260217.mbx

260217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 17, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 34 Headlines 717 PARKING: Champagne Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Faces Iten Suit Over Illegal Background Check ADOBE INC: Faces Kleiner Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement AG1 USA: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscription Renewal AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Bid Opposition Extended to Feb. 26 AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Order Tossed AMERICAN WORK: Frater Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ANGI INC: Faces Spoon Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ASHEVILLE EYE: Agrees to Settle 2024 Cyberattack Class Action ATP TOUR: Website Conceals Tracking Devices, Bee Alleges BOWEN HOSPITALITY: Santiago Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bar Cooks BRINK'S INC: Pestana Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime BROOKSIDE, AL: Settles Policing for Profit Scheme Suit for $1.5MM CAMPFIRE TREATS: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAPITAL ONE: Mandatory Settlement Conference in Hoard Vacated CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Martins Suit Transferred to D. Delaware CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Guinard SAC Tossed CATALYST RCM: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach CLEARCAPTIONS LLC: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls CLINIC SERVICE: Fails to Protect Private Info, Merei Says CLINIC SERVICE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Spiers Alleges CONNECT HOLDING: Inadequately Safeguards Personal Info, Frye Says DIVURGENT LLC: Unlawfully Collects Website Users' Data, Price Says EVOLVE MORTGAGE: ClassAction.org Investigates 2026 Data Breach EYECARE PARTNERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FINNISH DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Suit for $2.4MM GAMESTOP INC: Bowens Suit Removed to E.D. California GENESCO INC: Nannery Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Mintz Class Suit in N.D. Ill. GT'S LIVING: Non-Party Krivoshey Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Nunez GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Porter Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Tex. HAS BEAUTY: Pelaez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store HEATHER CROFT: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Maurer Says HOMETAP EQUITY: Faces Greenidge Suit Over Deceptive Mortgage Loans HORIZON MEDIA: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Gonzalez Says INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Locke Files Suit Over Data Breach IRON MOUNTAIN: Fails to Secure Private Information, Sadaphal Says JOINT JUICE: Agrees to Settle False Advertising Suit for $19MM JULIE PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says KOR SHOTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Alleges LOCKTON COMPANIES: Settles Cybersecurity Class Action for $9.9MM MADISON, WI: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Absentee Ballots Suit MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Discloses Users' Info to Google, Pettis Says METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Frankfort Suit Removed to S.D. Tex. MOONGLOW JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Says MUSHIE & CO: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, See Suit Alleges NAVY FEDERAL: Appeals Court Revives Suit Over Lending Practices NEIMAN MARCUS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says NEW YORK: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Foreclosure Law ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: McDonough Balks at Unsecured Personal Info OTG MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Tipped Employees' Earned Wages PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Phillips Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. PALO ALTO: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Jaime Alleges PERI PERI: Martinez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff PERPAY INC: Rodriguez Files Class Action Suit in Fla. Cir. PRECIPIO INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PREMIUM MERCHANT: Faces Roach Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. R&L CARRIERS: Perez Class Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal. RESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Court Denies Coverage in Derivative Class Suit RIO FARMS: Faces Ortega Civil Suit in Cal. Super. RIX INDUSTRIES: Faces Prado Employment Suit in Cal. Super. SARAYA USA: Kinman Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to D. Utah SILVERLAKE FINANCIAL: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. Calif. SPOONFUL OF COMFORT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Spoon Says SPRINKLER FITTERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach SUPERFOODS INC: Adkins Sues Over Contaminated Products TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action TROCAIRE COLLEGE: Achard Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. UNIQURE NV: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Scocco Alleges UNITED STATES: Rodriguez Sues Over Unreasonable Seizures, Detention UNITED STATES: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Buttar Suit UNITED STATES: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Victoriano Suit UPONOR INC: Faces Harmon Class Suit Over Defective PEX Pipes VALLEY NATIONAL: Website Has Spyware from Data Brokers, Hughes Says W6LS INC: Faces Oftedahl Class Suit Over Usurious Contracts WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Haston Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, MWPFA WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Perry Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas WILLOW GROVE: Misrepresents Admissions Tickets, Herbert Says Z-MAN FISHING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Alleges ZOCDOC INC: Aids 3rd Party to Access Patients' Info, Suit Says ********* 717 PARKING: Champagne Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Champagne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEVEN-ONE-SEVEN PARKING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-00315 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought seeking statutory damages, declaratory relief, and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendant for violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA") by knowingly obtaining, disclosing, and/or using personal information from a motor vehicle record for a purpose not permitted. As part of its enforcement practices, the Defendant captures and records license plate numbers at private parking facilities, including through automated license plate recognition ("ALPR") technology and related software and/or through attendants or handheld devices, and uses those license plate numbers to generate and mail private parking notices resembling parking tickets. the Defendant's published policies state that it uses ALPR technology at certain locations. In violation of the DPPA, the Defendant knowingly and without consent obtained or caused to be obtained Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal information, including their names and home addresses, from a "motor vehicle record" within the meaning of the DPPA (including state motor-vehicle registration records) by matching license plate numbers captured or recorded through ALPR cameras and/or manual entry to state Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") records, and then disclosed and/or used that information to mail, or to have mailed, private parking invoices and related communications to Plaintiff's and the Class Members' homes for purposes not permitted by the DPPA. The Defendant's DPPA violations caused Plaintiff and the Class Members concrete harm, including a statutory invasion of privacy and loss of control over sensitive personal information. Plaintiff and the Class Members also spent time and effort reviewing the mailings, researching the Defendant and its operations, attempting to understand why the Defendant had their names and home addresses and how the data was obtained, and gathering and preserving records, and they experienced resulting anxiety and emotional distress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff parked his vehicle in a parking lot located in Tampa, Florida in 2025 and never provided his name, home address, or other personal information to 717 Parking. the Defendant is a private parking monitoring and enforcement company that monitors and enforces parking at private parking facilities it owns, operates, and/or manages, and is also retained by property owners and other parking operators to provide parking monitoring, operation, and/or enforcement services at private parking facilities in Florida and other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M. Garabedian, Esq. Victor Sanabria, Esq. MARK FERRER & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Email: victor@mfh.law charles@mfh.law eservice@mfh.law ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Faces Iten Suit Over Illegal Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICHOLAS ITEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCURATE BACKGROUND, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00468 (D. Colo., Feb.6, 2026) is an action to recover damages for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action under the FCRA alleging that Accurate has negligently and recklessly disseminated consumer reports concerning the Plaintiff's and countless others' backgrounds that wrongfully reported outdated, adverse criminal warrant information beyond the time allotted under the FCRA due to willfully insufficient policies and procedures. Additionally, Accurate has negligently and recklessly disseminated consumer reports concerning Plaintiff’s and countless others’ backgrounds that wrongfully reported inaccurate warrant status information due to willfully insufficient policies and procedures to ensure maximal accuracy, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class members, seeks statutory and punitive damages, along with injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and costs. The Defendant is a privately held, minority-owned global provider of employment background screening services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com ADOBE INC: Faces Kleiner Class Suit Over Copyright Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR KLEINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADOBE INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-01218 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2026) contends that the Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff's copyrighted works and continues to do so by continuing to store, copy, use, and process the datasets containing copies of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class's copyrighted books. This case addresses the alleged surreptitious, non-consensual use and collection of authors' books and written works by the Defendant in order to train its SlimLM small language models (SLMs), which is AI software optimized for document assistance tasks on mobile devices. This use violates Adobe's terms of service at the expense of writers who are unknowingly contributing to training models for the Defendant's SlimLM software, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class members never authorized the Defendant to download, copy, store, or use their copyrighted works. The Defendant has never compensated the Plaintiffs and Class members for downloading, copying, storing, or using their copyrighted works. Adobe has and continues to benefit commercially from its massive acts of copyright infringement. It does so by securing lucrative contracts with enterprise customers for the use of its AI software, including through the SlimLM AI platform, and through deploying such AI software (or tools relying on SlimLM) through its suite of Adobe branded products, the Plaintiff avers. Plaintiff Kleiner is a published author of many books, including The Age of Heretics: Heroes, Outlaws, and the Forerunners of Corporate Change, which was published in 1996. He registered his book with the United States Copyright Office in 1995, and has held the ownership of the copyright since. Adobe is an American multinational computer software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com AG1 USA: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscription Renewal --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that health supplement manufacturer AG1 (USA) Inc. has illegally enrolled consumers into automatically renewing, difficult-to-cancel subscriptions without their consent, resulting in perpetual recurring charges. The 33-page AG1 class action lawsuit claims that when a consumer purchases AG1 products, they are "surreptitiously" enrolled by the defendant into an automatically renewing subscription, in violation of the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). The suit also accuses AG1 of making it "exceedingly difficult and unnecessarily confusing" for a consumer to cancel their subscription when they eventually realize they were enrolled without authorization. According to the filing, the ARL requires online retailers to provide the complete terms of automatic subscription renewals in clear, conspicuous language. A company must also obtain consumers' affirmative consent to charge their payment method for the product or service and provide a timely, easy-to-use mechanism to cancel the subscription, the complaint says. The lawsuit stresses that AG1 has been "entirely non-compliant" with ARL guidelines, as the company allegedly makes no references to automatic renewal during the checkout process, except for a tiny notation of "every 30 days" under a product on the order summary page, which can easily be overlooked by consumers. The lawsuit contends that the "every 30 days" disclosure at checkout does not provide sufficient information to qualify as a proper disclosure. "Importantly," the case states, "the disclosure in the relevant portion of the checkout page does not indicate what action a consumer must take to be bound to the AG1 subscriptions recurring charges." At no point in the checkout process does AG1 require consumers to read or affirmatively agree to the subscription terms, the case says. The lawsuit shares that consumers who purchase AG1 supplements are not required to select or click a checkbox next to the terms of automatic renewal. The case says that, after consumers place orders on the checkout page, AG1 will apparently send a form email confirming their purchase. However, even the confirmation email fails to include the terms required by the ARL, including the automatic renewal terms, the cancellation policy, and clear, succinct information on how to cancel an AG1 subscription. Additionally, the case notes, AG1 does not provide a toll-free telephone number or information about an easy, convenient method for cancelling subscriptions. ". . . [D]isclosures of these required automatic renewal terms are either missing altogether, are deceptively incomplete, objectively inaccurate, and/or are conspicuously buried in the tiny fine print," the AG1 class action lawsuit emphasizes. The lawsuit further highlights that AG1 utilizes so-called "dark patterns," deliberate designs in a website and/or user interface that guide consumers might do things they otherwise would not, such as enrolling in a subscription service after a one-time purchase. Dark patterns deliberately frustrate consumers who want clear, accurate, and timely information about their purchases, the case states. The filing says that many companies, including AG1, deliberately adopt complex procedures designed to manipulate consumers into sticking with a subscription service they never actually wanted. When a cancellation process is too arduous, consumers tend to remain subscribed, the suit says. The plaintiff purchased two AG1 health supplements from the AG1 website in March 2025. The lawsuit shares, and when he placed his order, he reasonably believed that he was making a one-time purchase plus three free "gifts." Instead, the case shares, he was enrolled in an AG1 subscription without having given his consent. The lawsuit says that after he was charged a second time for the subscription, he attempted to cancel it, but the process was so convoluted and confusing that he accidentally enrolled in a bi-monthly AG1 subscription. The AG1 class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of final approval, were charged a renewal fee for an AG1 subscription by the defendant. [GN] AMAZON.COM: Class Cert Bid Opposition Extended to Feb. 26 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcos Ramos et al., v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al (RE: AMAZON CONSUMER SPEECH LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00089-HDV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting the Parties' Joint stipulation to modify the defendants' deadline to oppose class certification. The Defendants' deadline to oppose class certification is extended from Feb. 19, 2026, to Feb. 26, 2026. The proposed extension is necessary to allow the Defendants sufficient time to take the depositions of the Plaintiffs Marcos Ramos, Sahara Antrim, Eldaa Soto, Marissa Barriga, and Esme-Nicolson-Singh and the Plaintiffs' expert, Greg Hallman, PhD in advance of the Defendants' deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' class motion and to avoid burdening the Court with ex parte and discovery motion practice. On Jan. 28, 2026, the Parties jointly stipulated to an extension of the Defendants' briefing deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r6YI6f at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Order Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Winnie Clark, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order: -- denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration of class certification order, and -- vacating Feb. 6, 2026, Hearing. Accordingly, the Court concluded Defendants' concerns were not fatal to class certification does not equate with failing to consider those concerns. As stated in the Class Certification Order, the California Song-Beverly Express Warranty Subclass definition limits subclass members to those "who provided Defendant[s] with two (2) or more opportunities to repair their Class Vehicles," and those who took delivery of new vehicles in California. The Defendants' records will help confine the subclass to qualifying members by examining warranty repair requests consistent with the alleged defect as defined by Plaintiffs, as opposed to requests linked to a specific diagnostic trouble code ("DTC") as urged by the Defendants. Confining the subclass to its proper membership does not undermine the predominance of common issues. The Court issued its Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Nov. 19, 2025. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=es4csW at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN WORK: Frater Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- PEARL FRATER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN WORK HEALTH AND LIFE, INC. d/b/a EZ HEALTH IQ, INC., a Florida Corporation, and JUBRAN ABDULAZIZ, individually, Case No. 0:26-cv-60398 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2026) alleges that the Defendant denied Plaintiff and the collective of similarly situated employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek and obscured the true extent of those violations by failing to track or document hours at all -- conduct that lies at the heart of the Fair Labor Standards Act remedial purpose and warrants collective treatment under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Defendants operated their insurance call-center business through a uniform, company-wide pay scheme that affected Plaintiff PEARL FRATER and all other similarly situated sales representatives in the same unlawful manner. American classified its full-time, non-exempt sales workforce as "independent contractors," required them to work fixed daily schedules underose supervision, and assigned them identical duties integral to American's core business, while systematically disregarding the most basic payroll and recordkeeping obligations imposed by the FLSA, says the suit. American maintained no formal payroll system, kept no accurate time or overtime records, issued no paychecks or wage statements, and made no lawful tax withholdings; instead, it compensated Plaintiff and similarly situated employees through off the-books CashApp payments in flat weekly amounts plus commissions, regardless of the number of hours worked. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors to avoid federal overtime wage obligations under the FLSA. As a result of this intentional and willful misclassification, Defendants deprived Plaintiff and dozens of other employees of federal overtime wages during the course of the previous three years, the suit further asserts. The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work at a call center selling insurance plans to customers via telephone. AMERICAN WORK HEALTH AND LIFE, INC. is engaged in insurance call-center business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com ANGI INC: Faces Spoon Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE SPOON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ANGI, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-00523 (D. Colo., Feb. 10, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In December 2025 (more than 30 days after acquiring her phone number and confirming its placement on the National Do Not Call Registry), Plaintiff Spoon received a series of unsolicited phone calls from the number 214-833-1153. The calls were placed by Angi for purposes of soliciting Spoon to purchase a membership to Angi's network and other related services. Each call displayed only the phone number and not the name of the telemarketer on the Caller ID—the name was not transmitted, the Plaintiff avers. By placing the unauthorized calls text messages, the Defendant has caused consumers actual harm. This includes the aggravation, nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of such calls. The Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages pursuant to the TCPA for herself and for the members of the alleged Class, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Angi is a digital platform which purports to connect consumers with service professionals for home improvement, repair, and other such services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC Patrick H. Peluso 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Telephone: (720) 805-2008 Facsimile: (720) 336-3663 E-mail: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com ASHEVILLE EYE: Agrees to Settle 2024 Cyberattack Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Individuals who received a notice stating the Asheville Eye Associates data breach compromised their personally identifiable or protected health information may be eligible to receive up to $1,250 in reimbursement plus additional benefits from a class action settlement. Asheville Eye Associates PLLC agreed to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging a November 2024 cyberattack exposed sensitive patient information. Who are the class members? Class members must have received a notice from Asheville Eye Associates about the November 2024 data incident. The class covers all individuals whose information the data breach affected, including both current and former patients Individuals are eligible regardless of whether they experienced identity theft or financial loss. How much can class members get? The settlement provides several types of compensation and benefits to class members: -- All class members will automatically receive a $10 voucher for eyeglasses at any Asheville Eye Associates location except 21 Medical Park Drive, Asheville, North Carolina, 28803. -- All class members are eligible for one year of complimentary identity theft protection with one-bureau monitoring provided by Kroll Settlement Administration LLC. -- Class members who submit a valid claim form with supporting documentation can receive up to $1,250 per person in reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket expenses the data breach caused. Eligible out-of-pocket expenses include: -- Unreimbursed bank fees -- Card re-issuance fees -- Overdraft fees -- Charges related to unavailability of funds -- Late fees -- Over-limit fees -- Charges from banks or credit card companies -- Interest on payday loans due to card cancellation or over-limit situations resulting from the breach -- Costs of credit reports, credit monitoring or identity theft insurance purchased in response to the incident How to claim settlement benefits To receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, class members must submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Asheville Eye Associates Data Incident Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 All class members will automatically receive the $10 voucher and identity theft protection without needing to submit a claim form. Those who wish to receive their reimbursement via electronic transfer must file their claim online. What proof or documentation is required to submit a claim? -- All class members must provide the class member ID located on their email or postcard notice. -- Claimants seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses must provide reasonable documentation of each claimed expense. Acceptable documentation includes receipts, bills, bank statements or other records showing the data breach most likely caused the loss. Self-prepared documents, such as handwritten receipts, are not sufficient on their own, but class members may use them to clarify or support other documentation. Payout options -- Class members who file a claim online may select to receive your payment via electronic transfer or check. -- Class members who file by mail will receive their payment by check. Settlement fund breakdown The settlement does not specify a total fund amount, but it will cover: -- Settlement administration costs: $53,000 -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $500,000 (paid separately from class member benefits) -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $6,250 total -- Payments to eligible class members: Up to $1,250 per person for documented losses plus automatic voucher and identity theft protection costs Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: April 6, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: April 6, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: May 14, 2026 When is the Asheville Eye Associates data breach payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments and benefits after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged a November 2024 data breach compromised the PII and PHI of Asheville Eye Associates patients. The plaintiffs claimed the breach exposed sensitive information, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers and medical details. Asheville Eye Associates denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of litigation and to provide benefits to those affected. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $10 voucher, up to $1,250 for documented losses and identify theft protection Deadline: April 6, 2026 [GN] ATP TOUR: Website Conceals Tracking Devices, Bee Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- NATHANIEL BEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATP TOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00358-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal., February 9, 2026) is a class action challenging Defendant's systematic collection and disclosure of users' website communications through third-party tracking technologies, despite Defendant's representations that users could reject non-essential cookies and tracking. The complaint relates that when users visit the Website, Defendant causes third-party advertising and analytics technologies to operate in users' browsers and to transmit data reflecting users' interactions with the Website to third parties, including advertising and measurement companies. These transmissions occur contemporaneously with users' website activity and include information revealing what content users view, how they navigate the Website, and technical identifiers associated with their devices and connections. The Defendant purports to allow users to choose whether to limit or reject non-essential tracking through a pop-up that appears on the Website (the "Consent Banner"). The Consent Banner informs users that they can limit or decline non-essential tracking by selecting "Essential Cookies Only." However, even after users select "Essential Cookies Only," Defendant nonetheless continues non-essential tracking. The complaint alleges that the Defendant continued to deploy non-essential cookies and tracking technologies and to cause users' information to be transmitted to third parties for analytics, advertising, and measurement purposes. The Consent Banner therefore misrepresents how the Website actually operates and deprives users of meaningful control over their personal information. Through this conduct, Defendant invaded users' privacy, intercepted or caused the disclosure of users' website communications, and extracted commercially valuable data without valid consent, adds the complaint. For this reason, the Plaintiff seeks monetary, injunctive, and equitable relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Defendant for violations of common law prohibitions on intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; California Invasion of Privacy Act; California Unfair Competition Law; California False Advertising Law; and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff Nathaniel Bee is a resident of Rocklin, California and is one of the users of the website. Defendant ATP Tour, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 42 East Coast Drive, Suite 300, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. ATP Tour, Inc. organizes and operates the ATP Tour, the principal global professional men's tennis tour. In connection with those operations, Defendant owns and operates the Website, atptour.com, which serves as a central digital platform for professional men's tennis content, including match footage and highlights, player and tournament information, schedules, rankings, news, and related digital features.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law BOWEN HOSPITALITY: Santiago Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bar Cooks ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOWEN HOSPITALITY LLC (D/B/A EAST END BAR & GRILL) and KENNETH BOWEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01128 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Mr. Santiago was employed at East End Bar & Grill as a cook and as a delivery worker from approximately May 2023 until on or about February 5, 2026. Bowen Hospitality LLC, doing business as East End Bar & Grill, is a sports bar owner and operator, located at 1672 Third Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BRINK'S INC: Pestana Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ BEENA PESTANA, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:26-cv-00690 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.6, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Brinks, a company entrusted with handling billions of dollars in cash, chose to shortchange its own cash processing clerks by implementing a policy that deducted pay for meal breaks they were not permitted to take. Between August 19, 2023, and February 3, 2024, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a cash processing clerk at its Plainview, New York facility. During this period, the Defendant maintained an automatic deduction policy whereby thirty minutes of pay was subtracted from Ms. Pestana's wages each workday -- ostensibly to account for an uninterrupted meal break. In practice, however, Ms. Pestana was unable to take a full, uninterrupted thirty-minute break during the vast majority of her shifts each week, says the suit. Brink's, Incorporated is a global provider of secure logistics, cash management, and security solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Justin R. Marino, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 2000 Deer Park Avenue Deer Park, NY 11729 BROOKSIDE, AL: Settles Policing for Profit Scheme Suit for $1.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Wimer of Institute for Justice reports that in early 2022, the town of Brookside, Alabama made national headlines for running a relentless policing-for-profit scheme that victimized thousands of drivers in a few short years. The town's ensuing 640% increase in revenue from fines, fees, and forfeitures was used to enrich the police department at the expense of its own residents and other unsuspecting drivers in town and on the adjoining Interstate 22. Last Friday, February 6, Brookside agreed to settle a federal class action lawsuit seeking compensation for those practices, and seeking to put a stop to them. The case has been litigated by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a national nonprofit public interest law firm. "We've asked the Court to approve a settlement that achieves two ambitious goals," said IJ Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. "First, it compensates people who were impacted by Brookside's aggressive towing and ticketing policies, to the tune of $1.5 million in total. Second, it entrenches meaningful systemic reforms, by severing the link between Brookside's policing and its revenue. This is the justice that the community deserves." The town's money-making policies were implemented by two primary means: 1) towing cars and charging $175 to get them back and 2) collecting fines and fees via Brookside's municipal court. As detailed in the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement filed on February 6, Brookside has agreed to a financial settlement of $1.5 million in compensation for individuals impacted by those aggressive policing practices. Of that, $1 million compensates people whose cars were ordered towed by town police from March 1, 2018, to August 1, 2022. The remaining $500,000 compensates people who were charged with offenses in Brookside's municipal court during the same period. The $1.5 million secured by the settlement is close to the full amount that a municipal-funding expert calculated Brookside raised via fines and fees during the class period. And the agreement is designed to ensure that the full amount of compensation goes to the individuals affected by the town's policies. As part of that design, IJ has agreed not to seek any attorneys' fees arising from litigation of the case. The town has also agreed to substantial systemic changes designed to prevent a re-emergence of its policing-for-profit scheme. These include: -- Brookside will permanently repeal its fee to retrieve towed cars, severing the town's financial incentive to tow. -- Brookside will remove the Brookside Police Department from Interstate 22 for 10 years (unless necessary to respond to an emergency). -- Brookside will keep 0% of the revenue generated by its policing and its code enforcement for 5 years. After that, it will keep only 1% for another 10 years. Finally, it will keep only 2.5% for another 15 years. In total, that's a 30-year obligation for the town to sever the link between policing and revenue. -- Brookside will implement a slew of transparency measures designed to ensure compliance with these obligations and provide IJ the documents to track those obligations for 10 years. Finally, the town has agreed to provide class members an acknowledgment that Brookside's "policy of aggressive policing likely interfered with the Town's obligation to administer justice equally under law, undermined the public's trust in the justice system, and raised serious constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The named plaintiffs in the case are Brittany Coleman, Brandon Jones, Chekeithia Grant, and Alexis Thomas, four drivers who had their cars towed and were hauled into Brookside's municipal court. They brought the case to vindicate their own rights and to ensure that no one else would face a policing systemic whose incentives were warped away from doing justice and toward generating money. "Police are supposed to protect and serve, not ticket and collect," said Chekeithia Grant. "When that gets flipped around, people suffer. We brought this case to remind Brookside of that, and to get the town on the right track. This settlement should do that. And it should be a warning to other towns." Added Brittany Coleman: "We hope this will show other towns in Alabama and across the country that their police departments are not supposed to treat people like ATMs." The proceeds of the ticketing and towing scheme that the plaintiffs challenged went almost entirely to Brookside's police department. Of the $610,307 raised through fines and forfeitures in 2020, for example, $544,077 went directly to the police, in the form of training, conferences, vehicles, and salaries. These purchases included expensive unmarked black SUVs and military-style equipment. The department even paid for a mine-resistant, militarized vehicle, which officers parked outside the town hall and drove around the town as part of their intimidation tactics. "Systems that permit policing for profit inevitably result in abuse," said IJ Senior Attorney Sam Gedge. "The settlement we've proposed compensates those impacted by Brookside's system and keeps it from recurring." Now, the federal district court for the Northern District of Alabama will decide whether the settlement's terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether to give the agreement preliminary approval. If so, class members will have an opportunity to submit claims for inclusion in the settlement's terms, or to opt out of the settlement. The Institute for Justice is a nationally recognized advocate for fighting government abuse of fines and fees to pursue illegitimate goals. IJ has challenged fines and fees practices in California, Florida, and around the country. Bill Dawson of Dawson Law LLC is the local counsel partnered with IJ in this lawsuit. [GN] CAMPFIRE TREATS: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Ann Deinnocentes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Campfire Treats, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00134 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://campfiretreats.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Echols and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Echols' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a broad selection of single ingredient treats and chews, such as chiscken, beef, pork, turkey and bully sticks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law CAPITAL ONE: Mandatory Settlement Conference in Hoard Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoard v. Capital One, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133 (S.D. Cal., Filed June 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order Vacating Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC") and Setting Status Conference for the same date, Feb. 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. by video conference before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres. The parties shall be prepared to discuss the appropriate timing for settlement discussions. The Court will provide video conference information two business days prior to the Status Conference. All other deadlines and aspects of the Second Amended Scheduling Order remain in effect. The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. Capital One is an American bank holding company.[CC] CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Martins Suit Transferred to D. Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rita Martins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-10357 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Feb. 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00116-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Contract Dispute. Capstone Logistics -- https://www.capstonelogistics.com/ -- is the leader in providing specialized, technology-enabled solutions for the most challenging supply chains.[BN] CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Guinard SAC Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD GUINARD and JOEL LUNA, v. CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, L.P., Case No. 3:24-cv-00101-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint and brief in support pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and abating this matter pending further order of the Court. The Court takes the well pleaded facts as true and resolves any ambiguities or doubts regarding the sufficiency of the claims in the Plaintiffs' favor. At the pleading stage, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated each claim to relief such that "it is plausible on its face." Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Defendant provides brokerage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YxxYs4 at no extra charge.[CC] CATALYST RCM: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- --Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Catalyst RCM data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Catalyst RCM data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Catalyst RCM Security Incident: What Happened? Catalyst RCM, a provider of medical coding and billing services, recently experienced a data breach that may have affected the privacy of individuals who received diagnostic testing services, including from Vikor Scientific, KorPath and Korgene. On November 13, 2025, Catalyst RCM identified suspicious activity within its secure file management system. Investigations revealed unauthorized access to one of its servers between November 8 and 9, 2025, leading to unauthorized copying of data. The information compromised in the Catalyst RCM data breach may include personal information such as names, dates of birth, payment card details with access codes, medical treatment details, medical histories, diagnosis information and health insurance information. Catalyst RCM has completed its review of the data and is notifying potentially impacted individuals. What You Can Do After the Catalyst RCM Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Catalyst RCM data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Catalyst RCM to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] CLEARCAPTIONS LLC: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- DEIDRE ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARCAPTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00189-AC (E.D. Cal., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life, says the suit. ClearCaptions LLC is a telecommunications service provider, with its principal place of business Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CLINIC SERVICE: Fails to Protect Private Info, Merei Says --------------------------------------------------------- YANNA MEREI, as next of friend for S.M., a minor, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CLINIC SERVICE CO. and CHILDREN'S EYE PHYSICIANS, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-460 (D. Colo., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI). The complaint relates that CEP hired CSC to provide records medical billing services in relation to CEP's medical services with its patients. Through this relationship, CSC collected and maintained and/or was given access to the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and the Class. As a result of Defendants' negligence and insufficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated CSC's inadequately protected network. On August 10, 2025, and August 17, 2025, an unauthorized third party accessed CSC's network systems and accessed protected Private Information. On August 17, 2025, CSC identified that unauthorized third parties infiltrated CSC's network systems which resulted in the access of protected Private Information. The stolen Private Information included names and one or more of the following: address, phone number, email address, payment card information, date of birth, medical diagnosis/treatment information, date of service, patient ID number, medical record number, Medicare/Medicaid number, health insurance information, health insurance claim number, health insurance policy number, and/or treatment cost information. On December 8, 2025, CSC completed its investigation and began informing its clients. On January 27, 2026, CSC began sending individualized notice letters to impacted patients of CEP at CEP's request, more than 5 months after the breach was discovered. Now, and for the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft will have to spend time responding to the Data Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff Yanna Merei and S.M. are Data Breach victims domiciled in Aurora, Colorado. Defendant Clinic Service Co. ("CSC") is a third-party medical billing provider based in Colorado that services medical providers nationwide. Defendant Children's Eye Physicians, P.C. ("CEP") is a Colorado based provider of pediatric ophthalmology and adult strabismus medical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com CLINIC SERVICE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Spiers Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- HARRISON SPIERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLINIC SERVCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00459-KAS (D. Colo., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Protected Health Information (PHI) that was impacted in a data breach. The complaint relates that the Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On August 17, 2025, the Defendant discovered unusual activity on our network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information belonging to Defendant's Clients patients were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, address, phone number, email address, payment card information, date of birth, medical diagnosis/treatment information, date of service, patient ID number, medical record number, Medicare/Medicaid number, health insurance information, health insurance claim number, health insurance policy number, and/or treatment cost information. There has been no acknowledgement yet by Defendant that the Data Breach occurred nor any assurances that Defendant is taking steps to protect the Private Information going forward, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Plaintiff Harrison Spiers is a citizen and resident of Aurora, Colorado and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Clinic Service Corporation is a Denver based medical billing and healthcare consultant to various healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866.252.0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com CONNECT HOLDING: Inadequately Safeguards Personal Info, Frye Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON FRYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONNECT HOLDING LLC d/b/a BRIGHTSPEED, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00099 (W.D.N.C., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and protect the sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) of himself and other current and past customers and employees, including, but not limited to: names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, tax ID numbers and financial account information. The complaint relates that in January 2026, the group Crimson Collective claimed responsibility for accessing Brightspeed's network and claimed to have PII on approximately one million people. As proof, they dropped samples of the data acquired on Telegram. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement an information security program designed to: (a) to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer and employee information; (b) to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of that information; and (c) to protect against unauthorized access to that information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer, asserts the complaint. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injuries including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of PII; (iii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and increased risk their PII will be further misused, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, to address Defendant's inadequate data protection practices and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff has a continuing interest in ensuring that personal information is kept confidential and protected from disclosure, and Plaintiff should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff Jason Frye is a resident and citizen of Tampa, Florida and a former employee of Brightspeed. Defendant Connect Holding LLC d/b/a Brightspeed is an internet service provider with its principal place of business located at 1120 S. Tyron Street Suite 700, Charlotte, North Carolina. Defendant provides broadband internet services to residential homes and businesses across 20 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Valente, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: teamvalente@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com DIVURGENT LLC: Unlawfully Collects Website Users' Data, Price Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAROL PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIVURGENT, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01355 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses data broker software on its website, http://divurgent.com/,to secretly collect data about a website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits without consent. Both the Defendant and the third-party data collectors benefit commercially and financially from this surveillance, suit says. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Divurgent, LLC is a provider of healthcare information technology (IT) consulting services and solutions based in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com EVOLVE MORTGAGE: ClassAction.org Investigates 2026 Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Evolve Mortgage Services data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Evolve Mortgage Services data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Evolve Mortgage Services Security Incident: What Happened? Evolve Mortgage Services, LLC, which provides loan services to financial institutions, reported a data breach possibly affecting personal information. On September 24, 2025, Evolve discovered unusual activity on its network and initiated an investigation with third-party specialists. The investigation revealed that unauthorized access occurred from September 17 to September 24, 2025, compromising information related to the services Evolve provides to financial institutions. Evolve conducted an analysis to identify affected data and clients, finishing this review by November 24, 2025. The information affected by the Evolve Mortgage Services data breach may include names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license or government ID numbers, and financial account information. Evolve began sending written notices to potentially impacted individuals on February 3, 2026. A ransomware group reportedly claimed responsibility for the Evolve Mortgage Services data breach in October 2025, stating on a dark web leak page that over 20 TB of the company's data were stolen. What You Can Do After the Evolve Mortgage Services Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Evolve Mortgage Services data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Evolve Mortgage Services to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] EYECARE PARTNERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the EyeCare Partners data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the EyeCare Partners data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. EyeCare Partners Security Incident: What Happened? EyeCare Partners, LLC, which operates a network of ophthalmology and optometry practices across 18 states, is notifying individuals potentially impacted by a data breach that may have involved personal information. After detecting suspicious activity in one of its email accounts in late January 2025, the healthcare provider initiated a forensic investigation that determined that an unknown third party had gained temporary access to additional email accounts between December 3, 2024 and January 28, 2025. A review of the information potentially impacted by the EyeCare Partners data breach concluded on November 11, 2025. According to a notice posted on the websites of the practices EyeCare Partners manages, the data involved varies by person but may include names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, health plan details and limited clinical information. The online notice points out that medical records and detailed clinical data, such as clinical notes, were not affected by the incident. On February 3, 2026, EyeCare Partners began issuing notification letters to impacted individuals for whom it has a valid mailing address. EyeCare Partners' practices include The Ophthalmology Group, located in Paducah, Kentucky; Galanis Cataract & Laser Eye Center in St. Louis, Missouri; and Ophthalmology Consultants and Ophthalmology Associates, which have locations in and around the St. Louis area. What You Can Do After the EyeCare Partners Data Breach If your information was exposed in the EyeCare Partners data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force EyeCare Partners to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] FINNISH DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Finnish Design Shop, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01593 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 12, 2026), alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.finnishdesignshop.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. He uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to individuals who meet the legal definition of blindness, in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some individuals who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view Finnish and Scandinavian inspired products, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Suit for $2.4MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle Toth of ClaimDEPOT reports that consumers who purchased a G.Skill DDR4 desktop memory product with a rated speed of more than 2133 megahertz or a G.Skill DDR5 desktop memory product with a rated speed of more than 4800 megahertz in the United States between Jan. 31, 2018, and Jan. 7, 2026, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. G.Skill International Enterprise Co. Ltd., along with G.Skill USA Inc., Neuteck Inc. and Racerspeed Inc. (collectively, "G.Skill"), agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they deceptively advertised the speeds of certain DDR4 and DDR5 desktop memory products, leading consumers to believe they could achieve the advertised speeds "out of the box" without any adjustments. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased one or more G.Skill DDR4 (non-SODIMM/laptop) memory products with a rated speed of more than 2133 MHz or G.Skill DDR-5 (non-SODIMM/laptop) memory products with a rated speed of more than 4800 MHz. -- They made the purchase while living in the United States. -- They made the purchase between Jan. 31, 2018, and Jan. 7, 2026. For clarity, "rated speed" includes effective speed, data transfer rate or any terminology used to describe the advertised or specified performance speed of memory products. Class members who purchased more than five qualifying products per household must provide proof of purchase for those additional products. How much is the G.Skill payout? Class members who submit valid claims will receive a pro rata share of the $2.4 million settlement fund. The actual amount each person receives depends on the total number of valid claims submitted and the number of qualifying products claimed. Each qualifying purchase entitles the claimant to a share of the fund with a maximum of five products or shares per household without proof of purchase. If a class member claims more than five products, they must provide proof of purchase for the additional products. How to claim a class action rebate Class members can submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form to mail to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is April 7, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: G.Skill Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Required proof and documentation Class members must submit proof if they claim more than five qualifying products per household. For up to five products, they only need to attest to their purchase. Class members must also provide their contact information and details about their qualifying purchase(s). Payout options -- Virtual prepaid card -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Physical check $2.4 million settlement fund breakdown The $2,400,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: $295,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $800,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each ($10,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: April 7, 2026 -- Deadline to opt out: April 7, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: June 5, 2026 When is the G.Skill memory settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments to class members approximately 45 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed G.Skill deceptively advertised the speed of certain DDR4 and DDR5 desktop memory products, leading consumers to believe they could achieve the advertised speeds without any adjustments. The plaintiffs alleged this violated consumer protection statutes and constituted a breach of express warranty. G.Skill denied all allegations but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation costs and uncertainty. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata payment per qualifying product Deadline: April 7, 2026 [GN] GAMESTOP INC: Bowens Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marvin Bowens, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GAMESTOP, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CU25-04817 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00260-JDP. The First Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7; Violation of Labor Code Sections 226; Violation of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; and Violation of Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq., The Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul M. Smith, Esq. Courtney S. Patton, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: paul.smith@ogletree.com courtney.patton@ogletree.com GENESCO INC: Nannery Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------- JULIA NANNERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENESCO INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00473-PMH (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life, says the suit. Genesco Inc. is a footwear company, with its principal place of business in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, PA 156 W. 56th St., #902 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 101 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Mintz Class Suit in N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grubhub Holdings Inc. The case is captioned as CARL MINTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00588 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2026). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Grubhub Holdings Inc. is a global online food delivery company based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com GT'S LIVING: Non-Party Krivoshey Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Nunez ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case AMIT PATEL, LAUREN SCHMIDT, and CHRISTOPHER NUNEZ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GT'S LIVING FOODS, LLC., Case No. 3:26-mc-80036 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2026), the non-party law firm Smith Krivoshey, P.C. and Yeremey Krivoshey, in his individual capacity, move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) for an order quashing the subpoena issued by Defendant and served on Smith Krivoshey, PC on Feb. 4, 2026, which seeks corporate testimony and/or Mr. Krivoshey's testimony in this matter. The Court will set the hearing date on this motion. Fact discovery in this matter closed last year, the subpoena is procedurally defective, and Defendant has not met its high burden of establishing that the testimony of former counsel in this case is permissible. Non-parties Yeremey O. Krivoshey and the law firm Smith Krivoshey, PC seek the Court's assistance to quash a subpoena in a case they withdrew from in 2024. A year and a half following their withdrawal from Patel et al. v. GT's Living Foods, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-10920-FMO-DSR (C.D. Cal.), Defendant GT's Living Foods has served a subpoena on Mr. Krivoshey and apparently Mr. Krivoshey's law firm, Smith Krivoshey, PC seeking all communications between Mr. Krivoshey/Smith Krivoshey, P.C., and current counsel for plaintiffs in that matter, Dovel & Luner LLP. The subpoena is an alleged abuse of the discovery process, has been served solely for harassment, and should be quashed due to a myriad procedural and substantive defects. GT's is a beverage company that offers products with living probiotics.[BN] Non-Parties Yeremey O. Krivoshey and Smith Krivoshey, PC are represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street Suite 650 #1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com GULSHAN MANAGEMENT: Porter Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulshan Management Services, Inc. The case is captioned as ALONZO PORTER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GULSHAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00402 (S.D. Tex., January 19, 2026). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Gulshan Management Services, Inc. is a business services company, headquartered in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com HAS BEAUTY: Pelaez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAS BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00047 (N.D. Ind., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://aboutface.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. HAS Beauty, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [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 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law HEATHER CROFT: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Maurer Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons v. HEATHER CROFT LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-01204 (D.N.J., Feb.6, 2026) seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Mr. Maurer is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming mobility impaired (and having to fully rely on the use of his wheelchair to ambulate) he has dedicated his life to the elimination of accessibility discrimination so that he, and others like him, may have full and equal enjoyment of all public accommodations without fear of discrimination and repeated exposure to architectural barriers. Mr. Maurer continues to encounter architectural barriers at many of the places that he visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The barriers to access that Mr. Maurer experiences at differing places of public accommodation are often similar in nature. For example, he is repeatedly faced with sloping in parking lots, improper curb ramps, abrupt changes of level within paths of travel, and non-accessible restrooms, says the suit. The Defendant's property/place of public accommodation is a shopping center with several tenant spaces, known as Shoppes at English Creek, located at 6041 Black Horse Pike, Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234. Mr. Maurer has visited the Property many times over the years; his last visit occurring on or about December 1, 2025. During said visit he was a patron/or attempted to patronize several tenants within the shopping center. Mr. Maurer and his family have visited English Creek as bone fide patrons with the intent to avail themselves of the goods and services offered to the public within; however, he has found it to be rife with violations of the ADA -- both in architecture and in policy, the suit further asserts. HEATHER CROFT LLC is a New York Limited Liability Company that owns the property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone(609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com HOMETAP EQUITY: Faces Greenidge Suit Over Deceptive Mortgage Loans ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEICHA GREENIDGE AND RYAN P. BILLEY, H/W on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC and HOMETAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS III SPV, Case No. 3:26-cv-01431 (D.N.J., Feb. 12, 2026) alleges that how Hometap deceptively labels its HEI loan product where in reality it provides homeowners with an advance of money for a secured mortgage interest in their home, and then requires repayment with interest within 10 years or less. The Plaintiffs contend that Hometap's loan product is a mortgage loan. The Plaintiffs bring this suit to protect their family and others similarly situated from financial harm and to vindicate their rights under state and federal law. Under the Hometap HEI contract, repayment must occur within ten years, unless unilaterally extended by Hometap, or earlier upon transfer of title or certain other triggering contractual events (such as a default in mortgage payments or property taxes, sale of the home, etc.). Whenever the Hometap HEI settles, Hometap's profit on an HEI transaction is actually just interest accruing silently against the loaned funds on a scheduled basis as it would in a reverse mortgage loan. Hometap Disguises the HEI Loan Contract as an Option Contract. Rather than disclosing its HEI loan product as a loan, Hometap disguises the interest accrual in its contract as a percentage return on investment in the home's equity in scenarios where the home both appreciates or depreciates, the lawsuit says. HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC provides real estate investment services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone:(215) 735-8600 Facsimile (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 E-mail: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com HORIZON MEDIA: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Gonzalez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HORIZON MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC, HORIZON MEDIA GLOBAL, LLC, and HORIZON MEDIA BUSINESS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01207 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2026) is a class action complaint against Horizon Media for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of current and former Horizon Media employees and American consumers whose data is housed by Horizon Media. On Feb. 9, 2026, the cybercriminal group Chaos reported that it had successfully breached the computer network of Horizon Media. This cyberattack reportedly resulted in the breach and compromise of 3.2 terabytes of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and of millions -- if not tens or hundreds of millions -- of other individuals, including their PII, which includes but is not limited to names, addresses, email addresses, and other personal attributes, including sensitive information. Horizon Media, as substantial businesses, had the resources available to take seriously the obligation to protect the Private Information. However, Horizon Media failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the suit. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach. Horizon Media is an independent media agency providing data-driven media planning, buying, and marketing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com mark.cianci@davidllc.com INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Locke Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- JESSICA LOCKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHTIN HEALTH INC., AND MARTIN'S POINT HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00506-BAH (D. Md., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to properly secure and safeguard her and other Martin's Point patients' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), including, but not limited to: names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, tax ID numbers, medical information, health insurance information, and financial account information. The complaint relates that on September 25, 2025, Insightin noticed suspicious activity in its network. It appears that an unauthorized actor gained access through a third party application and obtained personal identifying data from various healthcare providers who entrusted the information to Insightin. Defendant Martin's Point was one of those providers. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left the data in a dangerous condition. The complaint alleges that the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's PII constitutes an invasion of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendant's failure to adequately secure the PII in its custody, and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injuries including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of PII; (iii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and increased risk their PII will be further misused. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff has a continuing interest in ensuring that personal information is kept confidential and protected from disclosure, and Plaintiff should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff Jessica Locke is a resident and citizen of Barrington, New Hampshire and a patient of Martin's Point Healthcare. Defendant, Insightin Healthcare, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that provides healthcare software services to Martin's Point Healthcare. Defendant Martin's Point Healthcare, Inc. is a non-profit that provides various healthcare services in Maine and throughout New England.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis A. Boykin, Esq. DOUGLAS & BOYKIN PLLC 1850 M Street, NW Suite 840 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-0370 - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com IRON MOUNTAIN: Fails to Secure Private Information, Sadaphal Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL SADAPHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-91 (D.N.H., February 7, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant was recently a victim of a ransomware attack that occurred on February 4, 2026. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The complaint relates that the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The complaint asserts 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 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 Paul Sadaphal is a citizen and resident of Breinigsville, Pennsylvania and is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant Iron Mountain Incorporated provides storage information management and digital solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W Monroe St. Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com JOINT JUICE: Agrees to Settle False Advertising Suit for $19MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that the maker of Joint Juice has agreed to separate class action settlements worth a combined $90 million to resolve lawsuits that alleged the glucosamine supplements failed to deliver the advertised health benefits. One Joint Juice class action settlement, worth $19,160,186.47, received preliminary approval from the court on December 5, 2025 and covers all consumers who bought Joint Juice glucosamine supplements in New York between December 5, 2013 and December 28, 2021. The other Joint Juice settlement, worth $70,839,813.53, received preliminary approval from the court on January 8, 2026 and covers consumers who bought the supplements in the following states within the relevant time periods: -- California on or after March 1, 2009, until December 31, 2022; -- Connecticut on or after November 18, 2013, until December 31, 2022; -- Florida on or after November 18, 2012, until December 31, 2022; -- Illinois on or after November 21, 2013, until December 31, 2022; -- Maryland on or after December 12, 2013, until December 31, 2022; -- Massachusetts on or after January 1, 2013, until December 31, 2022; -- Michigan on or after December 12, 2010, until December 31, 2022; and -- Pennsylvania on or after November 18, 2010, until December 31, 2022. The court-authorized website for the New York and multi-state Joint Juice settlements can be found at JointJuiceSettlement.com. According to the settlement website, New York Joint Juice class members whose identities and purchase histories can readily be ascertained based on retailer records (i.e., “Identified Class Members”) do not need to do anything to receive an automatic, one-time cash payment of $50 for each unit of Joint Juice purchased. Consumers who received an email or postcard identifying them as a “direct payment class member” will automatically be paid from the deal, the website says. New York Joint Juice settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form with no proof of purchase can receive a $50 cash payment per product purchased, for up to six Joint Juice units, the settlement site says. Consumers who submit a claim for reimbursement for more than six Joint Juice product units must provide proof of purchase with their claim form, and can receive $50 per unit purchased, the site states. Multi-state Joint Juice settlement class members also have a few options for reimbursement, though the details are significantly different than those of the New York settlement. Per the settlement website, multi-state class members who received an email or postcard identifying them as a “direct payment class member” do not need to do anything to receive an automatic one-time cash payment of $10 per unit for each purchase of any of the following Joint Juice supplements: -- Joint Juice Ready-to-Drink (6-count); -- Joint Juice Drops; -- Joint Juice Extra Strength Ready-to-Drink (6-count); and -- Joint Juice On the Go! Drink Mix Powder (7-count). Additionally, the website says that identified class members are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $25 per unit for each purchase of any of the following: -- Joint Juice Ready-to-Drink (30 count); -- Joint Juicy Easy Shot Concentrate; -- Joint Juice Extra Strength Ready-to-drink (24-count); and -- Joint Juice On the Go! Drink Mix Powder (30-count). Multi-state Joint Juice settlement class members who submit no proof of purchase with their claim can receive a cash payment for up to six units purchased, while those looking to claim more than six units must provide proof for each unit purchased, such as receipts or order confirmations, with their claim form. Payments for claim forms submitted with or without proof of purchase will be subject to the same $10 and $25 per-product cap. All cash payments from the New York or multi-state Joint Juice settlements may be subject to a pro rata (equal share) increase or decrease, depending on the amount that remains in the net settlement fund after all eligible claims and direct payment awards are determined. To submit a New York Joint Juice settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page of the settlement site and enter the unique ID and PIN as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. To submit a multi-state Joint Juice settlement claim form online, class members can visit this page and enter the unique ID and PIN on their received copy of the settlement notice. Class members may also download a PDF claim form here to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Joint Juice settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than May 15, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the New York Joint Juice class action settlement at a hearing on April 30, 2026. A final approval hearing for the multi-state Joint Juice settlement will be held on May 5, 2026. Class action settlement payouts typically begin to be distributed after a deal has received final approval from the court and any appeals are resolved. The Joint Juice class action lawsuits alleged that the maker of Joint Juice, Premier Nutrition Corporation, deliberately misrepresented the health benefits of its glucosamine products. The complaints claimed that glucosamine, the main ingredient in Joint Juice, has no positive effect on joint health and mobility as advertised. [GN] JULIE PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says -------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. JULIE PRODUCTS INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01106 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.juliecare.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Jan. 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase the One-Tablet Emergency Contraceptive, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit claims. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Julie Care online retail store, as well as the Julie Care interactive Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KOR SHOTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. KOR SHOTS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01107 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://korshots.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Jan. 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Gut Check (12 pack), the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit claims. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff’s sense of isolation and segregation, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. KOR SHOTS, INC. operates the website that offers wellness shots and hydration drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LOCKTON COMPANIES: Settles Cybersecurity Class Action for $9.9MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that Individuals whom Southeast Series of Lockton Cos. notified that a cybersecurity incident that occurred in November 2024 compromised their private information may qualify to claim up to $5,000 or a pro rata cash payment from a class action settlement. The data breach impacted approximately 1 million people. Southeast Series of Lockton Cos. LLC and Lockton Cos. LLC agreed to pay $9.9 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they failed to adequately protect private information during a data breach on Nov. 20, 2024. The incident compromised full names, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance information and birth dates. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States whom Southeast Series of Lockton Cos. and Lockton Cos. notified that a data incident that occurred on on or around Nov. 20, 2024, impacted their private information. How much is the settlement payment? All class members will automatically receive one year of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes credit monitoring and identity theft protection. Class members can also submit a claim for one of following cash payment options: Personal data removal -- Cash payment A - Documented losses: Class members can claim up to $5,000 per person for documented losses fairly traceable to the data breach. This may include monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft, professional fees, credit repair fees, costs for freezing/unfreezing credit and other charges or costs. --If the total amount of valid claims for documented losses exceeds $3,000,000, the settlement administrator will decrease payments on a pro rata basis. -- Cash payment B - Pro rata cash: Class members who do not submit a documented losses claim can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the remaining net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Beasley v. Southeast Series of Lockton Cos. LLC, et al., c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324 The claim deadline is April 7, 2026. Required claim information and proof -- All claims require the class member ID from the settlement notice the class member received. -- Documented losses require proof, which may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or losses due to fraud or other documentation showing identity theft or fraud traceable to the data incident. Payout options -- Electronic payment (online claims only) -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $9.9 million data breach settlement fund The $9,900,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,966,666.66 -- Attorneys' costs: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 each -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by the number of class members who enroll -- Documented losses claim payments: Up to $3,000,000 -- Pro rata cash claim payments: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: April 7, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: April 7, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: May 7, 2026 When is the Lockton Cos. data breach payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to class members after it completes claim processing and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged Southeast Series of Lockton Cos. and Lockton Cos. failed to adequately protect private information, leading to a data breach on or around Nov. 20, 2024. The companies deny the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 Deadline: April 7, 2026 [GN] MADISON, WI: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Absentee Ballots Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- WTMJ News reports that a Dane County judge denies a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit over missing absentee ballots from the November 2024 election. The lawsuit, filed in September 2025 by Law Forward on behalf of the voters, is seeking to recover monetary damages for "dignitary harm, suffering, the deprivation of their right to vote, punitive damages, and any other relief deemed appropriate, in an amount to be determined by a jury", stating that the deprivation of their right to vote is unconstitutional. During the November 2024 presidential election, 193 absentee ballots were not properly processed and counted in Madison. An investigation by the Wisconsin Elections Commission found that former City of Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl failed to comply with the law after Dane County canvassers discovered 68 uncounted absentee ballots in a tabulator bin on November 12, a week after the election, and another 125 uncounted ballots in a courier bag the first week of December. Witzel-Behl's office had opportunities to count the ballots after they were discovered but never did, the investigation concluded. The office didn't notify the Wisconsin Elections Commission of the oversight until December 18, almost a month and a half after the election and after results were certified on November 29, 2024. Witzel-Behl resigned in April 2025, after the city's investigation determined that Witzel-Behl didn't break any laws but did violate multiple policies and her contractual duty to supervise elections and maintain professional standards. The elections commission report concluded that there is probable cause that Witzel-Behl broke five election laws. She was never charged with any crimes. An independent analysis confirmed reporting from the Madison clerk's office that the uncounted ballots did not impact the outcome of any local or federal elections in November 2024. The City of Madison filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that under Wisconsin law, absentee voting is a privilege and not a right, which has drawn criticism from Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Dane County Judge David Conway in his ruling also disagreed. "Once a voter casts a valid absentee ballot that complies with the Legislature's rules for utilizing the absentee process, the voter has exercised the same constitutional right to vote as someone who casts a valid in-person ballot at a polling place. And that right to vote would be a hollow protection if it did not also include the right to have one's vote counted." In an opinion piece written for The Cap Times, lead plaintiff Precious Ayodabo writes that "[w]hen I think about voting, I think about where our society is today, and all the good that we could do to help each other. I believe that voting is the first step to passing laws that help people in our communities and throughout our country. But if our votes are not even counted, that whole system breaks down." The parties are due back in court on March 20, 2026. [GN] MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Discloses Users' Info to Google, Pettis Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA MARIE PETTIS, HOLLY MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARSHFIELD CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00105 (W.D. Wis., Feb. 11, 2026) sues the Defendant for its illegal and widespread practice of disclosing the Plaintiffs' and putative Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Google, LLC. The Plaintiffs and Class Members who visited and used Defendant's Website (collectively, the "Users") understandably thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, however, the Defendant allegedly embedded various third-party tracking technology including but not limited to Google Analytics and DoubleClick (collectively "Tracking Tools") on its Website, which automatically transmits to third parties every click, keystroke and detail about their medical treatment, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Tracking Tools, (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of value of the Private Information, (iv) statutory damages and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs therefore seek on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert statutory claims against Marshfield: (i) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Ms. Pettis has been a patient of Marshfield and a user of www.marshfieldclinic.org since at least 2015. Marshfield is a nonprofit health system with over 60 locations throughout the heart of Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Summer Murshid, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL S.C. 5150 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (414) 376-5018 - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Michael Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Frankfort Suit Removed to S.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as TODD FRANKFORT and CURTIS GOODBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Filed Nov. 20, 2025) was removed from the 133rd Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Feb. 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-01171 to the proceedings. The Plaintiffs alleges that Metropolis violated the Texas Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Metropolis is a Delaware corporation that equips parking facilities with computer vision technology that allows consumers to pay for parking via QR Codes without stopping and waiting at cumbersome entry and exit gates.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. Kevin P. Parker, Esq. Alex J. Brown, Esq. Alfred Mackenzie, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com kevin.parker@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com alfred.mackenzie@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Craig A Haynes, Esq. Robert C. Vartabedian, Esq. Daniella P. Main, Esq. VARTABEDIAN HESTER & HAYNES LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4600E Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 654-1632 E-mail: craig.haynes@vhh.law E-mail: rob.vartabedian@vhh.law daniella.main@vhh.law MOONGLOW JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Moonglow Jewelry, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00176 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.moonglow.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Tesch and other blind or visually-impaired individuals pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website, the suit contends. Ms. Tesch browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a necklace on the Website. Despite her efforts, however, Tesch was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, the suit alleges. Ms. Tesch seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Defendant offers a selection of personalized jewelry and accessories including custom necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings, jewelry sets and bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law MUSHIE & CO: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, See Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mushie & Co, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00280-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., Feb. 10, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://mushie.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by impaired individuals, pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website, the suit contends. On Oct. 14, 2025, Mr. See accessed the website Mushie.com. However, while navigating the website, he encountered accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his ability to complete a purchase. He was unable to access the dialog box, thereby impeding his ability to review the cart contents and complete the checkout process. Mr. See seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mushie offers a selection of items for bath care, feeding, play, nursery, and on-the-go needs for infants, toddlers, and children.[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 NAVY FEDERAL: Appeals Court Revives Suit Over Lending Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- DiCello Levitt reports that in a significant appellate ruling for minority borrowers seeking systemic relief, on February 10, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived class allegations challenging Navy Federal Credit Union's mortgage lending practices. The Court held that borrowers alleging discriminatory mortgage lending practices plausibly asserted common, class-wide claims for injunctive and declaratory relief that should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage before discovery. "This ruling reaffirms that courts should not shut down civil rights cases before plaintiffs have any opportunity to access the evidence," said Partner Daniel Schwartz, who argued the appeal on behalf of the borrowers. "The apparent disparate impact is there for all to see—black and brown borrowers at Navy Federal were denied home mortgages far more often, and charged significantly higher rates, than similarly-situated white applicants. When a lender's mortgage decisions are allegedly driven by a common underwriting process, plaintiffs are entitled to discovery to determine whether that system operates in a manner that causes a discriminatory result." The consolidated case, In re: Navy Federal Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, alleges that Navy Federal employed a semi‑automated mortgage underwriting process that disadvantaged Black, Latino, and Native American home loan applicants, including service members, veterans, and their families. According to the complaint, the underwriting system relied on inputs that can function as proxies for race and produced disparate outcomes in mortgage approvals, pricing, and processing times nationwide. "The Fourth Circuit recognized that claims of systemic discrimination deserve to be evaluated on a full factual record," said DiCello Levitt Founding Partner Adam Levitt. "Our clients allege that Navy Federal's mortgage lending practices denied them equal access to homeownership. This decision ensures those claims will be tested through discovery rather than dismissed at the outset." The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings, including discovery into Navy Federal's mortgage underwriting practices. The case is In re: Navy Federal Mortgage Discrimination Litigation, Case No. 1:23‑cv‑01731‑LMB‑WEF (E.D. Va.). DiCello Levitt serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the matter with Tycko & Zavareei and Ben Crump Law. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, civil and human rights, antitrust, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, business-to-business, public client, personal injury, and whistleblower litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. Media Contact Caitlin Whitehurst, Esq. DiCello Levitt cwhitehurst@dicellolevitt.com [GN] NEIMAN MARCUS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-01298-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., Feb. 10, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.neimanmarcus.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. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the 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 pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023). Ms. Dalton has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and home goods for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, pants, dresses, jackets, shoes, handbags, jewelry, accessories, beauty supplies, home décor, bedding, bath supplies, furniture, 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 NEW YORK: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Foreclosure Law ----------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that recently, the State of New York filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New York's Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). The amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York expanded the case by adding Governor Kathy Hochul and state Senator James Sanders Jr. as defendants in their official capacities, introducing new constitutional claims and factual allegations, and seeking injunctive relief. The state's motion to dismiss asserted that: (i) the defendants have sovereign immunity from plaintiff's claims for money damages as well as its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief; (ii) legislative immunity protects Sen. Sanders from liability for sponsoring FAPA; (iii) the original defendant, the State of New York, is not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 because neither the State of New York nor any department thereof is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983; and (iv) the amended complaint failed to state a valid claim under the Takings Clause or the Contracts Clause. The court has yet to rule on the motion, and the case remains pending. [GN] ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: McDonough Balks at Unsecured Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN MCDONOUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS, PC, Defendant, Case No. 2682CV00078 (Comm. Mass., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about January 17, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts, PC is a provider of surgical and non-surgical treatment for bone, joint, and muscle issues based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com OTG MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Tipped Employees' Earned Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA GAVRILOVA and ANNEMARIE WOODING on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OTG MANAGEMENT, LLC, OTG JFK T5 VENTURE, LLC, and WORKERS UNITED, LAUNDRY, DISTRIBUTION, AND FOOD SERVICE JOINT BOARD, SEIU, Case No. 1:26-cv-00682 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.6, 2026) is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly situated tipped employees employed by OTG. According to the complaint, OTG systematically paid the Plaintiffs and other tipped workers a sub-minimum wage while requiring them to perform extensive non-tipped and off-the-clock work, misappropriating tips, failing to provide legally required wage notices and statements, and maintaining inaccurate time and payroll records. OTG's uniform policies and practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, depriving Plaintiffs and the putative class of lawfully earned wages and tips. The Plaintiffs are employed as Tipped Workers5 (bartenders) at restaurants and bars owned and operated by the OTG Defendants in JFK. However, the OTG Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the proper minimum wage rate for all hours worked and failed pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked. OTG owns and operates restaurants in airports.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. Elisabeth A. Schiffbauer, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, New York 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 E-mail: CG@belllg.com eschiffbauer@belllg.com PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Phillips Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case GRANT PHILLIPS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA LLC, Case No. 25-00002-37665-6 SEA, was removed from the King County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on January 21, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00233-BJR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for fraud claims. Pacific Sunwear of California LLC is an American retail clothing company based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 600-2250 Email: mbrooks@beneschlaw.com PALO ALTO: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Jaime Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Jaime, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-01203 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendant has engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although the Plaintiff and putative FLSA Members worked more than 40 hours in a week, the Defendant had a policy and practice of failing and refusing to pay employees overtime and thus violated and continues to violate the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the suit contends. Specifically, the Plaintiff worked at least 45 hours a week every week from February of 2018 to May of 2024, and often more. The Plaintiff had to remain on-call during meal breaks and work through meal periods in order to be responsive to e-mails and calls, and had to work from home and on weekends to be responsive to e-mails and calls, and had to attend business events outside of normal working hours, all of which resulted in overtime hours for which the Plaintiff was not allegedly compensated. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against Defendant on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from February of 2018 to May of 2024. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. is a cybersecurity company that develops products focused on enterprise network security and provides employment to employees in California and nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg, Esq. Nicole Bloomfield, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda Avenue, Fifteenth Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com Nicole@lebelaw.com PERI PERI: Martinez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- GUADALUPE GARCIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERI PERI SANTA CLARA LLC; PERI PERI SF LLC; PERI PERI SUNNYVALE LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV165981 (Cal. Super. Alameda Cty., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to permit and provide meal periods, failure to permit and provide rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business related expenses, failure to provide sick pay, waiting time penalties, civil penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a nonexempt, hourly employee. Peri Peri Santa Clara LLC is a restaurant owner and operator in California. Peri Peri SF LLC is a restaurant owner and operator in California. Peri Peri Sunnyvale LLC is a restaurant owner and operator in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq. Elizabeth Lyons, Esq. Gonzalo Quezada Jr., Esq. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, PC 2760 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 695-1000 Facsimile: (415) 695-1006 Email: service@liberationlawgroup.com PERPAY INC: Rodriguez Files Class Action Suit in Fla. Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perpay Inc. The case is captioned as KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PERPAY INC., Case No. 2026-CA-000512-O (Fla. Cir. Ct., Orange Cty., January 19, 2026). Perpay Inc. is a software company, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th St. Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com PRECIPIO INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Precipio data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Precipio data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Precipio Security Incident: What Happened? Precipio, Inc. has reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services a data breach that may have involved certain patient information. Precipio is a healthcare biotechnology company based in New Haven, Connecticut that specializes in cancer diagnostics. Precipio said in a notice posted on its website that after it learned of unauthorized access to an employee’s cloud-based storage account, it initiated an investigation with the help of cybersecurity specialists. The investigation found that the account had been accessed without authorization on or around November 23, 2025 and that certain files stored therein had been copied. The biotechnology company stated in its online letter that it is still reviewing the files that may have been affected and plans to provide additional notifications as appropriate after the review is finished. The Precipio data breach may have impacted names, addresses and dates of birth, as well as medical information such as medical record numbers, clinical or treatment details, procedure and provider data, prescription information and health insurance details. What You Can Do After the Precipio Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Precipio data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Precipio to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] PREMIUM MERCHANT: Faces Roach Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ RYAN ROACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01139 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff has worked as a sales representative at the Defendant's Water Street, New York, New York location since November 2021. Premium Merchant Funding LLC is a financial services firm, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Frank Tantone, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com frank@lipskylowe.com R&L CARRIERS: Perez Class Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS PEREZ, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, L.L.C., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV36994 (Filed Dec. 17, 2025), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, on Feb. 11, 2026. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01451 to the proceeding. The suit alleges ten causes of action including: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon termination; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7) wage statement violations; (8) failure to keep requisite payroll records; (9) failure to indemnify under California Labor Code section 2802; and (10) and unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. The Plaintiff seeks to represent: "All current and former hourly-paid or non exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment." R&L is a privately owned American freightshipping company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: aa@calljustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: cschreck@fisherphillips.com - and - Anthony C. White, Esq. J. Timothy Mcdonald, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 1700 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 469-3200 Facsimile: (614) 469-3361 E-mail: Tony.White@ThompsonHine.com Tim.McDonald@ThompsonHine.com RESIDENTIAL FUNDING: Court Denies Coverage in Derivative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carleen Bongat, writing for Insurance Business, reports that The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on February 3 that Residential Funding Company cannot tap its professional liability coverage for two class action settlements stemming from allegedly unlawful mortgage fees that the company never actually collected itself. The case offers a masterclass in how exclusionary language can work in insurers' favor, particularly when policies include what's known as a deemer clause that extends certain definitions to cover third parties. RFC operated as General Motors' mortgage subsidiary, buying loans from originating banks and then packaging them for resale or securitization. The company didn't originate mortgages or pocket any of the fees that borrowers paid at closing. Those went straight to the originating banks. But under federal law, specifically the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, anyone who purchases a mortgage steps into the shoes of the original lender for liability purposes. That meant when borrowers sued over improper fees, RFC was on the hook even though it never touched that money. Two class actions followed, known as the Mitchell and Kessler cases, alleging that originating banks had charged unlawful closing, origination and settlement fees. The lawsuits claimed RFC shared responsibility as the purchaser of those loans. When RFC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the eventual reorganization plan included settlements of both class actions. The newly created liquidating trust and class representatives then went after RFC's insurers to cover the settlements and defense costs. The insurers had issued RFC coverage under a General Motors professional liability policy with Lloyd's of London as the primary carrier and a tower of excess insurers above it, including Continental Casualty, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Swiss Re International SE, and several others. All the policies contained essentially identical language for purposes of this dispute. The key provision was a fee exclusion that barred coverage for losses arising from any claim for fees, commissions, costs, expenses or other charges paid or payable by or to the insured. At first glance, that might not seem to apply since RFC never received the contested fees. But the policies also included a deemer clause buried in the exclusions section. That clause said the term insured in the exclusions included any person or entity for whose conduct an insured is legally responsible in rendering or failing to render professional services. The district court found that combination knocked out coverage. The deemer clause brought the originating banks within the definition of insured for purposes of applying the fee exclusion. Since the banks collected the fees, and RFC was legally responsible for the banks' conduct under federal mortgage law, the exclusion applied. The trust and class representatives appealed, arguing that the claims weren't really about fees at all, that RFC wasn't legally responsible for bank conduct, and that the banks weren't rendering professional services as defined in the policy. The appeals court wasn't buying it. On the fees question, the court noted that closing, origination and settlement charges are fees under any ordinary understanding of the word. The policy didn't define the term, so the court looked to Black's Law Dictionary, which describes a fee as a charge for labor or services. On legal responsibility, the court found the position contradictory. If RFC wasn't legally responsible for the banks' conduct, it would be hard to see how RFC had coverage in the first place. The whole basis for the underlying liability was a federal statute that makes mortgage purchasers answerable for the conduct of originating lenders. The professional services argument fared no better. The court read the deemer clause to mean that it applies when the insured is legally responsible for another entity's conduct in the course of the insured's own rendering of professional services. Since RFC was in the business of purchasing and securitizing mortgages, and its derivative liability arose from that business, the requirement was met. The trust and class representatives made one last try, arguing that the fee exclusion applied only to fees paid to the specific insured seeking coverage, not to other entities swept in by the deemer clause. The court rejected this interpretation as inconsistent with giving the deemer clause any real effect. The bankruptcy court had initially recommended that RFC's liability and costs were not excluded from coverage. However, the district court withdrew the bankruptcy court reference and awarded summary judgment to the insurers in December 2024, a decision the Second Circuit has now affirmed. The ruling represents a clean win for the insurer group, which coordinated their defense despite being on different layers of the coverage tower. Four other excess carriers, ACE Bermuda Insurance Ltd., XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd., American International Reinsurance Company Ltd., and Chubb Atlantic Indemnity Ltd., had their claims sent to arbitration and weren't part of the court proceedings. For the professional liability market, the decision underscores the value of deemer clauses in extending exclusions to derivative liability scenarios. The ruling shows that when policy language clearly brings third-party conduct within the scope of exclusions, courts will enforce that intent even when the insured had no direct involvement in the excluded activity. [GN] RIO FARMS: Faces Ortega Civil Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rio Farms, LLC. The case is captioned as LUIS ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RIO FARMS, LLC, Case No. 2026CUBT060167 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., January 21, 2026). The case type is stated as Civil Unlimited. Rio Farms, LLC is an agricultural service provider in King City, California. [BN] RIX INDUSTRIES: Faces Prado Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RIX Industries. The case is captioned as MAX PRADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RIX INDUSTRIES, Case No. CU26-01127 (Cal. Super., Solano Cty., January 21, 2026). The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. RIX Industries is a provider of precision compressor solutions, gas generation systems, and cryogenic technologies in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. Blackstone Law, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com SARAYA USA: Kinman Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case VALERIE KINMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SARAYA USA, INC. d/b/a LAKANTO, Case No. 1:25-cv-07539, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the District of Utah on January 21, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Utah assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00062-TC-DAO to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud/Consumer Protection Acts, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Saraya USA, Inc., doing business as Lakanto, is a manufacturing company, with its principal place of business in Orem, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam C. York, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLC 220 N. Green St. Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (212) 920-3072 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: ayork@kamberlaw.com - and - Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Suite 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com SILVERLAKE FINANCIAL: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silverlake Financial, LLC. The case is captioned as CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SILVERLAKE FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00153-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Silverlake Financial, LLC is an investment firm, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SPOONFUL OF COMFORT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Spoon Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spoonful Of Comfort, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00049 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.spoonfulofcomfort.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website, the Plaintiff avers. On Dec. 11, 2025, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's website, Spoonfulofcomfort.com. While exploring the Website, Pelaez found a birthday care package that caught her interest. However, during this process, Pelaez encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with her ability to complete a purchase, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Spoonful offers a variety of gourmet gift packages, featuring soups, rolls, and cookies, along with themed baskets, thoughtfully curated for different occasions.[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 SPRINKLER FITTERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 JATC data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 JATC data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 JATC Security Incident: What Happened? The UA Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC) is notifying individuals about a cybersecurity attack by an international group that affected its computer network. On May 23, 2024, suspicious activity was detected, prompting an investigation with third-party forensic experts to secure the systems and evaluate the event’s scope. The investigation revealed that files were copied by unauthorized actors between May 17 and May 23, 2024. A final analysis completed on January 28, 2026, identified potential exposure of sensitive information, which may include names, Social Security numbers, and driver's license or state ID numbers. The UA Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee data breach reportedly affected 20,623 individuals, and notices are now going out to those affected. The JATC governs all training for Sprinkler Fitters Local 669, a union consisting of over 16,000 members across the country. What You Can Do After the Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 JATC Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 JATC data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 JATC to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] SUPERFOODS INC: Adkins Sues Over Contaminated Products ------------------------------------------------------ Charlyn Adkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SUPERFOODS, INC. d/b/a LIVE IT UP, Case No. 1:26-cv-00860 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought on behalf of all other consumers nationwide who bought Defendant's dietary supplement products that were recently recalled by Defendant in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration due to potential Salmonella contamination. Salmonella can cause consumers to become sick and can result in serious illness. The Defendant manufactures, warrants, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells Live it Up Super Greens, including both Original and Wild Berry flavors. Defendant uniformly misrepresented, among other things, that its Recalled Products contain "the highest quality ingredients," "all the good stuff," "none of the bad stuff," and that Defendant utilized "good manufacturing practices." On January 20, 2026, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") published news about Defendant's recall. To date, there have been 45 illnesses and 12 hospitalizations across the United States due to Salmonella contamination that are possibly linked to the Recalled Products. The Defendant marketed and advertised the Recalled Products as being fit or suitable for human consumption. As alleged herein, Defendant's marketing and advertising of the Recalled Products is false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers because the Recalled Products were contaminated with Salmonella, and thus were not as advertised, represented, or guaranteed. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Recalled Products had they known the products contained, or might have contained, dangerous or toxic levels of Salmonella and/or that Defendant did not adequately test, screen, and/or inspect the Recalled Products before selling them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Recalled Product. Superfoods is a manufacturer of dietary supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513-345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and – Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Steet, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road - Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: 516-874-4505 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will seek an order certifying, as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, her request for a judicial declaration that the Defendant violated California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with the Statutes. The Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: 1. Certifying her declaratory relief claim (only) as a class action with the Class defined as follows: "All owners of Defendant’s individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that the Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first applying Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. 2. Appointing Plaintiff Dung M. Phan as the Class Representative; and 3. Appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as Class Counsel. In 1998, Ms. Phan purchased, in California, a life insurance policy from Western Reserve Life Insurance Company of Ohio ("WRL"). Before lapsing the Policy, Defendant and WRL never notified the Plaintiff, via written correspondence or otherwise, of her right to designate a third-party to receive lapse notices. The Defendant did not apply The Statutes to Plaintiff's Policy because it chose not to apply The Statutes (until recently) to any policies issued before 2013. Transamerica operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wi41I0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jwinters@singletonschreiber.com sball@einsurelaw.com TROCAIRE COLLEGE: Achard Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trocaire College. The case is styled as Scott Achard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trocaire College, Case No. Index not Assigned (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie Cty., Feb. 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Data Breach). Trocaire College -- https://trocaire.edu/ -- is a private Catholic junior college in Buffalo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com UNIQURE NV: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Scocco Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SCOCCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIQURE N.V., MATTHEW KAPUSTA, CHRISTIAN KLEMT, WALID ABI-SAAB, and SARAH TABRIZI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01124 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning uniQure's business in order to trade uniQure ordinary shares at artificially inflated prices between September 24, 2025, and October 31, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the design of uniQure's Pivotal Study—including comparison of the Pivotal Study results to the ENROLL-HD external historical data set—was not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); (2) the Defendants downplayed the likelihood that, despite purportedly highly successful results from the Pivotal Study, uniQure would have to delay its Biologics License Application (BLA) timeline to perform additional studies to supplement its BLA submission; and (3) as a result, the Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the price of uniQure ordinary shares plummeted $33.40 per share, or more than 49 percent, from a close of $67.69 per share on October 31, 2025, to close at $34.29 per share on November 3, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the company's ordinary shares, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, says the suit. uniQure N.V. is a biotechnology company, headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: namjed@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com gjarvis@ktmc.com UNITED STATES: Rodriguez Sues Over Unreasonable Seizures, Detention ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUANA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and her minor child Y.R.; X.Z., on behalf of himself and his minor child Y.Z.; IVAN POPOCA, on behalf of himself and his minor children E.I.P. and A.S.P.; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KENNETH PORTER, Acting Director of the Boise U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Sub-Office, in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00075-AKB (D. Idaho, February 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for Section 1983 conspiracy to conduct unreasonable seizure and to deny equal protection, and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and violation of Section 1986 failure to prevent deprivation of equal protection. The case arises from the Defendants' participation in the alleged unreasonable seizures and detention of spectators gathered at La Catedral racetrack to enjoy festivities that included horse-racing, food vendors, and games for children on Oct. 19, 2025. According to the complaint, during the event, several law enforcement officers from numerous federal, state, and local agencies descended with armored trucks, flashbang grenades, and guns drawn (the "Raid") then detained the crowd of hundreds for four hours without food, refusing to let mothers feed their hungry and crying babies. The detainees were interrogated about their immigration status and no one was set free unless and until they verified lawful presence in the United States. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered harm including but not limited to the violation of their constitutional rights, emotional distress, bodily injury, and economic loss. Kenneth Porter is sued in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Boise U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Sub-Office. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the largest investigative agency within the Department of Homeland Security, responsible for enforcing federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration in the U.S. interior.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, Esq. Allison Frankel, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (914) 462-2363 Email: jborchetta@aclu.org afrankel@aclu.org - and - Jorge Castillo, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Email: JorgeCastillo@aclu.org - and - Emma Andersson, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA, 94104 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Email: eandersson@aclu.org - and - Paul Carlos Southwick, Esq. Emily Myrei Croston, Esq. ACLU OF IDAHO FOUNDATION P.O. Box 1897 Boise, ID 83701 Telephone: (208) 344-9750 Email: psouthwick@acluidaho.org ecroston@acluidaho.org - and - Wendy J. Olson, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900, Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 387-4291 Email: wendy.olson@stoel.com UNITED STATES: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Buttar Suit --------------------------------------------------------- HARKAMALDEEP SINGH BUTTAR filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit entitled Harkamaldeep Singh Buttar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States of America, et al., Respondents, Case No. 1:26-cv-00404-JLT-SKO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 19, 2026. The Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus after claiming he is being unlawfully detained. [BN] The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by: Jagbir S. Terkiana, Esq. TERKIANA, PC P.O. Box 70280 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Telephone: (408) 689-6117 Email: notices@immigration.global UNITED STATES: Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Victoriano Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- PASCUAL GARCIA VICTORIANO filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit entitled Pascual Garcia Victoriano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States of America, et al., Respondents, Case No. 2:26-cv-00654-MCA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 21, 2026. The Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus and immediate release or bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) on the grounds that he is being unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A). [BN] The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by: Regis Fernandez, Esq. 7 Federal Square Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 297-0002 Facsimile: (973) 297-0003 Email: regisfernandez@aol.com UPONOR INC: Faces Harmon Class Suit Over Defective PEX Pipes ------------------------------------------------------------ LINDSEY HARMON, MARIBETH BORROUGHS, AND SEUNGHUN KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UPONOR INC., Case No. 0:26-cv-01140 (D. Minn., Feb.6, 2026) is a class action complaint against Uponor on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who own or owned properties in Texas, Arizona, and Georgia in which cross-linked polyethylene "AquaPEX" pipes (PEX Pipes) designed and manufactured after January 1, 2010, by Uponor and thereafter distributed, marketed, and sold by Uponor are or were installed. According to the complaint, Uponor's defective cross-linked polyethylene plumbing pipes manufactured or distributed by Uponor. The PEX Pipes which suffer from undisclosed design and/or manufacturing defects that inevitably cause them to fail prematurely and other property in which they are installed. Specifically, the PEX Pipes are prone to premature oxidative degradation, which causes cracking, leaking, and other failures of the PEX Pipes well before the end of their expected service life. Hot water exposure accelerates this oxidative process, yet the PEX Pipes lack adequate antioxidative protection necessary for long-term durability. This lack of adequate protection allows rapid oxidation under hot-water conditions, resulting in premature degradation and failure. Nevertheless, Uponor advertises its PEX Pipes as suitable for high-temperature applications. Uponor uses the Engel method to manufacture its PEX Pipe. PEX manufactured using the Engel method is known as PEX-A. To achieve cross-linking by the Engel method, the manufacturer uses a combination of pressure and high temperature during extrusion of the PEX Pipe, says the suit. When oxidation progresses in Uponors PEX Pipes, the polyethylene pipe material degrades, leading to surface embrittlement, cracking, and the release of water that causes significant damage to surrounding property and/or prevents the plumbing system from functioning as intended. Because PEX Pipes are frequently installed within walls, when the Pipes crack and leak, the leakage is concealed and typically goes undetected until visible signs of damage -- such as dampness or mold growth -- appear externally on walls or other areas of the structures in which they are installed, the suit further asserts. Plaintiff Harmon is a citizen of the State of Texas and a resident of Dickinson, Texas. Harmon's home in Dickinson was constructed, including the installation of Uponor PEX Pipes, in or around 2018. Uponor Inc. provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 E-mail: jalbanese@bergermontague.com jhashmall@bergermontague.com - and - Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ldeutsch@bergermontague.com jpolakoff@bergermontague.com rraghavan@bergermontague.com VALLEY NATIONAL: Website Has Spyware from Data Brokers, Hughes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, a New Jersey company; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-01258 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2026) alleges the Defendants website is crawling with spyware from multiple data brokers, including software from data brokers LiveRamp, Adroll and Outbrain. With the aid of these data brokers, the Defendant can secretly learn who has visited their website, and can purchase profiles sold by data brokers about them, so that Defendant can solicit people who do not know they have been subjected to organized and highly sophisticated surveillance, since Valley Bank never discloses it, the lawsuit says. According to its website, Valley National Bank offers "comprehensive financial services, including personal and business banking, loans, mortgages, and wealth management" including by operating a branch in this district. The Defendant is a commercial bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com W6LS INC: Faces Oftedahl Class Suit Over Usurious Contracts ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAN OFTEDAHL, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W6LS, INC., doing business as WithU and WithU Loans; SCRATCH FINANCIAL, INC., and DOES 1-20, Case No. 3:26-cv-05112 (W.D. Was h., Feb.6, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for transacting in usurious contracts with interest rates exceeding 500% per annum throughout Washington. WithU claims to be an arm of the Otoe Missouria Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized tribe, for the purpose of evading state usury laws and regulations, obtaining broad waivers of rights, and imposing unconscionable dispute, resolution processes on consumers. WithU cannot enforce its agreements against Washington consumers, however, because they are allegedly illegal and violate long-standing public policy prohibiting usurious loans. WithU has ignored these warnings and continues to transact in usurious products in violation of state and federal law, causing injury and damages throughout Washington, says the suit. Plaintiff Ian Oftedahl is one recent victim. He brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated Washington consumers seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. W6LS, INC., doing business as WithU and WithU Loans, is an online lending solutions company owned and operated by the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan W. Donckers, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 506 2nd Avenue, Suite 2400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 E-mail: bdonckers@bjtlawyers.com - and - Sam Leonard, Esq. LEONARD LAW, PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 486-1176 E-mail: sam@seattledebtdefense.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Haston Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, MWPFA ------------------------------------------------------------- YONNELL HASTON and BERNARD MUHAMMAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAYNE COUNTY, a municipal corporation, and its division, WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 2:26-cv-10419-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., Feb.6, 2026) arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to pay sheriffs of the Wayne County Sheriff's Office the wages, overtime, and benefits they earned, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Michigan Payment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act, and applicable contracts and collective bargaining agreements. According to the complaint, Sheriffs employed by Wayne County are non-exempt, hourly employees who are entitled to be paid for all hours worked. They are entitled to straight-time wages for regular hours, overtime compensation at one-and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and premium pay as required for holidays, double shifts, and other premium circumstances under applicable policies and collective bargaining agreements. They also earn and are entitled to use accrued fringe benefits, including vacation and sick leave, which must be accurately credited and restored when improperly deducted or deleted. Since June 2024, when Defendants implemented the Oracle payroll system to replace PeopleSoft, payroll for sheriffs has been chaotic and riddled with errors. Sheriffs have routinely received shorted paychecks that have omitted regular wages, overtime, holiday pay, and accrued leave, the Plaintiffs contend. The Defendants were repeatedly notified of these problems but have refused to correct them, instead telling employees that errors would be fixed in the next check, "which has never happened." As a result, Defendants has retained the benefit of hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid labor from sheriffs required to work overtime and holidays without full compensation. Plaintiffs Haston and Muhammad bring this collective action for themselves and for a class and collective of more than 400 sheriffs who suffered the same wage and benefit losses. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, including unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. In June 2024, Defendants switched from PeopleSoft to Oracle payroll. From the first paycheck under Oracle, sheriffs across the department discovered that overtime, holiday pay, and even straight-time wages were missing. Wayne County sets sheriffs' compensation through its payroll policies and collective bargaining agreements, including biweekly payment of all earned wages, accurate accounting of all hours worked, and payment of overtime premiums and holiday/premium pay when due. Wayne County is located in southeastern Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carla D. Aikens, Esq. CARLA D. AIKENS, PLC 615 Griswold St., Suite 709 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (844) 835-2993 E-mail: carla@aikenslawfirm.com - and - Tiffany R. Ellis, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 15 E Baltimore Ave Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone (313) 210-1559 E-mail: tellis@peifferwolf.com WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Perry Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Capital Lending Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Perry, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. West Capital Lending Inc, Case No. 4:26-cv-00094-KGB (E.D. Ark., Feb. 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. West Capital Lending -- https://www.westcapitallending.com/ -- is an Irvine, California-based direct lender and mortgage broker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq. RYBURN LAW FIRM 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 228-8100 Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com WILLOW GROVE: Misrepresents Admissions Tickets, Herbert Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LASHANDA HERBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WILLOW GROVE URBAN AIR, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-00833 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendants violated the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff brings this complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant misrepresenting that admissions tickets purchased on its website entitled the buyer to all day access to its facilities, and failing to honor warranties to the same. On Nov. 23, 2024, before the Plaintiff purchased her tickets to the Defendant's facilities, she saw multiple advertisements on the Defendant's website indicating that the tickets she was purchasing entitled her and her son's guests to all-day play at the Defendant's facilities, the suit says. On Nov. 24, 2024, the Plaintiff went to the Defendant's trampoline park with her son for his birthday party. After 2 hours, the Defendant's employees began instructing the Plaintiff's guests that they needed to leave the trampoline park because they had exceeded their allotted 2 hours of play. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's trampoline park was not at capacity such that any capacity restrictions applied, the suit adds. The Plaintiff was unaware that the Defendant maintained a blanket policy that patrons would be limited to two hours in Defendant's trampoline park when she purchased her admission tickets, the Plaintiff avers. Therefore, the Plaintiff has been deprived of her legally-protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about the Defendant's products as required by Pennsylvania law. As a result the Plaintiff has been misled into purchasing products she would not have otherwise purchased, the suit asserts. Willow owns and operates an indoor trampoline park doing business under the Urban Air Adventure Park brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: msnyder@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com Z-MAN FISHING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Z-man Fishing Products, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01590 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 12, 2026), alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://zmanfishing.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. He uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to individuals who meet the legal definition of blindness, in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some individuals who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Z-man Fishing Products, Inc. operates the website, a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ZOCDOC INC: Aids 3rd Party to Access Patients' Info, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- V.G. and E.G., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZOCDOC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00554-KPF (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, New York's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, the Right to Privacy, and California Invasion of Privacy Act, breach of implied contract, and negligence/negligence per se. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties to intercept patients' communications as they seek medical services on its website, www.zocdoc.com, without prior consent. The Defendant secretly installed tracking technology on its website which serve to track and disclose its patients' personal information, including their protected health information and personally identifiable information, to third parties, suit says. In doing so, the Defendant undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal medical information of individuals seeking medical services and breached its patients' trust, violating state and federal law, added the suit. ZocDoc, Inc. is a medical services provider, with its principal place of business located in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP The Foundry Building 1050 30th Street, N.W. Georgetown, Washington DC 20007 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 ********* 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 ***