relevant to the assumption and rejection of executory contracts and unexpired leases; k) assist the Committee in its analysis of, and negotiations with, the Debtor or any third party related to, the formulation, confirmation, and implementation of a chapter 11 plan and all documentation related thereto (including the disclosure statement); l) assist, advise, and represent the Committee in understanding its powers and duties under the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules and in performing other services as are in the interests of those represented by the Committee; m) assist and advise the Committee with respect to communications with the general creditor body regarding significant matters in this Chapter 11 Case; n) respond to inquiries from individual creditors as to the status of, and developments in this Chapter 11 case; o) represent the Committee at hearings and other proceedings before the Court and other courts or tribunals, as appropriate; p) review and analyze complaints, motions, applications, orders, and other pleadings filed with the Court, and advise the Committee with respect to formulating positions with respect, and filing responses, thereto; q) assist the Committee in its review and analysis of, and negotiations with the Debtor and their non-Debtor affiliates related to intercompany claims and transactions; r) review and analyze third-party analyses and reports prepared in connection with the Debtor's potential claims and causes of action, advise the Committee with respect to formulating positions thereon, and perform such other diligence and independent analysis as may be requested by the Committee; s) advise the Committee with respect to applicable federal and state regulatory issues, as such issues may arise in this Chapter 11 case; t) assist the Committee in preparing pleadings and applications, and pursuing or participating in adversary proceedings, contested matters, and administrative proceedings as may be necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Committee's duties; u) take all necessary or appropriate actions as may be required in connection with the administration of the Debtor's estates, including with respect to a chapter 11 plan and related disclosure statement; and v) perform such other legal services as may be required or are otherwise deemed to be in the interests of the Committee in accordance with the Committee's powers and duties as set forth in the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules, Local Rules, or other applicable law. The firm will be paid at these rates: Brett S. Moore, Principal $1,160 per hour Robert M. Schechter, Principal $1,160 per hour Kimberly N. Pageau, Counsel $825 per hour Jenny Zhou, Associate $600 per hour Erik G. Lascano, Associate $535 per hour Stuart J. Backer, Associate $425 per hour Maria P. Dermatis, Paralegal $475 per hour April L. Kernell, Paralegal $375 per hour Robyn Hemming, Paralegal $340 per hour The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Mr. Moore disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Brett S. Moore, Esq. Robert M Schechter, Esq Jenny Zhou, Esq. Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C. 1675 Broadway Suite 1810 New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 348-6723 Email: BSMoore@pbnlaw.com RMSchechter@pbnlaw.com JZhou@pbnlaw.com About E. Gluck Corporation E. Gluck Corporation -- https://egluck.com/ -- is an American watch manufacturer headquartered in Little Neck, New York. E. Gluck sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.S.D. N.Y. Case No. 25-12683 (MG)) on December 1, 2025. Judge Martin Glenn presides over the case. Alan D. Halperin at Halperin Battaglia Benzija, LLP, represents the Debtor as legal counsel. EASTERN GROUP: Black Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Black, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. EASTERN GROUP OF GAINESVILLE, INC., d/b/a YAMATO JAPANESE RESTAURANT 1, Case No. 1:26-cv-00032-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, improperly retained tips, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Plaintiff, and others similarly situated to him, routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week as part of his/their regular job duties. Despite working more than 40 hours per week during one or more work weeks, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, overtime compensation at a rate of time and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of improperly retaining tips that belonged to Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay proper overtime compensation to Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its Wesley Chapel, Ocala and Gainesville locations. YAMATO, is a company classified as a full-service restaurant serving hibachi, sushi and drinks to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com ELC ONLINE INC: Bahena Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ELC Online Inc. The case is styled as Ashley Bahena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ELC Online Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01086 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ELC Online Inc. is the e-commerce and digital division of The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (ELC).[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. EMS LINQ INC: Wilkins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMS Linq, Inc. The case is styled as Morgan Wilkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EMS Linq, Inc., Case No. 602168/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Consumer & GBL 349). LINQ -- https://www.linq.com/ -- revolutionizes K-12 operations with cloud-based software designed for the unique challenges of education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com EQT CORPORATION: Seeks Leave To File Opposition Sur-Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X2kxnd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James L. Rockney, Esq. Justin H. Werner, Esq. Allison L. Ebeck, Esq. Thomas J. Galligan, Esq. Daniel P. Wolfe, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3131 E-mail: JRockney@reedsmith.com JWerner@reedsmith.com AEbeck@reedsmith.com tgalligan@reedsmith.com dwolfe@reedsmith.com - and - Christopher J. Haselhoff, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI, LLP 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 577-7400 E-mail: chaselhoff@grsm.com FCA US: Bid for Class Certification Modified to April 27 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Fallon entered an order modifying certain expert report and class certification deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Rebuttal Expert disclosures regarding Feb. 25, 2026 class certification due: Reply Expert disclosures regarding class April 27, 2026 certifications due, and deadline for any motion for class certification: Expert discovery regarding class May 25, 2026 certification cutoff: Deadline for any opposition to a motion June 29, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for case dispositive motions June 29, 2026 (other than motions for summary judgment) and Daubert motions Deadline for any reply in support of a July 29, 2026 motion for class certification: FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RCElVF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly A. Green, Esq. Jason Z. Miller, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 504-1656 Facsimile: (302) 652-8405 E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com jzm@skjlaw.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Nathan Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoff Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com - and - Theodore Leopold, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Karina Puttieva, Esq. Blake R. Miller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com brmiller@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq. Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-7400 E-mail: pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com jreno@eckertseamans.com - and - Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE AND FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com FCA US: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation for modification to certain expert report and class certification deadlines: The Plaintiffs and Defendant FCA US LLC jointly stipulate to, and request that the Court enter, an order amending the previously entered Stipulation and Order for Modification to Certain Discovery and Class Certification Order Deadlines, The following deadlines in the Scheduling Order may be modified as follows: Event Deadline Rebuttal Expert disclosures regarding Feb. 25, 2026 class certification due: Reply Expert disclosures regarding class April 27, 2026 certifications due, and deadline for any motion for class certification: Expert discovery regarding class May 25, 2026 certification cutoff: Deadline for any opposition to a motion June 29, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for case dispositive motions June 29, 2026 (other than motions for summary judgment) and Daubert motions Deadline for any reply in support of a July 29, 2026 motion for class certification: FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xOTvRA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly A. Green, Esq. Jason Z. Miller, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 504-1656 Facsimile: (302) 652-8405 E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com jzm@skjlaw.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Nathan Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoff Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com - and - Theodore Leopold, Esq. Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Karina Puttieva, Esq. Blake R. Miller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com brmiller@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick M. Brannigan, Esq. Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-7400 E-mail: pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com jreno@eckertseamans.com - and - Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE AND FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com FELT AND FAT: Hires Clarke & Cohen Inc. as Consultant ----------------------------------------------------- Felt and Fat LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to employ Clarke & Cohen, Inc. as consultant. The firm will assist the Debtor with regard to insurance claims preparation including inspection and assessment of the property damage, review of the subject insurance policy and coverage limits and exclusions, and preparation of detailed estimates of repair or replacement costs. The firm will be paid 10 percent of the amount paid by the insurer for the loss and will be paid from the claim proceeds and not in addition to the payments made by the insurer. Mr. Doroshenko disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Ryan Patrick Doroshenko Clarke & Cohen, Inc. 510 Belmont Avenue Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Tel: (610) 668-0144 About Felt and Fat LLC Felt and Fat, LLC is an innovative and collaborative ceramic design and manufacturing hub that provides manufacturing jobs to its local community in Kensington, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Felt and Fat sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Case No. 25-14162) on October 14, 2025, listing between $100,001 and $500,000 in assets and between $1 million and $10 million in liabilities. Judge Patricia M. Mayer presides over the case. Albert Anthony Ciardi, III, Esq., at Ciardi Ciardi & Astin, represents the Debtor as legal counsel. FLUENCE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fluence Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 11, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint captioned Abramov v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444) was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the Company and certain of the Company’s executive officers. On April 15, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint captioned Kramer v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00634) was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former executive officers, AES Grid Stability, and AES. Both actions purported to be brought on behalf of a purported class of stockholders, and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints sought unspecified damages and other relief. On May 30, 2025, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia ordered the consolidation of the Abramov and Kramer cases, captioned the consolidated matter In re Fluence Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444-PTG-IDD) and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated complaint that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company, AES Grid Stability, AES, and certain of the Company's former and current executive officers. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 11, 2025. The Company does not believe the consolidated complaint states any meritorious claim and intends to defend this case vigorously. Fluence is a global provider of energy storage products and services and digital applications for renewable energy and storage. Fluence is a holding company and conducts all of its business through Fluence Energy, LLC. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Hartman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shannon Hartman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-04433 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 30, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-10481-FDS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability for Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Ford -- https://www.ford.com/ -- is the second-largest American-based automaker, behind General Motors, and the sixth-largest in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: astraus@milberg.com - and - Leland Humphrey Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 224-8685 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: lbelew@milberg.com - and - Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: rmcmillan@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Hector Torres, Esq. Cindy Kelly, Esq. Stephen Paul Thomasch, Esq. KASOWITZ LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-1700 Email: htorres@kasowitz.com sthomasch@kasowitz.com - and - Robert Bosslet, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 288-7910 Fax: (424) 288-7901 Email: rbosslet@kasowitz.com ckelly@kasowitz.com - and - Curtis A. Berglund, Esq. Jacob J. Lantry, Esq. Michelle I. Schaffer, Esq. CAMPBELL CONROY & O'NEIL, P.C. 20 City Square, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02129 Phone: (617) 241-3000 Email: cberglund@campbell-trial-lawyers.com jlantry@campbell-trial-lawyers.com mschaffer@campbell-trial-lawyers.com - and - Jodi Munn Schebel, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 101 W. Big Beaver, Suite 1100 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 205-3352 Fax: (248) 205-3399 Email: jodi.schebel@bowmanandbrooke.com FYF-JB LLC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- OSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FYF-JB, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01424 Case No. (N.D. Ill., Feb.6, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.jollypets.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant's Website, which offers a wide selection of pet toys, treats, and accessories. The availability of the Tik Tak Tugzz toy aligned with what Plaintiff was looking to purchase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GAP INTERNATIONAL: Cooper Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gap International, Inc. The case is styled as Ryan Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gap International, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00001-JPW (E.D. Pa., Jan. 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Gap International -- https://www.gapinternational.com/ -- is a global performance consulting company with over 40 years of experience partnering with executives and their organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com GARY BARNETT: Shin Files Suit in D. Delaware -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against STMicroelectronics, Inc. The case is styled as Jung A. Shin, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. Gary Barnett, an individual; 555 Tenth Avenue Manager LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Extell Development Company, a Delaware corporation; EX Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Bether Capital Inc., a foreign corporation; Wonjoon Kang, an individual; Extell 4110 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00111-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Gary Barnett is the American businessman and is the president and founder of Extell Development Company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick Brian Rosner, Esq. THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC 824 Market Street, Suite 810 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-1111 Email: rosner@teamrosner.com - and - Zhao Liu, Esq. ROSNER LAW GROUP, LLC 824 N. Market Street, Ste 810 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-1111 Email: liu@teamrosner.com GEO GROUP: Intervenors Seek to Unseal Court Records in Gonzalez --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO GONZALEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The GEO Group, Inc., et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-04014-JGB-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Proposed Intervenors will move to unseal materials covered by sealing applications. On Jan. 13, 2026, consistent with Local Rule 7-3, counsel for Proposed Intervenors notified counsel for all Parties of their intent to move to intervene on or about January 28, 2028. Plaintiffs did not respond. The Defendant indicated that they intend to oppose any efforts to unseal documents or other records. GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation. A copy of the Intervenors's motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zxzi2C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Counsel for Proposed Intervenors Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, First Amendment Coalition, Los Angeles Public Press, and The Southlander, are: Jacqueline Arkush, Esq. Leslie Bailey, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE 475 14th St., Suite 610 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 622-8150 E-mail: jarkush@publicjustice.net lbailey@publicjustice.net GMAP LOGISTICS: Collective Action Gets Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO SEVERINO, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. GMAP LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03078-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Torres entered an order granting Severino's motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The Court approves an opt-in collective of: "All persons whom the Defendant employs and has employed as a driver, delivery driver, or comparable position at any time since Oct. 1, 2024, to the entry of judgment in this case." By Feb. 10, 2026, Severino shall submit revised proposed notice documents consistent with the terms of this order. The Court shall thereafter issue an order to govern the notice process. The Court finds that the evidence, although scant, is sufficient to provide the "modest factual showing" that the FLSA requires at this preliminary stage. The Court finds that Severino's declaration, though only a single piece of evidence, provides some material support to his assertion that delivery drivers employed by GMAP experienced FLSA violations as a result of a common policy of altering timekeeping records. On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff, Ernesto Severino, filed this action alleging that the Defendant violated various provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York Labor Law. GMAP is a New York limited liability company that contracts with DoorDash to coordinate the distribution of packages located at a single warehouse in Mount Vernon, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YZPMFH at no extra charge.[CC] GOODLEAP LLC: Harada Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Derek Harada, Anthony Morgan and Jacob Nevzoroff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOODLEAP, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00267-CKD (E.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arizona wage and hour law to remedy the Defendant's violations of federal law which have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of earned overtime compensation. Loan Officers are "non-exempt" under the FLSA and analogous state wage and hour law and are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked over 40 hours in an individual work week. GoodLeap failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated hourly-paid Loan Officers for all time worked, including overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA and analogous state wage and hour law. Specifically, GoodLeap has a common, uniform, and widespread policy and practice of deducting earned overtime from Loan Officers' commissions; and discouraging Loan Officers from reporting all of their overtime hours, that is, all hours over 40 in an individual work week. GoodLeap instituted and continued this policy and practice notwithstanding the fact that it assigned work to Loan Officers that could not reasonably be completed in a 40-hour work week, such that Loan Officers regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work without compensation for all of their overtime hours worked and appropriate overtime rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by GoodLeap as Loan Officers. GoodLeap provides financing for, among other things, home loan products and loans for home improvements, such as solar panels, batteries, energy-efficient HVAC, heat pumps, roofing, and windows.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (844) 337-7276 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com - and - Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Tamra C. Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com HCH AUTOMOTIVE: Jones Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCH Automotive, LLC. The case is styled as Julie Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCH Automotive, LLC d/b/a Christi Hubler Chevrolet, Case No. 1:26-cv-00202-RLY-CSW (S.D. Ind., Jan. 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. HCH Automotive, LLC doing business as Christi Hubler Chevrolet -- https://www.christihublerchevy.com/ -- is a chevrolet dealer in Crawfordsville, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com HEATHER HILL: Bid for Partial Dismissal Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEATHER HILL PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam B. Abelson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for partial dismissal: 1. The MCPA and section 14-202(8) MCDCA claims in counts 1 and 3 of the amended complaint alleging that the Defendants collected rent from the Plaintiff Charlene Hall while the rental property lacked the requisite license but where Ms. Hall does not allege that the Defendants caused her actual damages such as from paying rent subject to a court ordered judgment or eviction are dismissed with prejudice. 2. The section 14-202(10) MCDCA claim in count 3 alleging a violation of the MCDCA based on an MCALA violation is dismissed without prejudice. 3. Ms. Hill's requests for relocation assistance funds and alternative housing costs, and punitive damages, are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied in all other respects. It is further ordered that the motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. Ms. Hill may file a renewed motion comporting with this order and accompanying memorandum opinion by Feb. 18, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nh7znp at no extra charge.[CC] HOLLYWOOD FEED: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hollywood Feed, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00135 (N.D. Ind., February 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.hollywoodfeed.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Deinnocentes browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a dog food on the website. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Hollywood Feed, LLC operates the website that offers a selection of food for dogs and cats, collars, leashes, toys, beds, grooming supplies, and supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Albert Class Cert. Bid Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ALBERT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-694 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. denying as moot without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class. The case remains open. On Jan. 29, 2026, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report indicating that they are still finalizing the settlement agreement and joint motion for approval of the same, and they need an additional 21 days to ensure they meet the standards required for Court approval. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to file a joint motion for approval of their settlement or a status report regarding the status, not substance, of the settlement within 21 days of this Order. Honda delivers automotive manufacturing, import, and export solutions for Honda and Acura vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dd4TPP at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Scarbrough Cert. Bid Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SCARBROUGH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-4277 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. denying as moot without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class. The case remains open. On Jan. 29, 2026, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report indicating that they are still finalizing the settlement agreement and joint motion for approval of the same, and they need an additional 21 days to ensure they meet the standards required for Court approval. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to file a joint motion for approval of their settlement or a status report regarding the status, not substance, of the settlement within 21 days of this Order. Honda delivers automotive manufacturing, import, and export solutions for Honda and Acura vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=myHrLr at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Tripoli Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVOR TRIPOLI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-3828 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order denying as moot without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class. The case remains open. On Jan. 29, 2026, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report indicating that they are still finalizing the settlement agreement and joint motion for approval of the same, and they need an additional 21 days to ensure they meet the standards required for Court approval. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to file a joint motion for approval of their settlement or a status report regarding the status, not substance, of the settlement within 21 days of this Order. Honda delivers automotive manufacturing, import, and export solutions for Honda and Acura vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6mMpFd at no extra charge.[CC] IAEDP Foundation: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals Foundation Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01474 (C.D. Ill., Filed: Nov 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to have 21 days from the entry of this Order to file an amended motion to certify class, if the Plaintiffs sought class certification based on the claims brought in its Third Amended Complaint. On Dec. 15, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiffs have since filed a Fourth Amended Complaint which abandons certain claims, drops a majority of the previously named defendants, and requests new forms of relief. The nature of suit states antitrust suit. The Defendant provides education and training standards to healthcare providers.[CC] INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Domenichello Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAWRENCE DOMENICHELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHTIN HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00484-JMC (D. Md., February 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"). The complaint relates that as a health care provider, Insightin knowingly obtained sensitive PII and PHI and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their PII and PHI to Insightin if they had known that Insightin would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. On January 28, 2026, Insightin disclosed to the Vermont Attorney General that "an unauthorized actor gained access to the Insightin network" in September of 2025, and gained access to its customers' patients' health records. The complaint alleges that Insightin failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII and PHI. Plaintiff, accordingly, seeks, among other things, orders requiring Insightin to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future, adds the complaint. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII and/or PHI were exposed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief, including substantial improvements to Insightin's data security policies and practices. Plaintiff Lawrence Domenichello is a resident of Windham, Maine, and has been a patient of Insightin customer Martin' Point Health Care over the last 20 years. Defendant Insightin Health, Inc. is a software company that provides healthcare software services to its clients. It markets its "inGAGE" software as "a cloud-based connector that breaks down data silos to create a connected data ecosystem.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 499-1476 E-mail: panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com INSPIRE MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Zeller Files Suit in D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Sid Zeller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. doing business as: Inspire, Case No. 0:26-cv-00895-JWB-SGE (D. Minn., Jan. 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Inspire Medical Systems -- https://www.inspiresleep.com/en-us/ -- is a medical technology company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative and minimally invasive solutions for patients with obstructive sleep apnea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent M. Williams, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (612) 940-4452 Email: kent.williams@sirillp.com INSPYR SOLUTIONS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZACH WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSPYR SOLUTIONS, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60323-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' protected health information (PHI), personally identifiable information (PII), and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. The complaint relates that as part of running its business, Defendant collects and stores large amounts of sensitive personal, medical, and financial information about its employees, contractors, and clients. This information includes highly confidential PII, PHI, and financial information. Despite that responsibility, Defendant failed to safeguard the data it collected. Specifically, cybercriminals were able to infiltrate Defendant's computer systems and gain unauthorized access to this sensitive information in a significant data breach on January 23, 2026. The Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by an unauthorized third party in the Data Breach. As a result, Plaintiff was injured in the form of lost time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included and continues to include: (1) time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach; (2) time spent exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options; (3) time spent self-monitoring his accounts with heightened scrutiny; and (4) time spent seeking legal counsel regarding his options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from his PHI/PII and financial information, in combination with his name, being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Plaintiff Zach Williams is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant INSPYR Solutions, LLC is a technology and staffing company that operates locations across the country. It markets itself as a nationwide expert in providing technology solutions and skilled talent tailored to meet its clients' business objectives and cultural needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 E-mail: lgrossman@cridenlove.com mcriden@cridenlove.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P.C. 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Continues to Defend da Vinci Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Three class action complaints were filed against the Company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the Court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues, and denied Intuitive's motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive's motion, the Court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to EndoWrist instruments, and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive's motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs' standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the Court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. The Court also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The Court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. On July 30, 2024, the Court granted Intuitive's motion for reconsideration, vacating those portions of the Court's March 31, 2024 Order granting summary judgment as to the definition of a U.S. market for EndoWrist instrument repair and replacement and Intuitive's market power in such a market. On March 31, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. No trial date has been scheduled for this matter. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets da Vinci (R) surgical systems and the Ion (R) endoluminal system based in California. JM SMUCKER: Seeks to File Identifying Info Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Humphrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company, SANDRA JERUCHIM and MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting additional statement identifying matters to be filed under seal. For the Court's ease of review, Smucker is also concurrently filing a sealed, unredacted version of each of the below documents with the proposed redactions highlighted. Accordingly, much of what Smucker seeks to redact is not information material to the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, but rather proprietary business information that if disclosed could cause competitive harm. Smucker's request is narrowly tailored, specific, "further reduced" from what was previously requested, and attempts to identify the “relatively current information that would cause competitive harm” if divulged. JM Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xPr5qJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. Spencer E. Krebs, Esq. Bart L. Kessel, Esq. Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com spencer.krebs@tuckerellis.com bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NJ Appeals Court DQs Beasley Allen in Talc MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judges Thomas W. Sumners, Mark K. Chase and Lorraine M. Augostini of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed a trial court order denying Johnson & Johnson's motion to disqualify Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., from the litigation captioned as In Re Talc Based Powders Products Litigation. The case is remanded for an order to be entered disqualifying Beasley Allen. This interlocutory appeal requires consideration of ethical obligations incumbent on attorneys who, having represented a client in complex litigation but now working in a non-lawyer capacity, subsequently seek to advance interests aligned with that client's adversaries, the Appellate Division noted. The particular circumstances presented concern the conduct of James Conlan, a former partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, who represented J&J and LTL Management LLC in this multi-county talcum-based powder litigation. Mr. Conlan, as attorney for J&J, participated for nearly two years in confidential strategy and settlement analysis of the talc litigation. After departing his firm, Conlan started a new enterprise, Legacy Liability Solutions, that pursued methods to acquire and resolve those same legal liabilities. Conlan, as Legacy's Chief Executive Officer, actively collaborated with attorneys from Beasley Allen, a leading plaintiff's firm in the talc litigation. In October 2021, J&J filed its first bankruptcy petition ("LTL 1 bankruptcy") to address its talc liabilities. At the end of January 2023, the Third Circuit dismissed J&J's LTL 1 bankruptcy. J&J filed a second bankruptcy ("LTL 2 bankruptcy") in April 2023. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Conlan -- acting through his new outfit Legacy Liability Solutions -- engaged directly with Andy Birchfield and Beasley Allen. Neither Mr. Conlan nor Mr. Birchfield informed J&J's counsel of their collaboration. Legacy and Beasley Allen exchanged extensive communications and Beasley Allen provided Legacy with confidential analyses, including settlement matrices. Mr. Birchfield, a principal at Beasley Allen, has led mass tort efforts against J&J since 2020. Beasley Allen maintains a national leadership role in the MDL, having filed its first case in 2013. Mr. Birchfield testified to possessing deep knowledge of the claims and J&J's litigation approach, acquired before his first encounter with Conlan. J&J, upon learning of Mr. Conlan's relationship with its primary legal adversary, moved to disqualify Beasley Allen from the talc litigation as well as the federal multidistrict litigation pending in New Jersey. Following a joint evidentiary hearing before the trial court and federal MDL Magistrate Judge, the trial court denied J&J's motion to disqualify Beasley Allen. J&J appealed, insisting the trial court erred in finding, in conclusory fashion, that Beasley Allen did not violate Rule 5.3(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, J&J argued that, had Mr. Conlan been acting as a lawyer, his collaboration with Beasley Allen in mediation and on a settlement proposal of the talc claims during the pendency of the LTL 2 bankruptcy would have violated RPC 1.9(a) and thus, violated RPC 5.3(c). The Appeals Division held that Mr. Conlan's work with Beasley Allen on a settlement proposal of the talc claims is the same matter as that which Mr. Conlan worked on as outside counsel for J&J for purposes of RPC 1.9(a). Both involve the same discrete phase of the litigation -- namely, working to globally resolve J&J's talc liabilities in the overall talc litigation -- and involve the same parties and the same dispute. Mr. Conlan stated that had he been acting as a lawyer, his actions in working with Beasley Allen would have been an ethical violation, as he admitted that the ethical rules would have prohibited him from working on the talc litigation whether as an attorney or in any other role. According to the panel, although both Mr. Conlan and Mr. Birchfield argued at the evidentiary hearing that their interests were aligned with J&J because J&J also wanted resolution of the talc claims, that assertion is disingenuous. The record is clear that Mr. Conlan and Beasley Allen knew that J&J's preferred method of resolving the talc claims was through bankruptcy. In contrast, Mr. Conlan and Beasley Allen wanted a settlement via structural optimization and disaffiliation. This was a different method that J&J had already rejected, and which was clearly contrary to J&J's preferred method of resolution. Realistically, Beasley Allen's goals in reaching a settlement of the talc claims are clearly adverse to J&J, as Beasley Allen wanted to settle at the greatest amount possible for its clients, as does Mr. Conlan on behalf of Legacy for its own financial gain, while J&J wants the opposite. Therefore, Mr. Conlan worked together with Beasley Allen, whose interests in the talc litigation are materially adverse to those of Mr. Conlan's former client, J&J. The panel concluded, "Prolonged access to J&J's privileged information, followed by collaborative efforts with its most prominent adversary, leaves us with clear concern for the preservation of trust intrinsic to the attorney-client relationship. After reviewing the factual record, the arguments presented, and the governing legal standards, we find that as CEO of Legacy, Conlan's association with Beasley Allen violated RPC 1.9(a) and 5.3. Thus, the trial court order denying J&J's motion to disqualify Beasley Allen is reversed." A copy the Court's Opinion dated February 6, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JGpdQ1 About J&J Talc Units LLT Management, LLC (formerly known as LTL Management LLC) was a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was formed to manage and defend thousands of talc-related claims and oversee the operations of Royalty A&M. Royalty A&M owns a portfolio of royalty revenue streams, including royalty revenue streams based on third-party sales of LACTAID, MYLANTA/MYLICON and ROGAINE products. LTL Management first filed a petition for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 21-30589) on Oct. 14, 2021. The case was transferred to New Jersey (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 21-30589) on Nov. 16, 2021. The Hon. Michael B. Kaplan is the case judge. At the time of the filing, the Debtor was estimated to have $1 billion to $10 billion in both assets and liabilities. In the 2021 case, LTL Management tapped Jones Day and Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A., as bankruptcy counsel; King & Spalding, LLP and Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP as special counsel; McCarter & English, LLP as litigation consultant; Bates White, LLC as financial consultant; and AlixPartners, LLP as restructuring advisor. Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC, served as the claims agent. On Dec. 24, 2021, the U.S. Trustee for Regions 3 and 9 reconstituted the talc claimants' committee and appointed two separate committees: (i) the official committee of talc claimants I, which represents ovarian cancer claimants, and (ii) the official committee of talc claimants II, which represents mesothelioma claimants. The official committee of talc claimants I tapped Genova Burns LLC, Brown Rudnick LLP, Otterbourg PC and Parkins Lee & Rubio LLP as its legal counsel. Meanwhile, the official committee of talc claimants II is represented by the law firms of Cooley LLP, Bailey Glasser LLP, Waldrep Wall Babcock & Bailey PLLC, Massey & Gail LLP, and Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose & Podolsky P.A. Re-Filing of Chapter 11 Petition On Jan. 30, 2023, a panel of the Third Circuit issued an opinion directing this Court to dismiss the 2021 Chapter 11 Case on the basis that it was not filed in good faith. Although the Third Circuit panel recognized that the Debtor "inherited massive liabilities" and faced "thousands" of future claims, it concluded that the Debtor was not in financial distress before the filing. On March 22, 2023, the Third Circuit entered an order denying the Debtor's petition for rehearing. The Third Circuit entered an order denying LTL's stay motion on March 31, 2023, and, on the dame day, issued its mandate directing the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss the 2021 Chapter 11 Case. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the 2021 Case on April 4, 2023. Johnson & Johnson on April 4, 2023, announced that its subsidiary LTL Management LLC (LTL) has re-filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 23-12825) to obtain approval of a reorganization plan that will equitably and efficiently resolve all claims arising from cosmetic talc litigation against the Company and its affiliates in North America. In the new filing, J&J said it has agreed to contribute up to a present value of $8.9 billion, payable over 25 years, to resolve all the current and future talc claims, which is an increase of $6.9 billion over the $2 billion previously committed in connection with LTL's initial bankruptcy filing in October 2021. LTL also has secured commitments from over 60,000 current claimants to support a global resolution on these terms. In August 2023, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan in Trenton, New Jersey, ruled that the second bankruptcy case should be dismissed. 3rd Try In May 2024, J&J announced its subsidiary LLT Management LLC is soliciting support for a consensual prepackaged bankruptcy plan to resolve its talc-related liabilities. Under the terms of the plan, a trust would be funded with over $5.4 billion in the first three years and more than $8 billion over the course of 25 years, which J&J calculates to have a net present value of $6.475 billion. Claimants must cast their vote to accept or reject the Plan by 4:00 p.m. (Central Time) on July 26, 2024. A solicitation package may be requested at www.OfficialTalcClaims.com or by calling 1-888-431-4056. If the Plan is accepted by at least 75% of voters, a bankruptcy may be filed under the case name In re: Red River Talc LLC in a bankruptcy court in Texas or in the bankruptcy court of another jurisdiction. Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC is serving as balloting and solicitation agent for LLT. On Sept. 20, 2024, Red River Talc LLC filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 24-90505). Porter Hedges LLP and Jones Day serve as counsel in the new Chapter 11 case. Epiq is the claims agent. Paul Hastings LLP is counsel to the Ad Hoc Committee of Supporting Counsel. Randi S. Ellis is the proposed prepetition legal representative of future claimants. JT4 LLC: Abelyan Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Brian Abelyan, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. JT4, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CUB00655 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00783-KES-CDB. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action on behalf of himself and a putative class: Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of California Labor Code Section 510; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 and 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 and 512 and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of California Labor Code Section 226; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code Section 2802; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Kimberly Zerega, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Kimmy.Zerega@jacksonlewis.com - and - Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-8131 Email: Jennell.Shannon@jacksonlewis.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Davin Sues Over Product Misrepresentations ------------------------------------------------------------ Bradley Davin, individually and all others similarly situated v. KEURIG DR PEPPER, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-20604-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought against the Defendant's practices violate Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUPTA") as a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations concerning its plastic single-serve coffee pods ("K-pods" or "Products"). The Defendant deceptively labels and advertises its K-Cup single-use beverage pods as "recyclable," despite the fact that a majority of consumers are unable to recycle K Cups. Most recycling centers in the United States do not recycle K-Cups due to their small size, irregular shape, multi-material construction, frequent contamination issues, and unfavorable economic factors. Despite these facts, Keurig promotes its K-Cup pods as "recyclable" because they are made from polypropylene #5 plastic. However, the company relies on a purely theoretical definition of recyclability that ignores the fundamental principles outlined in the FTC's Green Guides and does not align with consumer understanding. This deceptive marketing strategy allows Keurig to exploit consumer demand for environmentally responsible products. The Plaintiff purchased the Products in reliance on Defendant's false representations that the Products are recyclable. Plaintiffs viewed Defendant's false representations on the labels and other marketing materials for the Products. If Plaintiffs had known that the Products were not recyclable, Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Product(s) and would have instead sought out single-serve pods or other coffee products that are otherwise compostable, recyclable, or reusable. At a minimum, Plaintiff would not have paid as much as he did if he had known the Products could not be recycled, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products from a local retailer on numerous occasions throughout the class period. The Defendant markets and sells plastic single-serve coffee pods nationwide in retail stores and online stores such as Amazon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com KING LASIK: Bid for Class Cert. Due July 24 ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN FRANKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KING LASIK, INC. P.S., Case No. 2:25-cv-01633-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order setting jury trial date, class certification briefing, and other pre-trial deadlines: Event Date Jury trial set FOR 9:00 A.M. on: Feb. 8, 2027 Deadline for joining additional parties: Feb. 27, 2026 All motions related to discovery must be June 30, 2026 filed by: Motion for class certification deadline: July 24, 2026 Opposition to motion for class Aug. 24, 2026 certification deadline: Discovery completed by: Aug. 28, 2026 Reply in support of motion for class Sept. 14, 2026 certification deadline: All motions in limine must be filed by: Jan. 4, 2027 King Lasik offers eye laser vision correction treatments with lasik surgery. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n9CMgc at no extra charge.[CC] KNOXVILLE TVA: Rouse Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorretta Rouse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KNOXVILLE TVA EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00042 (E.D. Tenn., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. Marquis is a digital and physical marketing and communications vendor for KTVAECU. As such, Marquis stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") about the current and former customers of Defendant KTVAECU. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII--which was entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. On August 14, 2025, Defendant Marquis "identified suspicious activity on their network and later determined that it was the result of a cybersecurity incident (the "Data Breach"). Upon learning of the incident, Defendant Marquis immediately launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant Marquis' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant KTVAECU's failure to ensure Defendant Marquis had adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber attack, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former customers of Defendant KTVAECU. Marquis Software is a marketing and compliance software and services provider that specializes in providing services to banks and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com LEGACY CONTRACTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- YOVERLY NUAMAN CRUZ; JOSE CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA; JOSE ALEXI VIGIL ARGUETA; ROBERTO SHULQUI; SANTOS WILMER ARGUETA VIGIL; ROBERTO ISAIAS ORTIZ VIVANCO; OMAR EDUCARDO BALTEZAR MOTA; LUIS FLORESMILO SIMBA BARRIONUEVO; JULIO CESAR FARIAS MEDINA; JUAN ELIAS CHANCHICOCHA CHANGOLUISA; JORGE R LLUMITASIG SILLAGANA; HOLGUER ESTUARDO CHANCHICOCHA PULLUTASI CIUDADANIA; ESCALONA GUILLERMO; GILBER HUAMAN VASQUEZ; GEOVANNY PATRICIO ZOTO AYALA; FRANKLIN ARMANDO IZA TIPANQUIZA; ESTEBAN E. LOPEZ CASIA; EMERSON ALTAMIRANO VASQUEZ; ELIMAR J. FIGUEIREDO OLIVEIRA; EFRAIN BO MAAS; EDWIN FABIAN JATI IZA SALCEDO; DILMER ALTAMIRANO SALOMA; DEIMAN VASQUEZ RIMARACHI; LUIS IVAN GUACHAMBALA CHIMBO; CESAR OSWALDO VIVAS ICHAPANTA; CELSO AJXUP CAGUAY; CARLOS VIVANCO CARRILLO; CARLA PATRICIA ARCOS JACOME; ALDO TOME; and LUIS FABIAN CHACHA SHULQUI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGACY CONTRACTOR NYC LLC; KLSCONTRACTORS LLC; RISE CONCRETE LLC; RISE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC; BARRY PHILIP CALDWELL, JOSE ALVAREZ and MARTIN J. BRUTON, Defendants, Case 1:26-cv-00534 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers. Legacy Contractor NYC LLC is a general construction firm that services both commercial and residential clients. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 LIFE PROTECT: Warren Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE PROTECT 24/7 INC. d/b/a LIFE PROTECT 24/7, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00719-JES-SBC (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly and/or willfully transmitting unsolicited, autodialed calls using an artificial or pre-recorded voice, to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the putative class members, without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading the privacy of Plaintiff and the putative class members. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed numerous unsolicited phone calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff without Plaintiff's prior express consent. The Defendant placed the calls using an artificial or pre-recorded voice to Plaintiff and others similarly situated without their consent in order to collect a debt, which is exactly the type of telephonic contact the TCPA was designed to prevent. Through Defendant's aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy. The Defendant's calls forced Plaintiff and other similarly situated Class members to live without the utility of their cellular phones by occupying their telephone with one or more unwanted calls, consuming their cellular phones' storage with pre-recorded voicemails, causing nuisance and lost time, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's unlawful conduct. Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER WARREN is an individual residing within the State of California. Defendant LIFE PROTECT 24/7, INC. provides quality medical alert systems and services for seniors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Ashley LaPointe, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com ashley@kazlg.com LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 22 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christina Riganian and Donna Spurgeon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LIVERAMP HOLDINGS INC. and LIVERAMP INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00824-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order extending case deadlines as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion for class Sept. 22, 2026 certification and class expert reports: LiveRamp's opposition to class Nov. 6, 2026 certification and class expert reports: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Dec. 18, 2026 for class certification and rebuttal class expert reports: Class certification expert discovery cut-Off: Jan. 15, 2027 LiveRamp offers a data connectivity platform whose services include data onboarding, the transfer of offline data online for marketing purposes. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y9NV3n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. Linnea D. Pittman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com lpittman@lchb.com - and - Jason "Jay" O. Barnes, Esq. An V. Truong, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com sshah@simmonsfirm.com LUXEXPERIENCE BV: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LuxExperience B.V. d/b/a Mytheresa US Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01095 (D. Minn., February 5, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.mytheresa.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. By failing to provide its Website's content and services in a manner that is compatible with auxiliary aids, Defendant has engaged, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, in illegal disability discrimination, says the suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to the Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant LuxExperience B.V. d/b/a Mytheresa US Services Inc. is a German Company that offers luxury clothing and apparel for sale including tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, skirts, skiwear, beachwear, activewear, jewelry, shoes, handbags, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MANE HAIRCARE: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mane Haircare, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00165 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 30, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, http://heymane.com/,is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mane Haircare, LLC sells hair styling products including hot round brushes, blow dry brushes, styling kits, hair tools, and related hair care accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit Hearing Set for March 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- Manhattan Associates, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has scheduled the consolidated securities class suit hearing on March 11, 2026. On February 25, 2025, an alleged Company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, Prime v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-00992-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "Prime Action"). The complaint in the Prime Action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under that act, based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants (the Company and named current and former officers) between October 22, 2024, and January 28, 2025. The complaint in the Prime Action sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On April 15, 2025, another alleged Company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, City of Orlando Police Officers' Pension Fund v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-02089-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "City of Orlando Action"). The complaint in the City of Orlando Action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants between July 24, 2024, and February 7, 2025. The factual allegations underlying the claims in the City of Orlando Action were similar to the factual allegations made in the Prime Action. The complaint in the City of Orlando Action sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On May 2, 2025, the Court consolidated the two actions (the "Consolidated Action"), and on May 23, 2025, the Court appointed the plaintiffs in the City of Orlando Action as the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On July 22, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, in which the securities law violations alleged are the same as those alleged in the original actions and the proposed class period is the same as in the City of Orlando action. The defendants deny the material allegations in the Consolidated Action, which is still in the early stages and has not yet been certified as a class action, and intend to defend themselves vigorously. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action on September 22, 2025, following which the plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 24, 2025, and the defendants filed their reply on December 22, 2025. The Court has set a hearing date on the motion for March 11, 2026. The Company maintains insurance that may cover defendants’ liability arising out of this litigation up to the policy limits and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, these proceedings. Manhattan Associates is a technology company into prepackaged software and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. MAREX GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned Michaella G. Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marex Group PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08368 (RA)(SDA), and Ravishanker Narayanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marex Group PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08393 (RA)(SDA), United States Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' cross-motion to consolidate the two actions, granted the motions by Katz and by Ali Shahsavanpour and Jaimin Patel (collectively, S&P) to be appointed as co-lead plaintiffs in their respective actions, and ordered the two actions coordinated for discovery and case management purposes under Rule 42(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The motions by Judy Joos and Ravishanker Narayanan were denied as moot The two actions are related securities class actions pending against Marex Group PLC, Ian Lowitt, and Robert Irvin. Both actions alleged that Defendants defrauded investors in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. On August 5, 2025, NINGI Research published a report stating that Marex had engaged in a multi-year accounting scheme involving a web of opaque off-balance-sheet entities, fictitious intercompany transactions, and misleading disclosures to conceal significant losses, inflate profits, and mask its true risk exposure. On the consolidation motion, the court found that the interests of the Plaintiffs in the two actions were sufficiently diverse that it would be inappropriate to consolidate the two cases. The Katz Action class consisted of short sellers, while the Narayanan Action class consisted of long purchasers. Short sales called into question a plaintiff's typicality among other investors in the class because, while the typical investor loses money when the price of the security decreases, short sellers profit. On lead plaintiff appointments, the court applied the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act presumption. Katz satisfied all three statutory requirements, including timely filing and the largest financial interest among movants, with losses of approximately $30,883.20, and met the Rule 23 typicality and adequacy requirements. The court therefore appointed Katz as lead plaintiff in the Katz Action and approved her selection of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as lead counsel. Similarly, S&P satisfied the applicable requirements, having suffered losses of approximately $31,862 during the class period and meeting the typicality and adequacy requirements. No competing movant came forward with a larger financial interest. The court therefore appointed S&P as lead plaintiffs in the Narayanan Action and approved their selection of The Schall Law Firm as lead counsel. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated 2nd February is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TJE5w6 From PacerMonitor.com Defendants Crispin Robert John Irvin, Ian Theo Lowitt, and Marex Group PLC are represented by Jason Craig Hegt (212-906-1200; jason.hegt@lw.com, Chengliang Hong -- larry.hong@lw.com and Jeff G. Hammel, 212-906-1200; jeff.hammel@lw.com of Latham & Watkins. Plaintiff Michaella G. Katz is represented by Mandeep S. Minhas, 646-582-0118; mminhas@scott-scott.com -- and Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, 212-223-6444; tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- of Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP. MATCH GROUP: Kelechian Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- RAFFI KELECHIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. MATCH GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00316 (N.D. Tex., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed (collectively "PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals ("the Class"). The complaint states that the Plaintiff and Class Members are former customers of Defendant. In order to obtain services from Defendant, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their sensitive and confidential Private Information, including their names, and geographic locations. On January 2026, Defendant experienced a cyberattack incident in which a hacker group ShinyHunters accessed its data. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, the Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, adds the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) uncompensated lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Raffi Kelechian is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant Match Group, Inc. is a major US tech company that focuses on dating applications based in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-744-3000 Facsimile: 214-744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 9021 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com MAXWELL LEADERSHIP: Sumrell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxwell Leadership, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Sumrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maxwell Leadership, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00531-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Maxwell Leadership, Inc. -- https://www.maxwellleadership.com/ -- gives individuals, companies, communities and nations a transformational leadership solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MCBC MEDICAL: Cline Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Cline, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MCBC MEDICAL DELIVERY SERVICES LLC d/b/a MEDICAL DELIVERY SERVICES INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-00303 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and employment benefits in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Virginia Minimum Wage Act ("VMWA"), the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), and the Virginia Misclassification Law ("VML"), and related claims. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant has violated and continues to violate the FLSA and VOWA by having a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has violated and continues to violate the FLSA and VMWA by having a policy or practice of failing to pay minimum wages compensation to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees. This violation results from Defendant's failure to reimburse Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for the costs of performing Defendant's work. These costs include gas, vehicle maintenance and depreciation, and insurance, among other costs. When these costs are subtracted from the wages paid to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, in at least some workweeks, their effective hourly pay falls below the required minimum wage, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Delivery Driver from September 2024 to the present. The Defendant is in the business of transporting radioactive medical materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Zev Antell, Esq. BUTLERCURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: 804.648.4848 Email: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 218-3133 Fax: (434) 321-1636 Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Court Narrows Claims in Hossain Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MUZAKKIR HOSSAIN and SHAKHAWAT HASSAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MEDIASTAR LIMITED, doing business as CHORKI, and TRANSCOM LIMITED, Case No. 1:24-cv-01201-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order that: The certificates of default against both Defendants are vacated; the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) is granted with respect to Transcom Limited ("Transcom"). The Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is denied. Mr. Timothy Raju Mahajan's motion to withdraw as defense counsel is granted; and the Plaintiffs' request to transfer funds into a new escrow account maintained by the Plaintiffs is granted. The remaining Defendant - Mediastar Limited, doing business as Chorki ("Chorki") - is directed to retain defense counsel on or before March 4, 2026. If Chorki fails to comply with the Court's Orders, including the retention of new counsel by the specified deadline, the Court will enter a certificate of default against Chorki. The Plaintiffs are directed to update the Court on their establishment of a new escrow account and to propose a briefing schedule on their anticipated motion for class certification on or before March 18, 2026. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 82, 83, 103, 105, and 106. The Clerk of Court is also directed to terminate Transcom as a defendant and Mr. Mahajan as defense counsel from the docket. Mediastar is a media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TaadGJ at no extra charge.[CC] MEDUSIND INC: Class Settlement in Owings Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY OWINGS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MEDUSIND, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-20117-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and application for attorneys' fees and costs. The case is dismissed with prejudice with respect to the Defendant, and no costs shall be awarded other than specified in this Order or provided by the Settlement Agreement. There being no reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment forthwith pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The Court finds that it should finally certify the proposed Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass and enter this Final Approval Order because the Settlement Class, California Settlement Subclass, and proposed Settlement satisfy the Rule 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e) requirements and the Bennett factors. Nothing has changed since the Court granted Preliminary Approval. Additionally, the response from the Settlement Class Members has been overwhelmingly favorable. The Court therefore finally certifies the following Settlement Class: Settlement Class: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident indicating their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." A subset of the Settlement Class is the California Settlement Class of "Settlement Class Members residing in California as of Dec. 29, 2023." The Settlement provides monetary relief that includes a non-reversionary all cash Settlement Fund of $5,000,000. The Defendant is a medical and dental billing and software company that provides services to providers throughout the country. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WMx5Uv at no extra charge.[CC] MICROGENICS CORP: DOCCS Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Warrick" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Nadezda Steele-Warrick and Darryl Schultz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Microgenics Corporation, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Anthony Annucci, James O'Gorman, Charles Kelly, Richard Finnegan, and Corey Bedard, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-6558 (FB) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), Senior United States District Judge Frederic Block of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the motions for summary judgment filed by five New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) employee Defendants on qualified immunity grounds. The Plaintiffs claimed that they and thousands of others under the jurisdiction of DOCCS were subject to discipline based on false-positive results of faulty drug tests developed by the Microgenics Defendants. In addition to the Microgenics Defendants, the Plaintiffs asserted Section 1983 claims against five DOCCS employee Defendants under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that they failed to take corrective action after becoming aware that the tests were unreliable. DOCCS used EMIT drug testing technology from 1987 until 2018. Around 2016, DOCCS decided to find a different vendor, and Defendant Lieutenant Corey Bedard was tasked with leading that search. DOCCS ultimately awarded the contract to Microgenics, and all DOCCS prisons began using Microgenics testing systems in January 2019. Within the first month, complaints about the new tests began flooding into DOCCS, including many from individuals who had never previously tested positive for drugs. The Inspector General ultimately determined that Microgenics's assays had an average false positive rate of 28%. In January 2020, Acting Commissioner Annucci and DOCCS executive staff decided to expunge and reverse discipline resulting from Microgenics drug tests and to stop using all Microgenics drug testing equipment. The Court evaluated whether the five DOCCS Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, which requires showing (1) that the official did not violate a statutory or constitutional right, or (2) that the right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. As to Defendant Annucci and Defendant O'Gorman, who submitted a joint brief, the Court found that evidence supports a longer timeline of inmate, correctional officer, and elected official complaints starting in January 2019, well before Annucci's claimed date of unusual complaints in late June 2019. Annucci did not order any changes to address the issues raised in those letters. Therefore, the Court could not conclude that no jury could find their actions conscience-shocking. As to Defendant Kelly, the top-ranking DOCCS official specifically assigned to oversee the Microgenics tests, the Court found that he discovered potential cross-reactivity with Benadryl yet took no further steps to investigate. He also paused testing at only one of fifty-two facilities despite learning that five out of six samples returned false positives for buprenorphine, and he took no remedial steps to free the five individuals vindicated by confirmatory testing who were still in confinement. These actions raised triable issues of fact as to whether his conduct evinced conscience-shocking deliberate indifference. As to Defendant Finnegan, who served as Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Special Housing throughout the events in question, the record suggested he instructed a subordinate to stand down and stop asking questions, and he conducted no investigation. According to the Court, prioritizing personal feuds over the constitutional rights of incarcerated people raises more than the specter of conscience-shocking conduct. As to Defendant Bedard, discovery revealed that he disregarded scientific literature showing CEDIA buprenorphine assays had a false positive rate of 39% and did nothing to bring it to his superiors' attention. He also allowed a company salesperson to edit Directive 4937 to suggest CEDIA tests could be used without confirmatory testing, despite knowing that the Microgenics Bup II instructional insert mandated that a more specific chemical method must be used to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Therefore, the Court found a jury could reasonably conclude Bedard's conduct was conscience-shocking, and the rights in question were clearly established at the time. The Court denied all five DOCCS Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Court held that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that they violated the Plaintiffs' well-established rights via their involvement in the rollout of the Indiko Plus testing system in 2019. The question of whether the Defendants are ultimately entitled to qualified immunity must be reserved until after trial, at which point the jury will be given targeted special interrogatories to assist the Court's final determination. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gnB3vY from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Microgenics Corporation and Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. are represented by: Erica Michelle Singer Mekles Alexander Hsu Nathan J. Marcusen Bowman and Brooke LLP erica.mekles@bowmanandbrooke.com alexander.hsu@bowmanandbrooke.com nathan.marcusen@bowmanandbrooke.com Plaintiff Nadezda Steele-Warrick is represented by: Betsy Hutchings bhutchings@plsny.org Dave Bentivegna dbentivegna@plsny.org Michael Cassidy mcassidy@plsny.org Prisoners' Legal Services of New York -- and -- Alanna Gayle Kaufman akaufman@kllf-law.com Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP Ananda Venkata Burra Matthew D. Brinckerhoff aburra@ecbalaw.com mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Ploss Suit in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Mondelez International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ploss class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Several class action complaints also were filed against Mondelez Global in the District Court by investors who copied and expanded upon the CFTC allegations in a series of private claims for monetary damages as well as injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified relief. In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as case number 15-cv-2937, Harry Ploss et al. v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Mondelez Global LLC. On January 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request to certify a class. In November 2022, the District Court adjourned the trial date it had previously set for November 30, 2022 and ordered the parties to brief Kraft's motions to decertify the class and for summary judgment, which has been completed. The District Court heard argument on these motions in March 2024 and took them under submission. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on its Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, the Company expects to bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the class action. Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding and beverage and snack food company. NBT BANCORP INC: Vazquez Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NBT Bancorp, Inc. The case is styled as Sabrina Vazquez, Isabella Vazquez, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. NBT Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 260103944 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Jan. 29, 2026). NBT Bancorp Inc. -- https://www.nbtbancorp.com/ -- is a financial holding company incorporated in 1986 in the state of Delaware and based in Norwich, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Fax: (856) 685-7417 Phone: (856) 685-7420 NEW SABINA: Schroeder Sues Over Unpaid Straight Time and Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Schroeder, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NEW SABINA INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00084-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 29, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA") to recover unpaid straight time and unpaid overtime compensation unlawfully withheld by Defendant, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant's timekeeping and payroll practices are not neutral in effect and systematically result in hourly, non-exempt employees being paid for fewer hours than they work and record. The Defendant calculates overtime based on a defined workweek and, in workweeks where employees work more than 40 hours, Defendant's pay practices result in employees not receiving all overtime compensation owed. The Defendant knew or should have known its timekeeping and payroll practices resulted in underpayment because Defendant controlled the timekeeping system and payroll practices used to calculate and pay wages. Through these policies and practices, Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective, and the Rule 23 Ohio Class, all wages due for straight-time and overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee at Defendant's Sabina, Ohio facility since around February 2023, including in the role of Team Lead, in Material Services. The Defendant operates a manufacturing facility where it produces industrial and automotive components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Doren, Esq. BAREAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 2214221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com adoren@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com NEW YORK, NY: Court Recommends to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONY GOULD, CURTAYSIA TAYLOR, SHAVONA WARMINGTON, SHALONDA CURTIS HACKETT, CHRISTOPHER HACKETT, MARIANNA AZAR, MATHEW ENG, JANE DOE 1, AND ZULIMA LEMUS, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:24-cv-01263-RPK-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cho entered a recommendation granting the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of: "all parents or legal guardians who have been, are, and/or will be at risk of being subject to City's Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") investigations in which ACS caseworkers have used, are using, or will use unlawful tactics to search homes without a court order or exigent circumstances." The Court finds class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) appropriate here. Each of the claims at issue is based on defendant's alleged systemic failure or refusal to comply with the Fourth Amendment and the requested declaratory and injunctive relief, to end defendant's alleged unconstitutional policy, custom, and practice, "would inure to the benefit of all class members. " The plaintiffs allege that the ACS violated their Fourth Amendment rights by conducting unreasonable searches of their homes and failing to adequately train and supervise caseworkers. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WoLzso at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN NORTH: Parties' Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hagenbaugh et al v. Nissan North America, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01838-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Munley entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend deadlines. Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan. The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended to May 4, 2026, and the deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to June 18, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1AToOE at no extra charge.[CC] NVIDIA CORPORATION: Youngblood Sues Over Unlawfully Accessed Works ------------------------------------------------------------------ Devin Youngblood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Case No. 5:26-cv-00916 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought for violations of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, arising from NVIDIA's unauthorized acquisition--through scraping, bulk downloading, and other extraction methods--of various content creators' YouTube-hosted audiovisual works ("Works") at the file level by bypassing YouTube's technological measures that control access to the Works and NVIDIA's use of those unlawfully accessed Works to train, develop, and improve NVIDIA's Omniverse 3D world generator, self-driving cars, and "digital human" artificial intelligence ("AI") products, internally referred to by NVIDIA as "Cosmos." YouTube's technical controls are designed to provide access through user-based streaming and to prevent non-authorized bulk extraction. At the scale required for modern AI video-model training, like those needed by NVIDIA, obtaining file-level copies of the Works necessarily requires bypassing those controls. NVIDIA did not obtain licenses or permissions from Plaintiff and Class Members for the file-level acquisition and use of their Works as training inputs for its AI models. Instead, on information and belief, including information from NVIDIA employees recently uncovered through media sources, NVIDIA used or relied on circumvention tools and services to defeat YouTube's technological measures at scale. The DMCA prohibits circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work, and it prohibits trafficking in circumvention technologies and services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns and operates the YouTube channel "The Youngblood's Podcast." NVIDIA develops and commercializes artificial intelligence models and related products and services, including an AI "world model" systems that rely on large-scale video training data.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: wedelman@milberg.com ORION REAL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says -------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. ORION REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. D/B/A DOWNSTAIRS A/K/A DOWNSTAIRS GAS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-20762-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities and uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. Defendant ORION REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. D/B/A DOWNSTAIRS A/K/A DOWNSTAIRS GAS owns and operates a commercial gas station in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff alleges that he encountered architectural barriers in violation of the ADA at the Defendant's commercial gas station. The barriers to access have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial gas station, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial gas station, adds the complaint. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com, mds@ajperezlawgroup.com OTTNO INC: Glaze Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------- PAULA GLAZE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OTTNO INC. d/b/a THE NATIONAL AUTO LOAN NETWORK, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-273 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on January 14, 2026. The attackers claim they exfiltrated 600 GB of data during the Data Breach. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. But the size of the putative Class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody and control. The putative Class is over one hundred members--as it includes its customers and employees. And yet, Defendant has failed to notify the Class. Thus, Defendant is keeping the Class in the dark and thereby depriving the Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner, asserts the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate her injuries. Today, Plaintiff has a continuing interest in ensuring that her PII which remains backed up in Defendant's possession. Plaintiff Paula Glaze is a citizen of Toledo, Ohio and is a Data Breach victim. She is a former customer of Defendant by virtue of refinancing an auto loan through Defendant on April 2025. Defendant Ottno Inc. is a business that assists consumers in obtaining financing for vehicle purchases and in refinancing existing auto loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market At., Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT: Moore Wins Bid for Conditional Cert ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIQUELLE MOORE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., doing business as Magic City, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04389-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff's claims are conditionally certified as two collective actions. The first is the "Minimum Wage and Tip Collective" which is defined as the following: "All persons who were, or are, employed by the Defendants as dancers any time within three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action and who did not sign a valid arbitration agreement." The second collective is the "Overtime Collective" which is defined as the following: "All persons who were, or are, employed by the Defendants as dancers any time within three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action and who worked in excess of forty hours per week and were not paid an overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty per workweek and who did not sign a valid arbitration agreement." In an abundance of caution, the parties are DIRECTED to confer in good faith and endeavor to jointly submit proposed notices and forms within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants are directed to file specific objections within 28 days of entry of this Order. The Plaintiff will then be permitted to respond, and Defendants may reply under the typical time limits. The Court will then expedite its ruling on the proposed notices and forms. Paradise is a dynamic entertainment company based in Atlanta, GA, offering a range of services to enhance events and experiences. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sj2QhS at no extra charge.[CC] PELICAN INVESTMENT: Court Amends Discovery Schedule 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, on February 9, 2026, approved the parties' joint proposal to amend certain deadlines in the Court's January 2025 scheduling order. Key amended deadlines include completion of written discovery by March 6, 2026, fact discovery by June 5, 2026, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by December 30, 2026. A copy of the First Amended Scheduling and Discovery Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KL4V3a from PacerMonitor.com PETROSIAN ESTHETIC: Firlej Balks at Personal Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE FIRLEJ and HANIA ROUHANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PETROSIAN ESTHETIC ENTERPRISES, LLC and SEV LASER AESTHETICS CHICAGO, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01030 (C.D. Cal., February 2, 2026) asserts statutory and common law claims against Defendants for invasion of privacy; negligence; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Through the SEV website, Plaintiffs and other patients can schedule and modify medical appointments with SEV's practitioners. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other visitors to the website, their private personal and health information was not actually being kept private. Instead, through SEV's patient scheduling website, the Defendants collected and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiffs' and other patients' upcoming appointments, including the fact that the patient is scheduling an appointment with an aesthetician and the reason for the patient's appointment to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google"), through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools, says the suit. Accordingly, the Defendants' disclosure of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive health information constitutes a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, asserts the complaint. Petrosian Esthetic Enterprises, LLC is a medical provider offering aesthetic services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com PHIA GROUP: Faces Johnson Suit Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------ EDWIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10531 (D. Mass., February 2, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for its failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' private information. Phia recently announced that unauthorized cybercriminals successfully infiltrated its inadequately secured computer network and thereby stole the sensitive private information of tens of thousands of individuals between July 8, 2024 and July 9, 2024. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their private information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have already suffered damages. For example, now that their private information has been released into the criminal cyber domains, Plaintiff and Class Members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft, asserts the complaint. The Phia Group, LLC provides healthcare consulting services, plan document drafting, claim negotiation, and overpayment recovery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com PICARD MEDICAL: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Louie Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIANNE LOUIE, Plaintiff v. PICARD MEDICAL, INC.; PATRICK NJ SCHNEGELSBERG; BERNARD SKAGGS; MATT SCHUSTER; YUNCAI "RICHARD" FANG; CHRIS HSIEH; WESTPARK CAPITAL, INC.; SENTINEL BROKERS COMPANY, INC.; R.F. LAFFERTY & CO. INC.; AMERICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS; MALONEBAILEY, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-01024 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Picard securities between September 2, 2025, and October 31, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case arises from the sudden collapse of Picard's stock in late October 2025, following a dramatic yet illusory run-up orchestrated by a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. Throughout the proposed class period to the present, regulators have identified a recurring pattern in problematic micro-cap IPOs: very small public floats, sharp price increases without corresponding news, and trading activity driven by coordinated promotion in online groups. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of its securities trading activity throughout the class period. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Picard was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media-based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals; (2) that insiders and/or affiliates used offshore or nominee accounts to facilitate the coordinated dumping of shares during a price inflation campaign; (3) that Picard's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock price; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. Picard Medical, Inc. is engaged in designing, manufacturing, production, supply, marketing, and sale of medical device products. The Company is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, with operations in the United States, Europe, and China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Sean T. Masson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: smasson@scott-scott.com - and - Tom Grady, Esq. GRADYLAW 720 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34102 E-mail: tgrady@gradylaw.com PNC BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Lyons Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM T. LYONS JR., v. PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-02234-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Gallagher entered an order that: 1) The Defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, with Judgment entered in favor of the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's individual damages; 2) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and cross-motion for partial summary judgment will be held in abeyance pending submission of supplemental briefing; 3) The parties are directed to provide supplemental briefing as requested in the memorandum opinion no later than Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026; and 4) The Clerk is directed to file the Court's accompanying memorandum opinion under seal, and the parties will be afforded one week to confer and notify this Court of proposed redactions to be made to a publicly filed version. Should this Court not receive proposed redactions within one week, it will file this opinion publicly in full. PNC Bank is a diversified financial institution. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S7uJD3 at no extra charge.[CC] RATP DEV USA: Pompeo Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elisabeth Pompeo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. RATP DEV USA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RATP DEV USA, INC., a Texas corporation; RATP DEV SANTA MARIA, LLC, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV07874 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00956. The State Court Action is a putative wage-and-hour class action, seeking recovery on behalf of herself and all non-exempt California employees for the following underlying Labor Code claims: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510; Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Rest Break Liability Section 226.7; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages; Violation of Labor Code Sections 245 et seq. and 246; Violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses Under Labor Code Section 2802; Failure to Maintain Records Required under Labor Code Sections 1174, 1174.5; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code section 203; and Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Terry L. Higham, Esq. Joanna Macmillan, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.909.7775 Fax: 424.465.6630 Email: thigham@constangy.com jmacmillan@constangy.com RED LOBSTER: Gray Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dawn Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 2025-CH-12714 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01029. The Plaintiff alleges Red Lobster violated the IMWL by: requiring Plaintiff "to perform non-tipped labor unrelated to their tipped occupations and not in direct support of tip-producing work"; requiring Plaintiff "to perform non-tipped labor related to or in direct support of her tip-producing work" more than part of the time or occasionally; failing to notify Plaintiff of the amount of cash wage that it would be paying; failing to notify Plaintiff of the amount that it would be claiming as a tip credit; failing to inform Plaintiff that the tip credit claimed cannot exceed the actual amount of tips received by the employee; and failing to notify Plaintiff that all tips received are to be retained by the employee except for a valid tip pooling arrangement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin St. Chargin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South La Salle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: (312) 499-6700 Facsimile: (312) 499-6701 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com REMEMBER ME: Hires Newmark Group Inc. as Appraiser -------------------------------------------------- Remember Me Senior Care, LLC and affiliates seek approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to employ Newmark Group, Inc. as appraiser. The firm will provide business valuation and appraisal related to the operations of the Debtors. The firm will be paid a flat fee of $5,850. Ms. Simone disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Teresa Simone Newmark Group, Inc. 615 S College St., Suite 450 Charlotte, NC 28202 Tel: (704) 208-5858 About Remember Me Senior Care, LLC Remember Me Senior Care, LLC, a company in Cleveland, Tenn., offers personalized assisted living and memory care services in a homelike environment. The facility provides a range of services, including help with daily activities, medication management, and specialized care for those with Alzheimer's or other dementias. Remember Me Senior Care sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Case No. 25-10451) on February 18, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reported up to $50,000 in assets and between $10 million and $50 million in liabilities. Judge Nicholas W. Whittenburg oversees the case. The Debtor is represented by: Jeffrey W. Maddux, Esq. Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel P.C. Liberty Tower 605 Chestnut Street, Ste. 1700 Chattanooga, TN 37450 Tel: (423) 757-0296 Fax: (423) 508-1296 Email: jmaddux@chamblisslaw.com RESER'S FINE FOODS: Dunion Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Dunion, an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. RESER'S FINE FOODS, INC., an Oregon stock corporation; CINDY FLORES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU008915C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00620-H-SBC. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to indemnify; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher W. Olmsted, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: christopher.olmsted@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com RICKY DIXON: Class Certification Deadline in Barde Suspended ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 of Corrections; and CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00463-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order granting motion for extension: The class-certification deadline is suspended. The court will address the deadline further after considering the parties' Rule 26(f) report. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=chbkHZ at no extra charge.[CC] ROSS HUNTER: Bid for Pre-Class Cert Protective Order Due Feb. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAYA LENAY, v. ROSS HUNTER, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05743-JLR-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Fricke entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline for motion for pre-class Feb. 20, 2026 certification protective order: Last date for joinder of additional July 2, 2027 parties: Deadline for plaintiff to file amended July 2, 2027 complaint: Discovery (including meet-and-confer Nov. 19, 2027 meetings) completed by: Last date to file and serve final Jan. 7, 2028 dispositive motions: Mediation Completed by: Jan. 28, 2028 Agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial Order due: Feb. 25, 2028 A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D14Oft at no extra charge.[CC] RPM LIVING: Escareno Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joe Escareno and Justin Mansour, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RPM LIVING, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 25CL068458C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00597-CAB-MMP. On December 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the San Diego County Superior Court, asserting 3 causes of action against RPM for alleged violation of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500-17606, alleged violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-17210, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark G. Rackers, Esq. Anna Jane I. Zarndt, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-3598 Phone: 619.338.6500 Email: mrackers@sheppardmullin.com azarndt@sheppardmullin.com - and - Lisa Yun Pruitt, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Ste. 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858.720.8900 Email: lpruitt@sheppardmullin.com SHIMANO NORTH: Class Settlement in Hawkins Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jarett Hawkins v. Shimano North America Bicycle Inc. et al., (re: Shimano Crankset Litigation), Case No. 8:23-cv-02038-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Selna entered an order granting final approval to class action settlement. Therefore, the Court certifies the Settlement Class set forth in the Settlement Agreement: "All Persons (except Excluded Persons) who purchased, received, were given, and/or owned a Designated Crankset in the United States, other than solely for resale purposes." This includes, without limitation, Persons who purchased, received, were given, or owned a Designated Crankset as a standalone product and Persons who purchased, received, were given, or owned a bicycle equipped with a Designated Crankset. The Court reaffirms its appointment of the Plaintiffs Steven Adelman, Jose Delgado, Jose Erazo, Dave Gonyer, Jarett Hawkins, Christopher Jennings, Moussa Kouyate, Marcus Lewis, Kevin Litam, Maurice Scorsolini, Dimitri Semizarov, and Mike Tiradoas Class Representatives for settlement purposes. Shimano is a distributor and marketer of high-performance bicycle components. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cqNxNP at no extra charge.[CC] SKY-FRAME INC: Hires Mentor Group Inc. as Valuation Consultant -------------------------------------------------------------- Sky-Frame, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California to employ The Mentor Group, Inc. as valuation consultant. The firm will provide these services: 1. Orderly liquidation for the fixed assets; 2. Business or going concern value; and 3. Go-to-market analysis for a possible sale. The firm will be paid a flat fee of $28,000. Mr. Blaine disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: Davis R. Blaine Mentor Group, Inc. 200 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 204 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Tel: (818) 991-4150 E-mail: dblaine@thementorgrp.com About Sky-Frame, Inc. Sky-Frame, Inc. develops and produces frameless sliding windows and doors that emphasize flush indoor-outdoor transitions and are engineered in Switzerland for use in architectural and residential projects worldwide. It supplies a range of systems including straight, curved, inclined and pivot configurations, along with options such as insect screens, electric drives, enhanced security features, concealed pockets, shading solutions, bullet-resistant versions and switchable glazing. Its products are installed in several thousand properties across multiple continents and serve the high-end building components and architectural design markets. Sky-Frame filed a petition under Chapter 11, Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 25-20955) on December 6, 2025, with $6,099,486 in assets and $9,156,326 in liabilities. Reto Honegger, chief financial officer, signed the petition. Judge Barry Russell oversees the case. Caroline R. Djang, Esq., at Buchalter, A Professional Corp represents the Debtor as counsel. SKYLINE BEAUTY SUPPLY: Smith Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skyline Beauty Supply. The case is styled as Bret Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Skyline Beauty Supply, Case No. 2:26-cv-00907 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Skyline Beauty Supply -- https://skylinebeautysupply.com/ -- is a leading nationwide distributor for the nail industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com SPALLINGER MILLWRIGHT: Farley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Farley, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Spallinger Millwright Service, Case No. 3:26-cv-00259-JRK (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and all of Defendant's other similarly situated non-exempt employees were entitled to overtime of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40. However, Defendant failed to pay The Plaintiff and all of Defendant's other similarly situated non-exempt employees one-and-one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week for Defendant, but was not paid one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 as required by the FLSA. The Defendant failed to properly compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt employees for all overtime hours worked at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay as required because Defendant at times instead paid only a straight or base (hereinafter "Base Hourly Wage") hourly rate of pay for hours worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant out of its facility in Sidney, Ohio as an hourly, non-exempt employee as defined in the FLSA primarily in the position of Welder beginning in May 2024 through September 2025. The Defendant offers services including but not limited to fabrication, installation, and maintenance for various industrial needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Phone: 614-787-4878 Fax: 614-957-7515 Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com SPECTRAFORCE TECHNOLOGIES: Ntseful-Dubose Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Veromonique Ntseful-Dubose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPECTRAFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-00042-D (E.D.N.C., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law, seeking to recover unpaid wages. Regardless of specific job title, all of Defendant's Representatives were: paid on an hourly basis; classified as non-exempt; regularly worked 40 or more hours per workweek; relied on a computer and essential computer programs to perform their job duties daily; required to perform work off-the-clock before, during and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system; and subject to the same relevant policies. The Defendant requires its Representatives to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime, however Defendant does not compensate Representatives for all work performed. Instead, Defendant requires its Representatives to perform compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled shifts, but train and instruct its Representatives not to record this time on their timesheets in Defendant's timekeeping system. This timekeeping policy resulted in Representatives not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for straight time., says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked remotely for Defendant as a non-exempt Patient Scheduler from October 2023 to February 2024. The Defendant is in the business of staffing and workforce-solutions services and describes itself as "the force that unites talent with opportunity, strategy with impact, challenges with solutions."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com SPRING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Private Info, Keith Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA KEITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRING MANAGEMENT OK, LLC d/b/a LUMIO DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00067-MTS (N.D. Okla., February 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. On February 6, 2026, the Defendant experienced a data breach. Since the Data Breach occurred, the ransomware group "Nitrogen" has claimed responsibility, and released proof of files it extracted from Defendant's IT Network. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and medical information. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and, theft of personal and financial information. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Claremore, Oklahoma. Defendant Spring Management OK, LLC d/b/a Lumio Dental is a Dental Partnership Organization ("DPO") focused on providing comprehensive dental care with over 60 locations across Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com – and – John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com STABILITY AI LTD: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 11 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH ANDERSEN, et al., v. STABILITY AI LTD., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order granting in part plaintiffs' motion to modify case schedule as follows: Event Deadlines Deadline to serve all deposition notices May 11, 2026 and subpoenas: Close of fact discovery: June 1, 2026 Last day to move for Class Certification Nov. 11, 2026 and Summary Judgment: Deadline to file oppositions to motion Dec. 22, 2026 for class certification and motion for summary judgment: Deadline to file replies in support of Jan. 29, 2027 motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment: Motion hearing on class certification Feb. 17, 2027 and summary judgement: Trial: June 1, 2027 Stability is an artificial intelligence company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wgqzbh at no extra charge.[CC] STUCKMAN SALVAGE: Papenbrock Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions --------------------------------------------------------------- Isaiah Papenbrock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STUCKMAN SALVAGE, INC. d/b/a STUCKMAN SALVAGE AND TOW, Case No. 3:26-cv-00131 (N.D. Ind., Jan. 30, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Indiana Wage Payment Statute ("IWPS") and the Indiana Wage Assignment Statute on behalf of all similarly situated hourly laborers and scrap-processing employees of Stuckman Salvage who were paid straight time for overtime and were denied pay for off-the-clock work and arising from unlawful wage deductions and failure to pay wages when due. The Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and other employees to work more than 40 hours per week while paying only straight time or paying hours "under the table" in cash, without overtime premiums. The Defendant also deducted wages from employees without written authorization, including deductions for alleged "overpayments," "missed punches," and time adjustments made to keep employees under 40 hours. The Defendant knowingly failed to pay employees for pre-shift work, post-shift work, and on-the-clock lunch periods that were automatically deducted even when work continued, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from July 11, 2024 until late 2025. The Defendant operates a salvage, scrap, and towing business employing laborers to process scrap metal, dismantle machinery and appliances, and perform physically hazardous work. Plaintiff was one such laborer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Hicks, Esq. MACEY SWANSON HICKS & SAUER 429 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 204 Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800 Phone: (317) 637-2345 Fax: (317) 637-2369 Email: rhicks@maceylaw.com SUPERPOWER HEALTH: Standing Order Entered in Function Health Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Function Health, Inc., v. Superpower Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00810-JFW-DSR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered a standing order: The plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and shall file the proof(s) of service pursuant to the Local Rules. Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. Within ten days of a party's initial appearance, lead trial counsel shall file a declaration entitled, "Declaration of Lead Trial Counsel" which shall: (1) notify the Court that counsel has registered as an "CM/ECF User;" (2) include lead counsel's "E-Mail Address of Record; " and (3) confirm that lead counsel has read the Court’s Standing Order and the Local Rules. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. Motions for Class Certification shall be filed within 120 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action (or if applicable 120 days after service of the Notice of Removal), unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Superpower is a digital health platform that offers personalized, preventative, and longevity-focused medicine through advanced diagnostics. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=THz42m at no extra charge.[CC] SV SUPER: Ruben Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Randall Ruben, an Arizona resident; v. SV Super Sale Bin Store, Inc., an Arizona company; GV Super Sale Bin Store, Inc., an Arizona company; Super Sale Bin Store LLC, an Arizona company; Sameer Qasem an Arizona resident; and Ahmad Alzfifah, an Arizona resident; Case No. 4:25-cv-00228-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All store workers (or similar job titled); who work[ed] for the Defendant SV Super Sale Bin Store, GV Super Sales Bin Store, Super Sale Bin Store, Ahmad Alzfifah and/or Sameer Qasem; within the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek, or were paid below Arizona minimum wage for any workweek; as a past or present worker are known as (the "Collective Members")." At this preliminary stage, Plaintiff has come forward with sufficient factual bases from which this Court can determine that similarly situated plaintiffs exist. The Plaintiff Ruben worked as a store worker for the Defendants' various locations for periods from approximately late 2023 until around April 2025. SV Super Sale is a retail business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ecw6Cf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Kuklinski, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: akuklinski@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Suit in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Decker class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned Decker v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12976 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged purchaser of its common stock. The complaint asserted claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that it made false and/or misleading statements related to its revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brought claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased its stock between February 8, 2024 and November 26, 2024. On May 5, 2025, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and setting a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and our response to the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Symbotic LLC is a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts, and doing business throughout North America. It has operations in 20 locations in the United States and Canada that include facilities focusing in robotics, machine learning, software engineering, and data analytics. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately September 2019 through September 17, 2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. [BN] TELLURIDE RESORT: Court OKs Alvarez Bid to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alvarez, et al., v. Telluride Resort Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00354 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge John L. Kane entered an order denying motion to certify class. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Telluride is a privately held company based in Telluride, Colorado, that operates within the hospitality industry, specifically focusing on hotels and resorts.[CC] Telluride operates within the hotel and resort industry. TELLURIDE RESORT: Velez Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARLA GONZALEZ VELEZ, GABRIELA MOCTEZUMA CASTILLO, and AMELIA COLON CHAIREZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TELLURIDE RESORT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a Madeline Hotel & Residences, Case No. 1:23-cv-00354-JLK-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Cyrus Chung entered an order that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. In the event the district judge disagrees with the above recommendation, the plaintiffs may refile their motion for class certification. Considering the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could conclude that the hotel was their employer. The facts show that the hotel was merely a customer of the agency that employed them. While the hotel had some authority over the guestworkers such as providing some training and assigning them to work in certain parts of the hotel, it only exercised limited authority over them and could not terminate them, which is the most important factor. The plaintiffs' evidence simply falls short. The plaintiffs, workers who performed housekeeping labor at the Madeline Hotel pursuant to H-2B guestworker visas acquired by Mountain Premier Cleaning Services, L.L.C. on or after Feb. 7, 2020, initially brought this putative class action against three defendants: the Madeline Hotel; Mountain Premier; and Adriana Santa Ana. They reached a settlement with Mountain Premier and Santa Ana, which the assigned district judge, the Honorable John L. Kane, approved. The plaintiffs’ claims against the Madeline Hotel remain. The hotel now argues that the plaintiffs cannot hold it liable because it did not employ them. Instead, it says, the plaintiffs were employed only by Mountain Premier and its principal, Santa Ana. Telluride operates within the hotel and resort industry. A copy of the Court's order and recommendation dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JOwgRn at no extra charge.[CC] THOMPSON CREEK: Jacobs Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Jesse Jacobs, individually and for others similarly situated v. THOMPSON CREEK MINING CO., Case No. 1:26-cv-00055-REP (D. Idaho, Jan. 29, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Idaho Wage Claim Act ("IWCA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff regularly works more than 40 hours in a week. the Defendant pays the Plaintiff by the hour. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and other Hourly Employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to prepare and don safety gear and equipment fundamentally necessary to perform their jobs and "off the clock," prior to the start of their shifts (the Defendant's "off the clock policy"). Additionally, the Defendant rounds the Plaintiff's and the other Hourly Employees' hours worked to the nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit and to the detriment of the Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees (the Defendant's "rounding policy"). Finally, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including but not limited to, safety bonuses and production incentives, but excludes these bonuses from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (Thompson's "bonus pay scheme"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff works for the Defendant as an electrician. Thompson Creek operates a "primary (non-by-product) molybdenum mine located approximately 48 kilometres southwest of the town of Challis in Idaho's Custer County."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Emmal, Esq. PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC 612 W. Main Ave., Ste. 207 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509.321.5930 Facsimile: 509.321.5935 Email: wemmal@pyklawyers.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com TOPIX MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Khan Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ AQSA KHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPIX MEDIA LAB, LLC. d/b/a MUGGLENET AND TONY ROMANDO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00984 (D.N.J., February 2, 2026) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and other applicable state laws. The Plaintiff and Collective Members were engaged by Defendant MuggleNet to create and provide content for Defendants' digital media operations, including a fan-focused website dedicated to the Harry Potter franchise and associated social media platforms. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully designated Plaintiffs as "volunteers" and chose not to pay wages that were due to the Collective Members to the benefit and profit of the Defendants. The Defendants also knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Collective Members their accrued but unpaid sick pay and reimbursement for business expenses, constituting additional unpaid wages, says the suit. Topix Media Lab, LLC, d/b/a MuggleNet, is a fan-operated website dedicated to the Harry Potter franchise that publishes news, commentary, editorials, and user-submitted content, operates associated social media accounts and online forums. Tony Romando serves as the President of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracy A. Armstrong, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN, & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Suite 900 Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 855-6020 TRAVELSCAPE LLC: Uses Trackers to Collect Personal Info, Fried Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEROME FRIED, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVELSCAPE, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01037 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2026) is a class action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages for Defendant's violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. When Plaintiff and other users visit the Defendant's website, www.travelocity.com the Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed by Heap, Akamai, Expedia, Travel-assets, Cookielaw, Expedia Facebook/Meta, Google and Microsoft Bing to be installed on website visitors' internet browsers. The Defendant then uses these trackers to collect website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the website, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers trying to sell the same or similar product to the user over and over and over again. Because the trackers intercept information about the website visitors' interactions with the website, the trackers constitute unlawful wiretapping under the ECPA and CIPA. By installing and using the trackers without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, the Defendant further violated CIPA, says the suit. Travelscape, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, owns the website which operates as an online travel agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com isabelm@potterhandy.com TUTOR TIME: Removes Dyrda Class Action Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CESALIE DYRDA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUTOR TIME LEARNING CENTERS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 25STCV25033) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 30, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01018 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Michelle Williams Court and referred to Magistrate Brianna Fuller Mircheff. Tutor Time Learning Centers, LLC provides child care and early educational services. The Company offers infant and toddler, twaddler, preschool, pre-kindergarten, private kindergarten, before and after school programs, and summer camps. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Daniel N. Rojas, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com daniel.rojas@ogletree.com TYSON FOODS INC: Parties Engaged in Expert Discovery ---------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2026, that fact discovery phase ended in early April 2025, and the parties in a series of class action complaints filed against Tyson and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, are now engaged in expert discovery. Additionally, the putative classes filed motions for class certification on September 25, 2024, which remain pending before the court. Beginning on April 23, 2019, complaints were filed in various federal district courts, including the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota and the District of Kansas, by putative classes of direct purchasers, cattle ranchers, indirect purchasers, and indirect cattle producers. These cases have been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for pretrial purposes. Defendants allegedly engaged in one or more conspiracies beginning in roughly January 2015 with the aim of reducing fed cattle prices, manipulating the price of live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, artificially increasing the cost of beef, and reducing the price of cows, cattle, calves, steers or heifers. Classes allege that this conduct violated federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the Commodities Exchange Act, and various state unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. Their complaints seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of the world's largest food companies. It operates a fully vertically-integrated chicken production process, integrated operations consisting of breeding stock, contract farmers, feed production, processing, further-processing, marketing and transportation of chicken and related specialty products, including animal and pet food ingredients. TYSON FOODS INC: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2026, that on February 11, 2025, United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order granting preliminary approval of a settlement, and on June 5, 2025, said court entered an order granting final approval. On August 30, 2019, a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the continental United States filed class action complaints against Tyson and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in violation of federal antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits making similar allegations were consolidated including an amended consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants naming additional defendants. Following mediation, on June 14, 2024, the company reached an agreement in principle with the putative class plaintiffs to settle all claims in the case for an aggregate amount of $115.5 million. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of the world's largest food companies. It operates a fully vertically-integrated chicken production process, integrated operations consisting of breeding stock, contract farmers, feed production, processing, further-processing, marketing and transportation of chicken and related specialty products, including animal and pet food ingredients. UNDER ARMOUR: Grandstaff Sues Over Failure to Secure Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER GRANDSTAFF, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00486-JRR (D. Md., February 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and account details (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Under Armour has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite this, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members in Defendant's possession was compromised when a hacker known as the Everest ransomware group announced in January 2026 that it obtained access to 343GB of customer data stored on Under Armour's systems. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives since it appears their information was specifically targeted, asserts the complaint. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Heather Grandstaff is a resident of the State of Missouri and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Under Armour, Inc. is an American sportswear company that manufactures footwear and apparel and operates retail stores throughout the United States. Under Armour also sells it merchandise online via underarmour.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Silverman, Esq. William N. Sinclair, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN WHITE 400 E. Pratt St., Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 385-2225 Facsimile: (410) 547-2432 E-mail: ssilverman@silvermanthompson.com bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com - and - MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in USAID Workers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as J. Does 4, 7, 22, 27, 28, and 29, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elon Musk, in his official capacity, United States DOGE Service, The Department of Government Efficiency, United States Department of State, United States Agency for International Development, Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity, Marco Rubio, in his official capacity, Peter Marocco, in his official capacity, Jeremy Lewin, in his official capacity, Kenneth Jackson, in his official capacity, and Amy Gleason, in her official capacity, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-0462-TDC (D. Md.), Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The motion is granted as to President Trump and denied as to all other claims. Plaintiffs J. Does 4, 7, 22, 27, 28, and 29, current or recently terminated USAID employees and contractors, filed this putative class action on behalf of all persons who worked for USAID as an employee or personal services contractor from January 20, 2025 to the present. They allege violations of the Appointments Clause and Separation of Powers arising from defendants' actions to effectuate the dismantling and shutdown of USAID. On February 15, 2025, plaintiffs filed the original complaint against Musk, United States DOGE Service, and DOGE. On March 18, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part a motion for preliminary injunction. On April 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting a class action adding USAID, State, President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Peter Marocco, Jeremy Lewin, Kenneth Jackson, and Amy Gleason. According to the court, plaintiffs belong to various personnel classifications at USAID: J. Does 7 and 27 are civil service employees, J. Doe 22 is a Foreign Service employee, J. Does 4 and 28 are Foreign Service Limited employees, and J. Doe 29 is a personal services contractor. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing CSRA precludes jurisdiction over federal employee claims, CDA or Tucker Act precludes PSC claims, plaintiffs lack standing, claims constitute claim-splitting, failure to state plausible claims, and President Trump should be dismissed. Upon careful examination, the court finds CSRA does not preclude jurisdiction. The court applied the Thunder Basin test and concluded claims are wholly collateral to CSRA review provisions. Channeling claims to MSPB would foreclose meaningful judicial review because even if plaintiffs prevailed on individual employment actions, relief would be meaningless absent addressing USAID dismantling. The court also finds CDA does not preclude PSC claims. The source of rights is constitutional, not contractual. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, not specific performance or monetary damages. Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts for standing. They alleged interruptions to employment, placements on administrative leave, and RIF notices traceable to defendants' actions. The requested injunction barring further actions to eliminate USAID would redress injuries. The court declines to dismiss on claim-splitting as defendants showed no privity with other lawsuits. Plaintiffs stated plausible Appointments Clause and Separation of Powers claims. Musk exercised significant authority without appointment. Congress, not President, authorizes agency abolition. A copy of the Court's Memorandum opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xTxbIP from PacerMonitor.com UNITED STATES: Garcia Sues Over Race Discrimination Against Latinos ------------------------------------------------------------------- Humberto Garcia, Andrea Soledad Garcia, Anna Beatriz Garcia, L.G., by her next friend, Andrea, Soledad Garcia, Pamela Rico, Dulce Montero, Celica Arredondo, Vladimir Hernandez, Madelin Guevara , Michelle Gutierrez, Karem Salinas, Ariadna Caballero, Monica Contreras, Natalie Frias, Sheccid Flores, Melissa Hernandez, Jennifer Lopez, Stacy Aureoles, Yolanda Ambrocio, Samantha Sanchez, Leniz Romero, Karena Berruete, Sonia Lopez, Esmeralda Salmeron, Miranda Sanchez, Emmanuel Adonai Palma, Itzayana Lizette Aurioles, Jeniffer Rodriguez, Billy Martinez, Sergio Martinez, Luceli Lopez, Estrella Mendoza, Elizabeth Sanchez, Axel Del Angel, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v KRISTI NOEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS EN-FORCEMENT, and TODD M. LYONS, Case No. 4:26-cv-00963 (S.D. Tex., Feb.6, 2026) is a class action lawsuit seeking a declaration from the Court, stating that United States citizens are not required to carry with them proof of citizenship while within the United States. Accordingly, DHS's enforcement action indiscriminately targeting Latinos based on racial profiling and requiring documentation of United States citizenship in order to avoid detention or worse, physical harm, sweep in numerous U.S. citizens in the process. These brutal stops and arrests by ICE disrupt the most ordinary of activities. However, Defendants are attempting to create needless barrier to the daily lives of the American people by implementing these disturbing measures that are contrary to law and must be halted, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek this declaratory judgment against Defendants, to protect their rights under the laws and the Constitution of the United States, as well as the rights of all similarly situated Americans, and for the Court's declaration to provide clarification and guidance to the Defendants and its employees. The Plaintiffs contend that they are productive and law-abiding citizens of the United States forced to bring this action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Latino United States citizens who have been and will continue to be affected by the Defendants' lawless and unconstitutional imposition of a requirement for United States citizens to establish that they are United States citizens or have them carry on their person proof of citizenship while within the territory of these United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raed Gonzalez, Esq. GONZALEZ OLIVIERI, LLC 9920 Gulf Freeway, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77034 Telephone: (713) 481-3040 Facsimile: (713) 588-8683 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Tripp-Daniels Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Tripp-Daniels, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HEALTH, Case No. 1:26-cv-00373 (D. Colo., Jan. 30, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and unpaid straight time and overtime wages pursuant to Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"); the Colorado Wage Rules and Regulations ("CWRR") (the CWCA and CWRR are collectively referred to as the "Colorado Acts"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by UC Health in Greely, Colorado from 2010 through March 2025. UC Health operates several healthcare facilities providing healthcare services to its patients throughout the State of Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com VALOR PROTECTION: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Edwards Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUBRAY EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALOR PROTECTION SAFETY AGENCY, LLC and ASANTE KIAN HILL, Case No. 1:26-cv-00708-MHC (N.D. Ga., Feb.6, 2026) seeks to obtain full and complete relief for the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for all hours worked and for overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants during part or all of calendar years 2022 2025. The Defendants treated Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee and paid him his regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in any workweek. Accordingly, the Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor, says the suit. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and all those similarly situated during the relevant time frame as security guards and in other related roles utilizing different job titles, any and all of which are collectively referred to herein as "Security Staff." In these Security Staff positions, Plaintiff and all those similarly situated provide support services integral to Defendants' security business. Valor advertises itself as "Georgia's #1 Safety and Security Agency" on its website, www.vpsa.us. Hill is Valor's owner and "Chief Executive Safety Officer." Valor's website "careers" section describes "enlisting in our team entails joining a closely-knit family that upholds values such as integrity, teamwork, and unwavering dedication. Our unwavering commitment lies in delivering exceptional security services while nurturing an inclusive and supportive workplace culture."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq. Beth A. Moeller, Esq. MOELLER BARBAREE LLP 1355 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 748-9122 VARONIS SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Molchanov Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Varonis Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Molchanov securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 7, 2026, the Company and certain officers of the Company were named as defendants in a putative securities class action captioned, Molchanov v. Varonis Systems, Inc. et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations or omissions in its public disclosures about the Company's expected annual recurring revenue for fiscal year 2025 and the Company's ability to convert existing self-hosted customers to its SaaS offering, between February 4, 2025 and July 29, 2025, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and further alleges that certain officers are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company can neither predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation nor estimate any range of possible losses. Varonis Systems, Inc. designs and develops data security software solutions. The Company offers data management systems to organize, manage, and protect unstructured and semi-structured data such as documents, spreadsheets, presentations, media files, and other business data. [BN] VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court OKs Class Notice in "Ford" --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard, and Brian Otters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-756 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina approved class notices and ordered the dissemination of notice to three certified classes of disabled veterans. The Plaintiffs are disabled military veterans who retained Veterans Guardian to assist them in obtaining or increasing their disability compensation. Federal law prohibits charging a fee in connection with the filing of an initial disability claim before the Veterans Administration. While fees are permitted later in the claims process, no individual may act as an agent or attorney in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim unless such individual has been recognized for such purposes by the Secretary. The Plaintiffs contend that Veterans Guardian violates federal law by offering these services for a fee and without accreditation, and that the fees it charges violate the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act. The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified three classes: (1) the UDTPA Initial Claim Class, consisting of all veterans who made their first payment to Veterans Guardian in connection with an initial claim for VA Disability Compensation under a consulting contract substantially similar to Exhibit A to the Consolidated Complaint between August 23, 2019, and the date of the Court's order approving class notice; (2) the UDTPA Non-Initial Claim Class, consisting of all veterans who made their first payment to Veterans Guardian in connection with a non-initial claim for VA Disability Compensation under a consulting contract substantially similar to Exhibit A between August 23, 2019, and the date of the Court's order; and (3) the NCDCA Class, consisting of all veterans who, between August 23, 2019, and the date of the Court's order, were sent an invoice by Veterans Guardian in connection with a claim for VA Disability Compensation in substantially the same form as Exhibit B to the Consolidated Complaint and who made a payment to Veterans Guardian. On the method of notice, the Court found that email notice is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, with postcard backup for undeliverable emails. The Court rejected Veterans Guardian's proposal to send both email and postcard notice to all class members, finding that duplicate notice would substantially increase costs with little benefit. The Court further ordered that the notice administrator, American Legal Claim Services, LLC, maintain a public class website posting all substantive court orders, including scheduling orders, Daubert orders, and summary judgment orders. The Court also resolved a disagreement between the parties regarding notice content. It ordered the inclusion of the total amount Veterans Guardian collected from class members during the class period, which exceeded $250,000,000, finding that this information may affect class members' decision on whether to opt out and would assist them in understanding the potential ramifications and benefits of class membership. A toll-free phone number was deemed unnecessary, as class members may direct questions to class counsel by email. The Court ordered that Guardian provide relevant class data to the notice administrator within five business days of the order. The notice administrator is directed to send approved email notices no later than March 19, 2026. The opt-out deadline is set for May 4, 2026, allowing 45 days from the dissemination of notice. Class counsel or the notice administrator is directed to file a compliance report no later than May 22, 2026, providing details on the number of undeliverable notices and the number of class members choosing to opt out. The Court appointed Janet R. Varnell, Brian W. Warwick, Christopher J. Brochu, Pamela G. Levinson, and Varnell & Warwick, P.A., along with Shanon J. Carson, Jeff Osterwise, Radha Nagamani Raghavan, and Berger Montague PC as Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's decision dated 9th February is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3stWPo Defendant Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC is represented by Whitney R. Pakalka, Dustin Timothy Greene, and Elizabeth L. Winters of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, as well as Caroline Lewis Wolverton and Anthony T. Pierce of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Plaintiff Jennifer Ford is represented by Pamela G. Levinson, Janet R. Varnell, and Brian Warwick of Varnell & Warwick, P.A., together with Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise and Shanon Jude Carson of Berger Montague PC. VGW US INC: Baker Sues Over Illegal Websites -------------------------------------------- Robin Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VGW U.S., INC., VGW HOLDINGS U.S., INC., VGW MALTA LTD., and VGW LUCKYLAND, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00173-CDL (M.D. Ga., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' illegal websites seeking to shut down operation of the websites in this state, and return all funds taken from Georgians who used the website. The Defendants, collectively, are an Australian-based criminal organization that runs two illegal and unlicensed gambling websites available at ChumbaCasino.com and Luckylandslots.com. Regulators in Connecticut, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, and other states have shut down VGW's websites for providing "illegal gambling services," and threatening "criminal penalties" if VGW failed to comply. The Defendants' illegal websites continue to remain available here in Georgia, while falsely representing to Georgians that the activities on the websites are a "legal" form of gambling. The Plaintiff did not know that Luckylandslots.com and ChumbaCasino.com operated as an illegal gambling operation under Georgia law. The Defendants' representations and omissions led Plaintiff to believe that participation on the websites was lawful in this state. Had Plaintiff known the truth, she would not have participated and would not have lost money, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has purchased Sweeps Coins on ChumbaCasino.com and Luckylandslots.com. The Defendants control illegal gambling operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Overlook II 2839 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan Martin, Esq. Trent Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-377-4704 Fax: (888) 410-0415 Email: joel@skclassactions.com WELLCARE HEALTH: Vandermarliere Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WellCare Health Plans, Inc. The case is styled as Michael E. Vandermarliere, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-10320-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. WellCare Health Plans, Inc. -- https://www.wellcare.com/ -- is an American health insurance company that provides managed care services primarily through Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and Medicare Prescription Drug plans for members across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ahmad T. Sulaiman, Esq. Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com WESTLAKE SERVICES: Woodson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westlake Services, LLC. The case is styled as Alisha Woodson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Westlake Services, LLC doing business as: Westlake Financial Services, Case No. 2:26-cv-00905 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Westlake Services, LLC, doing business as Westlake Financial -- https://www.westlakefinancial.com/ -- operates as a finance company. The Company provides auto finance, equity loans, and other financial products, as well as specializes in servicing of prime to subprime automotive retail installment contracts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 22, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN WOOTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESTROCK LONGVIEW, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-05973-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: Deadline for joining additional parties May 21, 2026 and to amend pleadings: Deadline to file motion for class Jan. 22, 2027 certification: Deadline to file opposition to motion Feb. 19, 2027 for class certification: Deadline to file reply in support of March 12, 2027 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class To be set by the certification: Court WestRock is an American packaging company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HvvgiU at no extra charge.[CC] WHC WORLDWIDE: Garrett Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE GARRETT, KATHI PUGH, and DORENE GIACOPINI, and others similarly situated, v. WHC Worldwide, LLC and WHC zShuttle, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-03904-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 10, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move the Court, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an Order: (a) granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement (the "Agreement") entered into between the parties (filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Meredith J. Weaver ("Weaver Decl.")); (b) certifying the proposed Settlement Class and appointing the Plaintiffs and their counsel as representatives of the Settlement Class; (c) approving the parties' proposed form of notice and distribution plan, as set forth in the Agreement, and directing that notice be disseminated pursuant to such plan; and (d) setting deadlines for notice, objections, and a final fairness hearing. As set forth in the Agreement, the Settlement Class is defined as: "all persons who (1) have a mobility disability as the result of which they use a wheelchair that requires a WAV; and (2) arranged to use, attempted to arrange to use, or were deterred from using the services of SuperShuttle to arrange for transportation to and from airports and other locations to which SuperShuttle contracts with Affiliates to provide such transportation from May 5, 2023 through the Effective Date." WHC Worldwide provides transit services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JGEC7b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shawna Parks, Esq. Meredith J. Weaver, Esq. Amelia Evard, Esq. Rachel Weisberg, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: sparks@dralegal.org mweaver@dralegal.org aevard@dralegal.org rweisberg@dralegal.org WILD OAK: SFR Services Must File for Class Cert. Bid by April 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SFR Services L.L.C. v. Wild Oak Bay Villas I, II, III Owners Association Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02162 (M.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an endorsed order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File. The plaintiff must move for Class Certification no later than April 3, 2026. The parties must still abide by all other deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. The Villas at Wild Oak Bay I & II are part of a mature, 357-home, maintenance-free community in Bradenton, Florida, located near Sarasota Bay, IMG Academy, and beaches.[CC] ********* 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 ***