260218.mbx

260218.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 18, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 35 Headlines 3MJ PROPERTIES: Miles Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property ALTMAN LUGGAGE: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMAZON.COM INC: Weiler Sues Over Deceptive Return Policy AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces Hill Class Suit Over Illegal Robocalls AMERIMED EMERGENCY: Jackson and Mulford Sue Over ERISA Breaches ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid ASAP CORPORATION: Jordan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas BALANCE STAFFING: Galvan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BALLSY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Suit Claims BERKELEY RESEARCH: Syphax Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BIG BRAND TIRE: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLACKROCK TCP: Burnell Sues Over Wrongful Acts and Omissions BLUE PLATE TACO: Figueroa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOWLOUNGE LLC: Maliszewski Sues Over Alleged FLSA Violations BOYCE HAMLET: Davis Sues Over Unconstitutional Practices BULLHORNS BURGER: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BUNGALOW LIVING PROPERTY: Hodgkinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CATALYST RCM: McUmber Files Suit Over Data Breach CATO CORPORATION: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CCI INC: Belton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CFD INVESTMENTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wilham Alleges CHESAPEAKE FINE FOOD: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Durham Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee COACHLIGHT: Canzoneri Sues Over Unlawful Consumer Reports CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONTRACTORS CAREER CENTERS: Vakil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CORDOBA LEGAL GROUP: Contreras Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COSTAR GROUP: Faces Gilbert Suit Over Controversial Severance Plan CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Carr Suit CREDIT UNION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Villalobos" CROWN CORK: Ludwig & McCarthy Sue Over Illegal Time-Rounding CUZIN'S CLAM BAR: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DAVE & BUSTER'S INC: Ajarmeh Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. DIDI GLOBAL: $740MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 16 DOLLAR TREE: "Murphy" FACTA Suit Remanded to State Court DOLLAR TREE: Opdycke Suit Removed to W.D. Washington EMPIRE HOTEL GROUP: Frias Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ENGLISH CREEK: Maurer Sues Over Property's Non-Compliance with ADA ESTEE LAUDER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit EUROPEAN WAX: Smith Sues Over Data Privacy Violations EZ INSURANCE SAVINGS: Frost Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida F5 INC: Continues to Defend Smith Securities Class Suit in Wash. FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Faces Stair Fraud Class Suit in W.D.N.Y. FONAR CORPORATION: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Merger FOOTHILLS PROFESSIONAL: Freeland Sues Over Deceptive Practices GAMESTOP INC: Wright Suit Removed to N.D. California GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Compensation GARNET HILL: Faces Botto Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages GENERAL PARTS: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Brown Suit GLAM AND GLITS NAIL: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GMO-Z.COM TRUST: Agrees to Settle GYEN Class Suit for $6.75-Mil. GUARDIAN FLEET: Brouillette Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces Feinberg Class Action Suit in D.N.J. HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Suit Due March 11 HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Va. INCLUSION SERVICES LLC: Capel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INFINITE 13600: Legarda Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Faces Young Suit Over Website Inaccessibility INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Willette Sues Over Inadequate Data Security IQ DATA: Nelson Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ISLAND WATCH INC: Walsh Suit Transferred to E.D. New York J. ALEXANDER'S: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JACKSON NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Armstrong Due April 30 JOEST LLC: Mezoff Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces McCullough-Adams Suit Over ERISA Violation L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid in Gallardo Amended to August 21 LIBERTY DENTAL PLAN: Fuszner TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri LIFE CARE CENTERS: Allison Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation LIONS GATE: Yesner Sues Over Injuries from Broken Water Pipe LOVE'S TRAVEL: Slater Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Garner Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LUNA INNOVATIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 31 MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit MDL in Mass. MAXIMUS INC: Taylor MOVEit Class Suit Stayed in Florida MEDTRONIC INC: Athans Must Provide Expert Reports by Oct. 9 MEDTRONIC INC: Dennis Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Ford Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama META PLATFORMS: Youngblood Sues Over Copyright Violations MICHAEL CIMINO: Soule Sues Over Restriction of Internet Access MICRO PRECISION: Miscalculates Pay Rates, Do Suit Says MINNESOTA DHS: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MIRBEAU HOSPITALITY: Fitzgerald Files Suit in N.D. New York MONSANTO COMPANY: Batistoni Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Garrett Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Mallory Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Ravey Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MORRIS & ASSOCIATES: Motsinger Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Dickinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MULLINAX FORD : Clevenger and Rohr Sue Over Private Data Breach NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Zornberg Suit NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Patel Securities Suit in EDNY NATSON HOTEL GROUP: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Milberg Coleman Named Interim Class Counsel NEW YORK, NY: Kulisz & Kenan Sue Over Unlawful Emergency Procedure NEW YORK, NY: Time to Complete ESI Production in Briskin Extended NISSAN MARIETTA: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia OMAHA STEAKS: Cohen Sues Over Unlawful Advertisements OMTA TECH: Fails to Pay Electricians' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ON INC: Seeks to Dismiss Breindel First Amended Complaint ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Herrera Due Sept. 30 ORACLE CORPORATION: Barrows Sues Over Misleading Representations PACIFIC MARITIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McColley Suit Claims PAYSAFE LIMITED: Singh Sues Over Drop in Share Price PHIA GROUP LLC: Bashir Files Suit in D. Massachusetts PIO PIO: Lopez Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification PREMIUM BRANDS: Faces Robbins Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. PRIMERICA FINANCIAL: Campbell Suit Removed to C.D. California QUALITY AUTO: Misclassified Employees as Contractors, Castro Says RAIN BIRD: Pafford Sues Over Failure to Properly Safeguard PII RAINBOW USA: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION: McPhee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RICHLAND MEDICAL: Faces Stroud Suit Over Data Security Failures RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Diez Sues Over False and Misleading Statements RTX CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit RUMI'S KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ruiz Suit Alleges SAFE CREDIT UNION: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEEKNOW INC: Dickerson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEIU LOCAL 1: Faces Williams Suit Over Private Data Breach SENTRY LEGAL PLAN: Deis Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas SHELL TRADING: LHB Files Suit for Breach of Payment Obligations SIDEPRIZE LLC: Franks Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia SKIN LAUNDRY HOLDINGS: Adu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SNAP INC: Settlement in Federal Securities Suit for Court OK SOMNOS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Suit Says SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Must File Joint Letter by May 8 SPINX GAMES: Custer Sues Over Unlawful Gambling Website and Apps STATE FARM: Safont Suit Seeks Class Certification SUPERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Bellisario Sues Over Unpaid Compensation SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TESLA INC: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TFC PARTNERS: Faces Ferrer Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. TOPPS COMPANY INC: Marquez Files Suit in N.D. California VAIL CORP.: Mackey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. VFJH LLC: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VOLUME SERVICES: Adler Suit Transferred to C.D. California WACOAL AMERICA: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WALT DISNEY: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit WALT DISNEY: Unger Antitrust Suit Ongoing in New York Court WATERTON RESIDENTIAL: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WERNER MEDIA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, See Claims WIN-VINELAND LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to March 4 WISE UP FINANCIAL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia WISNER BAUM: Denney Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data YOUNG'S TRANSPORTATION: Kaestner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZEE.DOG LLC: See Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ZHEALTH INC: Haver Files Suit in N.D. California ********* 3MJ PROPERTIES: Miles Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Property ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MILES, Plaintiff, v. 3MJ Properties, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00317 (N.D. Ohio, February 8, 2026) is a class action seeking to address Defendant's non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to its property. The Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's property previously as a place of public accommodation, However, Plaintiff has experienced the architectural barriers to access. In addition, the Plaintiff has discovered that Defendant lacks or has inadequate defined policies and procedures for the assistance of disabled patrons, including a policy of maintenance of its accessible features. Furthermore, the Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, says the suit. 3MJ Properties, LLC owns and/or operates a restaurant known as "Beckett's Burger Bar" located at 1801 Broad Ave., Findlay, OH. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com ALTMAN LUGGAGE: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Orcel, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ALTMAN LUGGAGE CO., LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01055 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.altmanluggage.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.altmanluggage.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com AMAZON.COM INC: Weiler Sues Over Deceptive Return Policy -------------------------------------------------------- ERIN WEILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00378 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant promises its customer that they can return virtually any product for "free," subject to some exclusions for late returns, specialty items, and damaged goods. The advertised "free" return policy, however, is a bait and switch. Amazon processes returns, purportedly for free, and issues qualifying customers refunds for their returned items. However, Amazon then tacks on junk fees to the return transaction under the umbrella term "Return Fees," thereby reneging on the promise of a "free" return. Amazon provides customers with refunds minus "Return Fees," thereby making the return not free at all. In the process, Amazon also directly breaches its own listed Return Fee policies, as it charges Return Fees on transactions that do not qualify for Return Fees, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. The Company products include books, music, computers, electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct shipping to customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Wyatt, Esq. WYATT GRONSKI PLLC 540 Newport Way NW, Suite 200 Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7784 E-mail: todd@wdlawgroup.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Ste. 650 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-Mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-Mail: joel@skclassactions.com AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces Hill Class Suit Over Illegal Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------------- ADEAN HILL, JR., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE, COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL, INC., and JOHN DOE, Case No. 4:26-cv-00025-ALM (E.D. Tex., Jan. 7, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by the use of illegal robocalling to promote their joint services to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On July 11, 2025, John Doe called the Plaintiff's cell phone number ending in 6388 from 737 842-5972. When Plaintiff answered the phone, the Plaintiff heard an artificial or prerecorded voice message advertising life insurance. The Plaintiff could tell it was an artificial voice because the caller would not stop talking when the Plaintiff tried to respond. The Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from the Defendants. The Plaintiff had no relationship with the Defendants and had never requested that the Defendants contact the Plaintiff in any manner, let alone by robocall, the Plaintiff avers. In addition to causing statutory damages, these illegal call(s) caused annoyance, intrusion on privacy and seclusion, and wasted Plaintiff’s time, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff therefore seeks an injunction requiring the Defendants to stop their unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and statutory damages to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Hill, Jr. is a citizen of the Eastern District of Texas American General sells life insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 300-0343 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com AMERIMED EMERGENCY: Jackson and Mulford Sue Over ERISA Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- TYQUANA JACKSON, an individual; and STEPHANIE MULFORD, an individual; on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERIMED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC., a Georgia Corporation; AMERIMED MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Georgia Corporation; AMERIMED HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN, an employee benefit plan; ASHLEY WATSON, an individual; and JOHN DOE PLAN FIDUCIARY(S), individual(s), Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00032-RWS (N.D. Ga., February 6, 2026) arises under Title I of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. Starting on or about September 2025, the Defendants failed to timely remit the premiums it withheld from its employees' paychecks, causing Meritain Health and Liviniti to repeatedly cancel the benefits. During this time, the Defendants continued to deduct weekly premiums, did not inform Plan participants that the coverage was terminated, and allowed participants to believe that they were still covered. The Defendants did not keep the employees' withheld premiums in trust, as required, but instead misappropriated and misused assets belonging to the Plan. As a result, the Defendants have stolen Plaintiffs' wages and benefits and left them vulnerable to substantial financial liability to their medical providers, says the suit. Amerimed Emergency Medical Services, LLC provides emergency medical and patient transportation services in six states: Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia J. Chastain, Esq. Lee Meier Burke, Esq. 695 Pylant Street N.E., #105 Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 905-8699 E-mail: lchastain@leemeierburke.com - and - Adam Lubow, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM LUBOW 700 W. St. Clair Ave., #320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 250-1321 E-mail: adam@lubowlaw.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED ASHOUR, et al., v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07081-AT-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request for an additional 10-day extension of deadline for opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Event Deadline The Defendants' deadline to oppose class Apr. 13, 2026 certification, depose class certification experts and file Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' deadline to submit a June 15, 2026 reply to the opposition to their motion for class certification, submit reply expert reports, depose the Defendants' experts, respond to Daubert motions and file any affirmative Daubert motions: The Defendants' deadline to reply to July 24, 2026 opposition to Daubert motions and to oppose Daubert motions: The Plaintiffs' deadline to reply to Aug. 24, 2026 opposition to Daubert motions: The Defendant is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7u80H6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Robert P. Donovan, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive, Suite 201 Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone: (201) 857-6760 E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com ASAP CORPORATION: Jordan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASAP Corporation. The case is styled as Tiffany Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASAP Corporation doing business as: ContactMeASAP, Case No. 4:26-cv-00095-JM (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. ASAP Corporation doing business as Contact me ASAP -- https://contactmeasap.com/ -- is a premier provider of telecommunications services to correctional facilities across the United States of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 BALANCE STAFFING: Galvan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balance Staffing Workforce LLC, et al. The case is styled as Iracema Acevedo Galvan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Balance Staffing Workforce LLC, Calchef Foods, LLC, Kevin's Natural Foods, Mars Incorporated, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000826 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Balance Staffing -- https://balancestaffing.com/ -- is a staffing agency that has been placing high quality candidates in positions since 2006.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com BALLSY INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALLSY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01365 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's website is not compatible with screen access programs. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the suit. Ballsy, Inc. owns and operates the website, Ballwash.com, which offers male grooming products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BERKELEY RESEARCH: Syphax Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkeley Research Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jordan M. Syphax, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Berkeley Research Group, LLC, Case No. 26CV166780 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage Tort. Berkeley Research Group, LLC (BRG) -- https://www.thinkbrg.com/ -- is a global consulting firm that helps leading organizations advance in three key areas: economics, disputes, and investigations; corporate finance; and performance improvement and advisory.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com BIG BRAND TIRE: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Brand Tire & Service, et al. The case is styled as Jason Walker, Ann Shelnutt, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Big Brand Tire & Service, AP American Tire Depot, MS American Tire Depot, Case No. 26CV168019 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Big Brand Tire & Service -- https://www.bigbrandtire.com/ -- has the largest online selection of new tires & wheels.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com BLACKROCK TCP: Burnell Sues Over Wrongful Acts and Omissions ------------------------------------------------------------ Cory Burnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLACKROCK TCP CAPITAL CORP., RAJ VIG, PHIL TSENG, and ERIK L. CUELLAR, Case No. 2:26-cv-01102 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired BlackRock TCP securities between November 6, 2024 and January 23, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions. Throughout the Class Period, the Company alleged that "all investments are valued at least quarterly" with the exception of certain investments which comprised less than 5% of the assets of the Company. Prior to the start of the Class Period, the Company's NAV per share was $11.90 as of December 31, 2023. On February 27, 2025, before the market opened, Company issued a press release announcing financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2024. The press release disclosed that the Company's portfolio had significantly weakened during the 2024 fiscal year. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.90, or 9.64%, to close at $8.44 per share on February 27, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. On January 23, 2026, after market hours, BlackRock TCP disclosed certain fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results, including that the Company's NAV per share as of December 31, 2025 was, in fact in the range of $7.05 to $7.09, 19% less than reported the prior quarter and 23.4% less than reported the prior year. On this news, BlackRock TCP's stock price fell $0.76, or 12.97%, to close at $5.10 per share on January 26, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: the Company's investments were not being timely and/or appropriately valued; the Company's efforts at portfolio restructuring were not effectively resolving challenged credits or improving the quality of the portfolio; as a result, the Company's unrealized losses were understated; as a result, the Company's NAV was overstated; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased BlackRock TCP securities during the Class Period. BlackRock TCP is a business development company which raises funds from investors and then use those funds to make loans to small and midsize businesses as an alternative to bank financing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com BLUE PLATE TACO: Figueroa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Plate Taco LLC, et al. The case is styled as Aleida Figueroa, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Blue Plate Taco LLC, Case No. 26STCV03397 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Blue Plate Taco LLC -- https://www.blueplatetaco.com/ -- offers Baja-style Mexican food, featuring the freshest farmer's market ingredients and a famous margarita menu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com BOWLOUNGE LLC: Maliszewski Sues Over Alleged FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA MALISZEWSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOWLOUNGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00333-L (N.D. Tex., February 8, 2026) alleges violations of the overtime wage and tip payment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant as a bartender at its business venues in Dallas, TX with approximate dates of employment of December 15, 2024 to present. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA because it kept and/or shared tips earned by the putative collective action members with customarily non-tipped employees such as supervisors and bowling alley mechanics. In addition, the Defendant also violated FLSA by failing to pay the putative collective action members time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 per seven-day workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Bowlounge, LLC operates venues that provide food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, bowling lanes, pickleball courts, and other types of entertainment to its customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com BOYCE HAMLET: Davis Sues Over Unconstitutional Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Calvin Davis; Todd Fason; NeDraya McGowan; and Robby Riedel, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Boyce Hamlet, in his official capacity as Chair of the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board; Lindsay Wallace, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections; Jim Cheek, in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Division of Community Correction; and Jamie Barker, in his official capacity as Chair of the Arkansas Board of Corrections, Case No. 4:26-cv-00089-KGB (E.D. Ark., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought on behalf of all adult parolees in the custody, or under the supervision, of the ADC who are at risk of imprisonment without adequate due process as a result of the unconstitutional practices and procedures of both the ADC and the PPTB with respect to parole and post-release supervision ("parole") revocation proceedings. The Defendants have developed a fundamentally unfair and procedurally flawed parole revocation process that violates Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In direct violation of the United States Constitution, Defendants uniformly refuse to screen parolees for attorney appointments and provide attorneys to parolees at any point in the parole revocation process. This is true even if a parolee is indigent and has a colorable claim that they did not commit an alleged parole violation, has mitigating evidence explaining why revocation is inappropriate, and/or would have difficulty effectively advocating on their own behalf given the complexity of the process or their own mental health, medical, educational, or other challenges. As a result of Defendants' failure to appoint counsel for indigent parolees, those parolees are forced to navigate complex revocation hearings alone, without anyone to help ensure Defendants' adherence to other procedural protections--including the right to speak on their own behalf, present evidence and witnesses, and cross-examine adverse witnesses--to which they are also constitutionally entitled, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are adult parolees currently in the custody of the ADC. Boyce Hamlet is the Chair of the PPTB, the revocation review board for all parolees in the State of Arkansas and a sub-department of the ADC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Williams, Esq. Hadiyah Cummings, Esq. ARKANSAS CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC. 904 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501-374-2842 Email: john@acluarkansas.org hadiyah@acluarkansas.org - and - Bridget Geraghty, Esq. Emily C. Keller, Esq. Olivia Fritz, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 160 East Grand A venue, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: 312-503-8282 Fax: 312-503-0891 Email: bridget.geraghty@macarthurjustice.org emily.keller@macarthurjustice.org olivia.fritz@macarthurjustice.org - and - Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. S.Y. Jessica Hui, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 A venue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-906-1200 Fax: 212-751-4864 Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com jess.hui@lw.com - and - Christine C. Smith, Esq. Chanelle N. Jones, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-637-2200 Fax: 202-637-2201 Email: christine.smith@lw.com chanelle.jones@lw.com BULLHORNS BURGER: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Orcel, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BULLHORNS BURGER GRILL, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01058 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.bullhorns.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.bullhorns.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers, specifically in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BUNGALOW LIVING PROPERTY: Hodgkinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Langers Juice Company, Inc. The case is styled as Alec Hodgkinson, individually and on behalf of all other person similarly situated v. Bungalow Living Property Management, Inc., Case No. CGC26633351 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Bungalow Living, Inc. -- https://bungalow.com/ -- operates a rental platform that simplifies securing living accommodations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com CATALYST RCM: McUmber Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- TRACAY MCUMBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATALYST RCM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01037 (S.D. Tex., February 9, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the 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. Between November 8, 2025, and November 9, 2025, the Defendant experienced a cyber incident on a server used to store data of Clients' patients. As a result of the Data Breach, an unauthorized third-party was able to access and copy files containing the sensitive Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The following types of Private Information were compromised in the Data Breach: name, date of birth, health insurance information, and medical information. The complaint alleges that 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. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Plaintiff Tracay McUmber is a citizen and resident of Brooksville, Florida. She is a patient of one of Defendant's Clients. Defendant Catalyst RCM LLC is a revenue cycle management provider that assists its clients with revenue tracking. Accordingly, Defendant provides services to numerous medical facilities and providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214/744-3000 Facsimile: 214/744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CATO CORPORATION: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ann Deinnocentes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Cato Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00136 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.catofashions.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 variety of women's clothing and fashion accessories, including dresses, tops, bottoms, outerwear, shoes, jewelry, handbags, and plus-size apparel.[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 CCI INC: Belton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCI INC., et al. The case is styled as Wendy Ardella Belton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCI INC., CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT GROUP INC., CCI MANAGEMENT LP, Case No. 26STCV03532 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." CCI -- https://www.ccisolutions.ca/ -- provides award winning, highly technical services to the pipeline, oil and gas and Municipal infrastructure sectors including engineering solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com CFD INVESTMENTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wilham Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- VICKI WILHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CFD INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00263-MPB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 6, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information about its clients. But Defendant lost control over that data during an incident involving unauthorized access to an employee's email account. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect Plaintiff's and the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed Plaintiff's and the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the PII, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. CFD Investments, Inc. operates as a broker dealer. The Company offers brokerage services, support structure, and other financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com CHESAPEAKE FINE FOOD: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Fine Food Group, LLC. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Fine Food Group, LLC, Case No. CACE26001758 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 1, 2026). Chesapeake Fine Food Group is a gourmet food company specializing in delivering high-quality, ready-to-eat meals and treats that showcase regional flavors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Durham Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jessica Durham, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc. doing business as: Alliant Solution Group, doing business as: Reliant Solution Group, a California Corporation; Aspire Law Group, PLLC, a Michigan Professional Limited Liability Company; Case No. 3:26-cv-00111 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc. -- https://usclarity.com/ -- is a credit counseling service in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Lee Gill, Esq. Steven L. Gill 320 Old Hickory Blvd., Ste 2010 Nashville, TN 37221 Phone: (615) 243-0976 Email: stevegilllaw40@gmail.com COACHLIGHT: Canzoneri Sues Over Unlawful Consumer Reports --------------------------------------------------------- Domminic Canzoneri, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COACHLIGHT COMMUNITIES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00184 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") as a result of the Defendant's unlawful consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. The Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: adhere to the FCRA's disclosure requirements in procuring the consumer reports of Plaintiff and other consumers for employment purposes; comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Coachlight Communities, LLC, is engaged in the business of property management services in Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: 816-281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolidated Disposal Service, L.L.C. The case is styled as Gilbert Ochoa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Consolidated Disposal Service, L.L.C., Case No. 26STCV03386 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Consolidated Disposal Service, L.L.C. -- https://www.cdsidd.com/ -- provides waste and recycling collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CONTRACTORS CAREER CENTERS: Vakil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contractors career Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Amar M. Vakil, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Contractors career Centers, Inc. d/b/a Contractor State License Schools A California Nonprofit Corporation, Case No. 26STCV03550 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Contractors Career Centers Inc is a California-based provider of training for examination preparations, education, and business solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. William Tran, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law w.tran@d.law CORDOBA LEGAL GROUP: Contreras Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cordoba Legal Group PLLC. The case is styled as Alan Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cordoba Legal Group PLLC d/b/a Cordoba Legal Group, LLC, Case No. 2026DCV0641 (Tex. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., Feb. 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." The Cordoba Law Firm -- https://www.cordobalegal.com/ -- helps companies & families with issues including Civil Litigation, Real Estate matters. Wills, Trusts, & Probate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. 333 W Broadway, Ste. 1110 San Diego, CA 92101-3806 Phone: 619-557-7667 COSTAR GROUP: Faces Gilbert Suit Over Controversial Severance Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC GILBERT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated stockholders, Plaintiff v. COSTAR GROUP, INC., ANDREW C. FLORANCE, JOHN W. HILL, ROBERT W. MUSSLEWHITE, LOUISE S. SAMS, ANGELIQUE G. BRUNNER, JOHN L. BERISFORD, RACHEL C. GLASER, and CHRISTINE M. MCCARTHY, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0182 (Chancery Ct., Del., February 9, 2026) is a verified stockholder class action against the members of the CoStar board of directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with the adoption of the Company's 2026 Executive Severance Plan. According to the complaint, over the last five years, the CoStar Board has presided over a failed expansion into the residential real estate market and a 50% decline in the Company's stock price. In 2025, these troubles drew the ire of activist investors The D.E. Shaw Group ("DE Shaw") and Third Point LLC ("Third Point"). In April 2025, DE Shaw and Third Point entered into Support Agreements with CoStar that provided for the replacement of three long-time directors and the creation of a Capital Allocation Committee. But the Board did little in the intervening time to address the Company's operational challenges. DE Shaw and Third Point repeatedly made their displeasure with the Board's failure to act clear. With a 2026 proxy contest inevitable, the Board decided to place its thumb on the scale and deter stockholders from replacing incumbent directors. On January 7, 2026, the Board unilaterally adopted a new, massively expanded Severance Plan. The Severance Plan entitles senior employees to large severance payments in virtually any situation where the CoStar Board determines to materially change an employee's role, responsibilities, or compensation. Most critically, however, the new Severance Plan contains an improper "dead hand" provision that prohibits the Board from modifying the Severance Plan in any way if half or more of the Board is replaced through an actual or threatened proxy contest. This expanded definition of a "Change of Control" is unlike any prior employment agreement, stock plan, or severance plan in the Company's history, and was plainly designed to deter: (i) DE Shaw and Third Point from running a proxy contest; and (ii) CoStar stockholders from electing a new slate of directors. The nomination window for the Company's next annual stockholders meeting opens on March 13, 2026, and closes on April 12, 2026. Therefore, the Severance Plan should be declared invalid and its operation and enforcement enjoined, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this Action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Court of Chancery, individually and on behalf of all other holders of CoStar common stock who are or will be threatened with injury arising from Defendants' wrongful actions. The Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to, and causing injury to, the Class. Preliminary and final injunctive relief on behalf of the Class, as a whole, is therefore appropriate, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Eric Gilbert is a Company stockholder and has continuously been a Company stockholder at all relevant times. Defendant CoStar Group, Inc. is a real estate information company that provides information, analytics, and marketing services to the property industry. Defendant Andrew C. Florance founded CoStar in 1987, has been a director since that time, and has led the Company since its inception as CoStar's President and CEO. Defendant John W. Hill has been a Board member since 2012. Defendant Robert W. Musslewhite has been a Board member since 2019. Defendant Louise S. Sams has been a Board member since 2019 and Board Chair since April 2025. Defendant Angelique G. Brunner has been a Board member since August 2023. Defendants John L. Berisford, Rachel C. Glaser, and Christine M. McCarthy has been Board members since April 2025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Michael Wagner, Esq. Ryan C. Stieve, Esq. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com mwagner@labaton.com rstieve@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Carr Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY CARR, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-10985-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Michelson entered an order granting in part and denying in part Credit Acceptance's motion to dismiss and/or strike. The Court thus agrees with Carr that "in light of the numerous cases that have certified relatively similar classes, it is not impossible to certify a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class here." Thus, it is premature to dismiss Carr's class allegations. Carr proposes a class as follows: "All persons and entities persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Credit Acceptance Corporation placed a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Credit Acceptance Corporation accountholder, (3) with an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from April 8, 2021 through the date of class certification." Kimberly Carr received an unwanted phone call from Credit Acceptance asking her "to make a payment or access account information." But Carr is not a customer of Credit Acceptance, nor did she give them permission to call her. So Carr brought suit under the TCPA. Credit is an auto finance company providing automobile loans and other related financial products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bjigNU at no extra charge.[CC] CREDIT UNION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Villalobos" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Viridiana Villalobos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Union of America, Defendant, Case No. 25-1029-JWB (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Broomes, Chief United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss in this putative class action alleging violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E. Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Credit Union of America (CUA) alleging that CUA's one-page opt-in notice entitled "What You Need to Know about Overdrafts and Overdraft Fees" failed to explain how it assessed overdraft fees. CUA conceded it uses the available balance method to determine overdrafts. The proposed class includes all consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations, were checking accountholders of CUA and were assessed an overdraft fee on a one-time debit card or ATM transaction. CUA presented three arguments in support of dismissal. First, the court declined to consider CUA's Membership Agreement because Regulation E requires disclosures to be provided in a notice segregated from all other information. The Membership Agreement was not mentioned in or attached to the complaint, and information found in other documents is irrelevant to whether the segregated opt-in notice adequately explains CUA's overdraft policy. Second, the court found that the phrase enough money in the opt-in notice was ambiguous and did not provide a clear and readily understandable explanation of CUA's overdraft service. The language could plausibly refer to either the actual balance or the available balance, and that ambiguity rendered it inadequate under Regulation E. The court rejected CUA's argument that its near-verbatim use of Model Form A-9 satisfied its disclosure obligations, noting that a model form must be adapted to accurately reflect a specific institution's practices. Third, the court rejected CUA's safe harbor defense under Section 1693m(d)(2) of the EFTA. The court held that the safe harbor protects institutions only from claims challenging the form of a disclosure, not its substance. Because Plaintiff challenged whether the opt-in notice accurately described CUA's overdraft calculation method, the claim concerned the notice's substance, placing it outside the safe harbor's protection. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss, and the case was permitted to proceed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UUcLqL from PacerMonitor.com Defendant **Credit Union of America** is represented by Matthew A. Tate, Kevin A. Ameriks, Scott R. Sinson, and Jennifer N. Abdo of Litchfield Cavo LLP, along with Vincent Edward Gunter of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP (Kansas City). Plaintiff **Viridiana Villalobos** is represented by Richard S. Fisk of Beam-Ward, Kruse, Wilson & Fletes, LLC. CROWN CORK: Ludwig & McCarthy Sue Over Illegal Time-Rounding ------------------------------------------------------------ DALTON LUDWIG and TRAVIS MCCARTHY on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CROWN, CORK & SEAL INC. dba CROWN CORK & SEAL USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00195-FJS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., February 6, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law based on Defendant's illegal time-rounding policies. Plaintiffs Ludwig and McCarthy are current employees of Defendant as millwrights. Under the Defendant's policy, when Plaintiffs work more than the hours they are scheduled or after their scheduled shift, Defendant always rounds down the time worked. As a result, the Plaintiffs are being systematically denied pay for time that they work before their scheduled start of the shift and denied pay for working after the schedule end of the shifts, including overtime pay during workweeks in which they work more than 40 hours. Headquartered in Yardley, PA, Crown Cork & Seal Inc. manufactures, designs, and sells packaging metal products for consumer goods. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol A. Crossett, Esq. TULLY RICKEY, PLLC 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1601 New York, NY 11375 Telephone: (646) 813-2966 E-mail: ccrossett@tullylegal.com CUZIN'S CLAM BAR: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Orcel, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CUZIN'S CLAM BAR, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01067 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.cuzinsclambar.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.cuzinsclambar.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers, specifically in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com DAVE & BUSTER'S INC: Ajarmeh Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dave & Buster's Inc. The case is styled as Rayid Ajarmeh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dave & Buster's Inc., Case No. CACE26001744 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 30, 2026). Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. -- https://www.daveandbusters.com/ -- is an American restaurant and entertainment business headquartered in Dallas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 Phone: 813-340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com DIDI GLOBAL: $740MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed settlement that would benefit purchasers of DiDi Global Inc. American Depositary Shares (OTCMKTS: DIDIY) (formerly NYSE: DIDI): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions Master Docket Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF SUMMARY NOTICE: OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) HEARING ON MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and/or entities that purchased DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period June 30, 2021, through July 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class as set forth in the full Notice of: (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Hearing on Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $740,000,000 (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. Court-appointed Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees for all Plaintiffs' Counsel in an amount not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement amount, plus accrued interest. In addition, Lead Counsel will apply for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in an amount not to exceed $5,250,000. A hearing will be held on June 16, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom 21B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 9, 2025 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Settlement of the Action, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, (855) 496-9320. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.DiDiSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than April 6, 2026, or online at www.DiDiSettlement.com no later than 11:59 p.m. ET April 6, 2026. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received by the Claims Administrator no later than April 6, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and provided to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 26, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, DiDi, or DiDi's counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Attn: Laurence Rosen, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: DiDiSettlement@rosenlegal.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 (855) 496-9320 www.DiDiSettlement.com By Order of the Court DOLLAR TREE: "Murphy" FACTA Suit Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Marilena Murphy, individually and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Dollar Tree, Inc., Defendant, Civil Case No. 1:25-cv-00397-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and ordered the case returned to the General Court of Justice Superior Court Division of Buncombe County, North Carolina. On October 6, 2025, the Plaintiff initiated the action in Buncombe County Superior Court asserting a single cause of action for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g)(1), which provides that no person accepting credit or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last five digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of sale. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated FACTA by providing her a printed receipt that displayed the first six and last four digits of her debit card number, and that the Defendant provided thousands of other customers similarly violative receipts. On November 7, 2025, the Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand on November 17, 2025, contending that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because she had not suffered a concrete injury-in-fact, and therefore lacked Article III standing. The Court noted that a FACTA digit-truncation violation is not a concrete injury unless it creates a nonspeculative risk of identity theft, citing O'Leary v. TrustedID, Inc., 60 F.4th 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2023). The Court applied the analytical framework from Locklear v. NTY Franchise Co., LLC, No. 5:23-CV-00261-BO (E.D.N.C. 2023), parsing the Plaintiff's injury allegations into three theories of harm. First, regarding risk of identity theft, the Court found the Plaintiff's allegations speculative because she secured the receipt after receiving it, and she did not allege that any other employees were present or that anyone else viewed it. Second, regarding economic harm, the Court found the Plaintiff's benefit-of-the-bargain allegations inconsistent with her own pleadings, as she alleged she provided funds to reload a prepaid debit card rather than purchasing goods. Third, regarding common-law analogues, the Court found the alleged injuries insufficiently analogous to the torts of invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, or breach of an implied bailment. The Plaintiff did not allege that the Defendant disclosed her information to any third party, and such an analogy to implied bailment would require showing the parties agreed to create a bailment of debit card information, which the Defendant returned in a damaged condition by printing too many digits on the receipt. Accordingly, the Court concluded that none of the Plaintiff's injury allegations identified a concrete injury-in-fact. Because Article III standing is necessary for the Court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The Court observed that in creating this private right of action, Congress gave offended purchasers a means of redress, but did not thereby place such claims before the federal courts, leaving it to state courts to adjudicate such claims. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand was granted, and the case was remanded to Buncombe County Superior Court. A copy of the order signed February 6, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vTjnZN from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Dollar Tree, Inc. Represented By David Calep Wright, III Robinson, Bradshaw And Hinson 704-377-2536 dwright@robinsonbradshaw.com Adam Karl Doerr Robinson, Bradshaw And Hinson 704-377-2536 adoerr@robinsonbradshaw.com Plaintiff Marilena Murphy Represented By MaryAnne M. Hamilton Miller Law Group 919-348-4361 maryanne@millerlawgroupnc.com William Stacy Miller, II Miller Law Firm, PLLC 919-348-4361 stacy@millerlawgroupnc.com DOLLAR TREE: Opdycke Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Harrison Opdycke and Zether Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-00002-32968-2-SEA was removed from t the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00397. On December 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("First Amended Complaint" or "FAC"). The First Amended Complaint sets forth one cause of action based on an alleged violation of RCW 49.62.070 and brings forth claims on behalf of Plaintiffs and a putative class under Washington Civil Rule 23. Specifically, Plaintiffs have alleged that they and "potentially dozens of Washington employees" were "restricted, restrained, or prohibited" from "having an additional job supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor or being self-employed."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas E. Smith, Esq. Annie Reuben, Esq. Elena Gutbrod, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: desmith@littler.com areuben@littler.com egutbrod@littler.com EMPIRE HOTEL GROUP: Frias Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Hotel Group, L.L.C. The case is styled as Miguel Frias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Empire Hotel Group, L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-00884 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Fraud. Empire Hotel Group -- https://www.newyorkhotel.com/ -- is a unique collection of New York City boutique hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com ENGLISH CREEK: Maurer Sues Over Property's Non-Compliance with ADA ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS MAURER, an individual, Plaintiff v. ENGLISH CREEK LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01199 (D.N.J., February 6, 2026) is a class seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's commercial property has several architectural barriers. The Defendant continues to discriminate against Plaintiff, and other mobility impaired persons, by failing to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, says the suit. English Creek LLC owns and/or operates the shopping center known as English Creek Shopping Center. [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 ESTEE LAUDER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 7, 2023 and January 22, 2024, the Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named as defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 20, 2024, those two purported securities class actions were consolidated into one action. On March 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023 in press releases, the Company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 31, 2025, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously. Estee is a manufacturer and marketer of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. EUROPEAN WAX: Smith Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- ALAYA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00144 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Website, https://www.waxcenter.com/, begins placing and transmitting cookies and other third-party tracking technologies (the "Tracking Tools") capable of transmitting users' data the moment a user lands on any page. This occurs before the user can view or act upon the Cookie Settings. Worse still, even after users affirmatively disable the sale or sharing of their personal information and reject all non-essential cookies, the Website continues to utilize and deploy the Tracking Tools capable of transmitting users' data to advertising, social media, and analytics companies, says the suit. European Wax Center, Inc. operates as the franchisor and operator of out-of-home waxing services in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald Patrick A. Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH KILLINGSWORTH PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (712) 331-5254 Email: patrick@fyktriallaw.com patrick@ecf.courtdrive.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com EZ INSURANCE SAVINGS: Frost Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EZ Insurance Savings, LLC. The case is styled as Josh Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EZ Insurance Savings, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00189 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. EZ Insurance Agency has been proudly providing Austin auto insurance for over 20 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com F5 INC: Continues to Defend Smith Securities Class Suit in Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- F5, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Smith securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On December 19, 2025, Matthew Smith filed a putative class action complaint against F5, Inc., and certain of its executives in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, purportedly on behalf of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 28, 2024 and October 27, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 regarding the Company's cybersecurity capabilities. The complaint requests monetary damages, including interest, reasonable attorney fees, expert fees and other costs. The action is in its early stages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this claim. FIELDTEX PRODUCTS: Faces Stair Fraud Class Suit in W.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fieldtex Products, Inc. The case is captioned as Justin Stair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fieldtex Products, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-06024-EAW (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2026). The nature of suit states Diversity-Fraud. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford. Fieldtex manufactures carrying cases for a wide range of applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 408 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Facsimile: (516) 741-0128 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: John E. Young, IV, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC 140 Kendrick St. Building C, 2nd Floor Needham, MA 02494 Telephone: (617) 843-6800 Facsimile: (617) 843-6810 E-mail: jyoung@ohaganmeyer.com FONAR CORPORATION: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Merger --------------------------------------------------- Bruce Taylor, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders v. FONAR CORPORATION, FONAR, LLC, FONAR ACQUISITION SUB, INC., TIMOTHY DAMADIAN, LUCIANO BONANNI, RONALD G. LEHMAN, RICHARD E. TURK, JESSICA MAHER, and ROBERT M. CARRINO, Case No. 2026-0142- (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought arising from a merger announced on December 29, 2025, in which the Company will be acquired by the Buyer Entities. The Buyer Entities are owned by a buyout consortium6 that includes, among others, Defendants Timothy Damadian (Fonar's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Luciano Bonanni (Fonar's Chief Operating Officer), and Ronald Lehman (a Fonar director). Section 203 prohibits mergers between corporations and statutorily defined "interested stockholders" for three years after a stockholder becomes interested unless the Board pre-approves the transaction by which the stockholder became interested or the merger is approved by two-thirds of the disinterested stockholders. Under Section 203, a stockholder is an "interested" stockholder if it "owns" shares comprising 15% or more of the corporation's voting stock. Section 203 also provides a very broad definition of ownership. A stockholder is considered to "own" any shares held by any other stockholder with whom the first stockholder has entered into any agreement, arrangement, or understanding for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or disposing of such stock. As a result, Section 203 requires that any acquisition of Fonar by the Buyer Group must be conditioned on the approval of two-thirds of Fonar's disinterested stockholders. But the Merger Agreement only conditions the Merger on the approval of: a majority of the total voting power of Fonar's outstanding stock; and a majority of the voting power of Fonar stock held by disinterested stockholders. The Company's 8-K announcing the Merger likewise wrongly tells stockholders that the two foregoing stockholder votes are the only stockholder votes that must be obtained to consummate the Merger. Closing the Merger with support from only a bare majority of unaffiliated stockholders would violate Section 203. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and until the parties agree to condition the Merger on the approval of two-thirds of Fonar's disinterested stockholders and make appropriate corresponding disclosures, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Fonar stockholder and has owned Fonar common stock. Fonar specializes in developing, producing, and servicing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Michael Wagner, Esq. Ryan C. Stieve, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com mwagner@labaton.com rstieve@labaton.com FOOTHILLS PROFESSIONAL: Freeland Sues Over Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Freeland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOOTHILLS PROFESSIONAL PHARMACY, LTD., AVOCADO HEALTH TECHNOLOGY, INC., SAJAD ZALZALA M.D., TELERX PROVIDERS, P.C., and DOES 1-5, Case No. 4:26-cv-00263-MWB (M.D. Pa., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought for: violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("PUTPCPL"); the consumer-protection statutes implicated by the Multistate Consumer Protection Subclass; and, for common-law fraud and unjust enrichment as a result of the Defendants' deceptive practices. Despite the fact that Defendants and their co-conspirators could never manufacture an oral tirzepatide pill that functions as a legitimate, effective GLP-1 drug for weight loss, they have marketed and continue to market and sell it to thousands of unsuspecting consumers as an equivalent and effective alternative to GLP-1 injectable weight loss medications. The claims here concern Defendants' so-called "oral tirzepatide" weight loss pill. An "oral tirzepatide" weight loss pill has no demonstrated mechanism of absorption or efficacy and functions as modern--day snake oil--a pharmacologically inert compound when delivered via a pill, yet misrepresented to consumers by Defendants as a legitimate and effective GLP-1 weight loss pill. The Plaintiff purchased the "oral tirzepatide" from a website called SkinnyRx, which claimed to offer personalized, doctor-supervised weight-loss treatment. In reality, SkinnyRx was one piece of the Defendants' deceptive artifices, whereby they used deceptive language and imagery to promote and sell oral tirzepatide pills to Plaintiff and other customers. The Defendants bombard customers with ads online and via social media, and further the scheme and deception by, among other things, creating the false narrative that there is a proliferation of purported "companies" selling an "oral tirzepatide" pill, thereby giving consumers the false impression that the drug is legitimate and widely accepted and prescribed. Through this scheme, Defendants have profited by intentionally deceiving consumers into each paying hundreds of dollars for oral tirzepatide pills that were (knowingly) never capable of delivering the weight loss results promised, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased oral tirzepatide pills or tablets that were manufactured, marketed, and/or delivered to them by Defendants. Foothills Pharmacy represents itself as a compounding pharmacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Esq. Dylan D. Altland, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: 610-642-8500 Fax: 610-649-3633 Email: amk@chimicles.com nec@chimicles.com kds@chimicles.com dda@chimicles.com GAMESTOP INC: Wright Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shirica Shairon Aziza Wright, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HERSHA HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, L.P.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV482880 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01032. The Plaintiff asserts seven claims based on alleged violations of the California Labor Codes. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Labor Code by: failing to pay Plaintiff and other putative class members minimum wages for all hours worked; failing to pay Plaintiff and other putative class members overtime wages for time worked; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members with meal periods in accordance with California law; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members with rest periods in accordance with California law; failing to indemnify Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment-related losses/expenditures; failing to provide Plaintiff and other putative class members with accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to timely pay Plaintiff and other putative class members wages owed at separation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: +1 312 499 6700 Fax: +1 312 499 6701 Email: jariley@duanemorris.com - and - Daniel D. Spencer, Esq. Kenny T. Tran, Esq. DUANE MORRIS 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7448 Fax: +1 213 689 7401 Email: dspencer@duanemorris.com ktran@duanemorris.com GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Mario Mera Romero, Wilfrido Martinez, William Steven Olivero Forero, Joffre Laya Yamarte, Cristian Olivero Sanchez, Sergio Carvajal, Wuilley Yeen Zabala Nieto, Alfonso Zamora Torres, Brian Garcia, Engel Ruiz, Joseph Fructuoso, Lenin Moquete, Luis Ortiz Perlaza Orlando Cabezas, and Carlos Cruz Zambrano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. (D/B/A GARNER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES), BERMUDEZ ORTEGA LLC. (D/B/A BERMUDEZ ORTEGA CONTRACTORS), LB ENVIRONMENT CLEANING SOLUTIONS INC. (D/B/A LB ENVIRONMENT CLEANING SOLUTIONS), LOLA'S BRUNCH LLC (D/B/A LOLA'S B ENVIRONMENT SOLUTIONS), KEVIN BERMUDEZ AND INDHIRA A. ORTEGA, Case No. 650588/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought for unpaid compensation as a result of the Defendants' violations of the New York Labor Law and applicable regulations, and the New York City Administrative Code regarding Prevailing Wages. Specifically, available payroll records show that for pay periods in which Plaintiffs were owed overtime pay for working more than 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants only paid Plaintiffs straight time instead, of an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a given week, and did not pay Plaintiffs any spread-of hours premium for shifts they each worked which lasted more than ten hours in length from start to finish. In some instances, Plaintiffs did not even receive applicable minimum wage for all hours worked. In addition, Plaintiffs' hourly rates of compensation paid by Defendants during their employment did not comply with applicable New York City Prevailing Wage requirement for building service employees, pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendants' cleaning services company. Garner Environmental Services, Inc. d/b/a Garner Environmental Services is a foreign business corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GARNET HILL: Faces Botto Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ NANCY LOPEZ BOTTO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GARNET HILL INC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00136-SK (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 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. Between Oct. 18, 2025, and Oct. 19, 2025, the Defendant made telephone solicitations to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The telephone solicitations were initiated at 7:00AM, and 7:01AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. The suit says that the Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to The Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Ms. Botto is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles County, California. Garnet offers clothing, bedding, home decor, and shoes and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com GENERAL PARTS: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Brown Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL PARTS DISTRIBUTION LLC, doing business as Advance Auto Parts, Case No. 3:25-cv-01840-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Court entered an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order: Having reviewed the attached Joint Report of the Parties and finding that the parties have complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Southern District of Illinois Local Rule 16.2(a), the Court hereby approves and enters the same. Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests for documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed unless on order of the Court. Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been set for briefing. The Defendant is an active interstate freight carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OIL8j9 at no extra charge.[CC] GLAM AND GLITS NAIL: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Glam And Glits Nail Design, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01214 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://kiarasky.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood 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. 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 the Plaintiff's 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 wide range of professional nail products, including gel polishes, nail tools and accessories, nail art supplies, kits and bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: chan@ealg.law GMO-Z.COM TRUST: Agrees to Settle GYEN Class Suit for $6.75-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Simpluris, Inc., court-appointed settlement administrator, regarding the GYEN class action Settlement. A proposed settlement has been reached with GMO-Z.com Trust Company ("Defendant" or "GMO Trust") in a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that GMO Trust violated New York and California law by failing to provide accurate disclosure concerning the stability of GYEN during the Settlement Class Period. Defendant denies that it did anything wrong, and the Court has not decided who is right. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the risks, disruption, and uncertainties of continued litigation. This press release is a supplement to, and does not replace, the Court-approved Long Form Notice. A copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Long Form Notice, and other important information is available at www.GYENSettlement.com. Settlement Class The proposed Settlement Class consists of persons and entities that purchased or acquired GYEN in New York or California at a time when it was unpegged from the Japanese Yen between December 29, 2020 and October 10, 2025. Further, details about the Settlement Class definition can be found at www.GYENSettlement.com. The Court has appointed experienced attorneys, known as Class Counsel, to represent the Settlement Class. Settlement Benefits If the Court approves the Settlement, Defendant will create a $6,750,000 Settlement Fund. Certain deductions, including attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and the costs of notice and administration, will be paid from the Settlement Fund. The remaining money will be distributed among members of the Settlement Class Members in accordance with a plan of allocation approved by the Court. Claims Process To seek a payment, a claim must be submitted through the Settlement Website or submitted by U.S. mail using the Claim Form that is available for download at www.GYENSettlement.com, along with the required supporting documentation. Claimants should be prepared to use the wallet connector included in the claim submission process to verify ownership or control of the wallet or account associated with the relevant GYEN transactions. Paper Claim Forms may also be requested by emailing info@GYENSettlement.com or downloaded from the Settlement Website. Completed claims must be submitted online, mailed and postmarked, or emailed by June 5, 2026. Exclusions and Objections Requests for exclusion from the Settlement must be received by April 30, 2026. Persons or entities that exclude themselves will not be bound by the Settlement and will not be eligible to receive benefits. Objections to the Settlement must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for the Settling Parties by April 30, 2026. You cannot object to any aspect of the Settlement if you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. Instructions for requesting exclusion or objecting to the Settlement are detailed in the Long Form Notice, which is available on the Settlement Website, www.GYENSettlement.com. Final Approval Hearing The Court will hold a hearing in this case at 2:00 p.m. on May 27, 2026, in Courtroom 11C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and plan of allocation. At that time, the Court will also consider Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards for the named plaintiffs. Attendance at the hearing is not required. This notice is a summary only and does not replace the Court-approved Long Form Notice. Additional information is available by calling 833-647-9041, emailing info@GYENSettlement.com, or visiting www.GYENSettlement.com. [GN] GUARDIAN FLEET: Brouillette Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shawn Brouillette and David Woop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GUARDIAN FLEET SERVICES, INC., Case No. 9:26-cv-80125-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), against Defendant for failure to pay all overtime compensation (premium pay) at the lawful and correct rates to non-exempt employees. The Defendant has maintained a scheme to avoid its obligations to pay full, accurate and legally required overtime wages to its non-exempt employees to save millions of dollars in labor costs and maximize profits all to the detriment of its employees. The Defendant willfully, or with reckless disregard for the FLSA, underpays Plaintiffs and all other tow truck or wrecker drivers (hereinafter "drivers") for their overtime hours by failing to pay overtime wages at the required and mandated rate of time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay. The Defendant did not include earned commissions in the calculations of the regular rates of pay as required by the FLSA and thus have underpaid all drivers who earned commissions during any workweek or worked more than 40 hours for the workweek. Plaintiffs, like their fellow drivers employed within the past 3 years preceding the filing of this Complaint, and still to this day, were systematically denied the payment of the lawfully required overtime premium pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 on behalf of Defendant. Defendant maintained these unlawful pay practices applicable to all hourly paid drivers, failing to fully and completely include commissions in the regular rates of pay, and thus underpaying all drivers for the overtime hours they worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as "wrecker" drivers, also known as tow truck drivers. Guardian Fleet Services, Inc. (GFS) is a Florida for profit corporation with principal place of business located in West Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road #225 Tampa, FL 33626 Phone: 813-639-9366 Fax: 813-639-9376 Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com mail@feldmanlegal.us HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces Feinberg Class Action Suit in D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC. The case is captioned as DENISE FEINBERG, individually and behalf of all other similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00098-CCC-AME (D.N.J., Jan. 7, 2026). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi. Healthcare provides collection services to health care sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Suit Due March 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor Corp., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting the parties' Stipulation as follows: The deadline for Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class Certification is extended to March 11, 2026. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Honda is a Japanese multinational conglomerate automotive manufacturer.[CC] HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Va. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from an antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In October 2023, a class action antitrust lawsuit was filed against the Company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit names several HII companies, among other companies, as defendants. The named plaintiffs generally allege that the defendant companies have adhered to a "gentlemen's agreement" that prohibits any defendant from actively recruiting naval engineers from other defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, treble damages, and any other relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit against all defendants in April 2024 on statute of limitations grounds without addressing the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants on other grounds. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In November 2025, the District Court denied the defendants' remaining motions to dismiss the lawsuit. The Company cannot at this time predict or reasonably estimate the outcome of this matter. Huntington is a global, all-domain defense provider and military shipbuilder.[BN] INCLUSION SERVICES LLC: Capel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inclusion Services, LLC. The case is styled as Caszhaye Eizhanea Capel, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Inclusion Services, LLC, Case No. CU26-00885 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Jan. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Inclusion Services LLC -- https://www.inclusionsvs.org/ -- is a social services organization based in Southern California that provides support to individuals with developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Vinson, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 12 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1176 Phone: 213-659-3071 Email: racheljvinson@gmail.com INFINITE 13600: Legarda Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices -------------------------------------------------------- LILETH ALCIRA SOASTI LEGARDA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. INFINITE 13600 LLC d/b/a LA QUINTA INN & SUITES SUNRISE and HEMALKUMAR R. PATEL, Defendants, Case No. CACE-26-002203 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., February 6, 2026) alleges wrongful, retaliatory discharge of an employee and seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages and for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in Broward County, Florida as a housekeeper from on or around March 6, 2025, until her wrongful termination on or about late June of 2025. Even though Plaintiff worked between 50-70 hours per week, the Defendants allegedly paid Plaintiff only for 30-35 hours per week, says the suit. Infinite 13600 LLC is doing business as La Quinta Inn & Suites Sunrise in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 200-23 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Faces Young Suit Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY NEIL YOUNG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHTIN HEALTH, INC., And MARTIN’S POINT HEALTH CARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00479 (D. Md., February 5, 2026) seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of individuals whose personally identifiable information and protected health information were compromised in the hack of Defendants' computer network. The Plaintiff brings this nationwide class action against Defendants as a result of a widespread and preventable data breach that occurred in September 2025 and compromised the personal and sensitive information of thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff. Despite knowing the severity of the breach, Defendants failed to provide timely and adequate notice to affected individuals, waiting until January 2026, approximately four months after discovery, to notify Plaintiff and other Class Members. This delay exacerbated the harm by depriving victims of the opportunity to take prompt protective measures. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory judgment. Headquartered in Baltimore, MD, Insightin is a healthcare member engagement platform and software provider to healthcare entities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Willette Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS WILLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHTIN HEALTH, INC., and MARTIN’S POINT HEALTH CARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00478 (D. Md., February 5, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' and policyholders' sensitive information. Despite Defendants' duty to safeguard the personally identifying information and protected health information with which they were entrusted, as well as the foreseeability of a data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information stored by Defendants was accessed and acquired when Defendant Insightin experienced a cyber security incident in September 2025. Following an investigation, Insightin learned that its servers were accessed by an unauthorized party for six days between September 17 and September 23, 2025. In or around January 28, 2026, over four months after the data breach occurred, Defendant Insightin began notifying affected individuals. To date, Defendant Martin's Point has yet to issue its own notice of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and for declaratory relief. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants violated the common law, the the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Insightin is a healthcare member engagement platform company headquartered in Baltimore, MD. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com IQ DATA: Nelson Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-12710-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Behm entered an order granting in part the motion for class certification. The requested classes are certified. The motion is denied as to a class default judgment. The court finds that Nelson has Article III standing to assert her claims, certifies the requested classes under Rule 23, and finds that all proposed class members similarly have standing. This case is a putative class action against a debt collector for trying to illegally add 5% interest to any debt, regardless of whether the underlying contract stated an interest amount and before any lawsuit to collect had been filed or a judgment entered. For Count I, the proposed FDCPA class and subclass are defined as follows: Class: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, who during a time period from one-year prior to the filing of this civil action until the filing of this civil action, were sent a letter from I.Q. Data International, Inc., and the letter was not returned to the Defendant as undeliverable, that stated in the letter, "Your outstanding principal balance will accrue interest at a rate of 005.00 percent per annum", and stated an amount of "Interest Due", an amount that was also included in the "Total Due", where the Defendant's records did not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest of 5% per annum, or more, to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor-debtor contract." Subclass: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, who during a time period from one-year prior to the filing of this civil action until the filing of this civil action, were sent a letter from I.Q. Data International, Inc., and the letter was not returned to the Defendant as undeliverable, that stated in the letter, "Your outstanding principal balance will accrue interest at a rate of 005.00 percent per annum", and stated an amount of "Interest Due", an amount that was also included in the "Total Due", where the Defendant's records did not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest of 5% per annum, or more, to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor-debtor contract, and at any time either made a payment above the amount of the "Principal Due" claimed by I.Q., disputed the debt in writing or requested verification of the debt in writing." For Count II, the MOC proposed class definition is: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, who during a time period from six years prior to the filing of this civil action until the filing of this civil action, were sent a letter from I.Q. Data International, Inc., and the letter was not returned to Defendant as undeliverable, that stated in the letter, 'Your outstanding principal balance will accrue interest at a rate of 005.00 percent per annum', and stated an amount of 'Interest Due', an amount that was also included in the 'Total Due', where the Defendant's records did not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest of 5% per annum, or more, to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor-debtor contract." IQ Data is a debt collector specializing in multi-family residential properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=opknGj at no extra charge.[CC] ISLAND WATCH INC: Walsh Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Caitlin Walsh, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Island Watch, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-50483 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00573-GRB-ARL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Island Watch -- https://longislandwatch.com/ -- is a small, family based online retailer of affordable watches and quality timepieces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: James Raymond Muldoon, Esq. HARRIS BEACH PLLC 333 W. Washington Street, Suite 200 Syracuse, NY 13202 Phone: (315) 423-7100 Email: jmuldoon@harrisbeach.com J. ALEXANDER'S: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J. ALEXANDER’S HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01390 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.stoneyriver.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on September 30, 2025, to access Defendant's website from her home. Due to the Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website and was thus denied the benefit of booking a reservation at the restaurant. The Plaintiff encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J. Alexander's Holdings, Inc. owns and operates the website which allows customers to review restaurant's menu and make a reservation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com JACKSON NATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Armstrong Due April 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES L. ARMSTRONG, v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00853-LMC (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Counts entered a scheduling and trial order as follows: -- Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed not later than March 31, 2026. -- Any motion to amend pleadings shall be filed not later than May 26, 2026. -- Class-based discovery shall close as of April 23, 2027. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed not later than April 30, 2027. Opposition to the motion for class certification is due not later than June 30, 2027. Suggestions in reply shall be filed not later than Aug. 13, 2027. Jackson provides annuities for retail investors and fixed income products for institutional investors. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rsYLLo at no extra charge.[CC] JOEST LLC: Mezoff Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE MEZOFF individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOEST LLC and JOSEPH DEQUATTRO, Case No. 1:26-cv-10555-DLC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for step-one notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff request that the Court enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the following collective so that putative opt-in plaintiffs may receive notice of the lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All waitstaff and bartenders who were hourly employees of Joest LLC who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek between the date falling three years before the service of this motion and the date of judgment"; 2. Directing the Defendants to, within 30 days, produce the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for all potential class members; 3. Approving the issuance of the notice and consent to join form attached hereto as Exhibit 1; 4. Allowing individuals 90 days from the date of mailing of the Notice to opt-in to the collective action and authorizing a reminder notice to be sent 45 days prior to the close of the opt-in period; 5. Requiring Joest LLC to post the Court approved Notice and Consent To Join Form in a visible location in all of its locations; and 6. Granting any other relief the Court deems just. Joest is in the vibration technology business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=leRjHr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Patton, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. ORTIZ & MOESLINGER, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces McCullough-Adams Suit Over ERISA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- IDA MCCULLOUGH-ADAMS, And MELANIE JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION C/O SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT HUMAN RESOURCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS, John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00515-GLR (D. Md., February 6, 2026), seeks to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. At relevant times during the Class Period, Plaintiff McCullough-Adams was invested in the American Century One Choice target date fund series. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, Plaintiff McCullough-Adams was subject to underperformance and suffered financial losses. Headquartered in Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation is the parent holding company that oversees The Johns Hopkins Hospital and its affiliated hospitals and entities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zachary E. Howerton, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: zhowerton@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid in Gallardo Amended to August 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gallardo v. L3 Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02552 (S.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to Stay/Extend Deadlines: The Court denies the parties' request for a Stay, and extends current deadlines by 90 days as follows: The Class Discovery deadline is amended from March 24, 2026, to July 24, 2026. The Class Certification Motion filing deadline is amended from May 22, 2026, to Aug. 21, 2026. The nature of suit states Violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement. L3 Technologies provides communication and electronic equipment.[CC] LIBERTY DENTAL PLAN: Fuszner TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as D.M.D. Charles D. Fuszner P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Dental Plan Corporation and Liberty Dental Plan of Missouri, Inc. doing business as: Liberty Dental Plan, Inc. doing business as: Liberty Dental Plan of Missouri, Case No. 25SL-CC15080 was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Feb. 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00149 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Liberty Dental Plan -- https://www.libertydentalplan.com/ -- is one of the nation's fastest growing dental plans.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Madelaine Newcomb, Esq. MANATT PHELPS LLP - Chicago 151 N. Franklin Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 529-6305 Email: mnewcomb@manatt.com LIFE CARE CENTERS: Allison Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Allison, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00026 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief. The Defendant has a common pay policy and/or pay practice which fails to pay certain non-exempt hourly paid employees at the correct overtime rate. The Defendant failed to properly include certain wages for purposes of calculating its non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay and corresponding overtime rates. In workweeks where Plaintiff and other Collective Members worked 40 hours or more and received shift differential pay, the overtime should have been paid at the federally mandated rate of 1.5 times each employee's regularly hourly wage, including shift differential pay. Because Defendant's compensation scheme failed to properly incorporate shift differential pay received in the regular rate of pay (and resulting overtime rates of pay), Defendant failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and its other nurses at the correct overtime rate during one or more workweeks. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff proper time and one half for all of their hours worked over 40 each week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff performs nursing duties for Defendant at Defendant's Altamonte Springs, Florida. The Defendant is a skilled nursing, rehabilitation, Alzheimer's and senior living services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Keaty, II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 801 Broadway, Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 514-4205 Email: bkeaty@forthepeople.com - and - Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com LIONS GATE: Yesner Sues Over Injuries from Broken Water Pipe ------------------------------------------------------------ JOAN YESNER, as power of attorney for HARVEY AND JUDY HOROWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIONS GATE CCRC; SJF-CCRC, INC.; ADAM KAMINER; ANDI LEVIN; IAN MEKLINSKY; JANE PRESSMAN; JOEL KABER; NEAL CUPERSMITH; RHEA WEINBERG BREKKE; STEVE SCHEINTHAL; TAMI STARKMAN; DAVID ROSS; EDWARD TOY; DOUG HACKER; KAREN CORNEAL; JOHN DOES #1-25; and ABC CORPORATION #1-25, Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-000415-26 (N.J. Sup., Camden County, Feb. 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. According to the complaint, Harvey and Judy Horowitz were displaced, received bodily and emotional injuries, and incurred property damage and financial loss due to the events of February 3, 2026. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, recklessness and gross negligence, on or about February 3, 2026, a major water pipe broke, causing major disruption and property damage, as well as personal injuries and emotional distress to this very vulnerable and frail population. Many of this vulnerable population were forced from their homes in the middle of the night and many have not returned to their places of residence, says the suit. Lions Gate CCRC operates as an independent living community for seniors in Voorhees, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex J. Fajardo, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Ste. 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 Facsimile: (856) 702-6640 LOVE'S TRAVEL: Slater Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER J. SLATER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS AND COUNTRY STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00202-G (W.D. Okla., February 5, 2026), challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a tobacco surcharge under the Love's Benefits and Welfare Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. ERISA permits health-contingent wellness programs only if they strictly comply with the governing statutory and regulatory requirements. However, the Defendant failed to satisfy those requirements and failed to disclose its program's core terms and structured and administered the program in a way that deprives participants who satisfy an alternative standard of the full reward, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Defendant from continuing to profit from its violations. Headquartered in Oklahoma City, OK, Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc. operates a chain of combined fueling stations and convenience stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Bean, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Garner Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathryn Garner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, et al., Case No. 25-2-39662-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00475. The Plaintiff alleges that she and the putative Class members were not compensated for all hours worked and performed off-the-clock work, leading to unpaid regular and overtime wages. The Plaintiff also seeks double damages for alleged willful wage withholding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Kelly, Esq. Trinh T. Tran, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 393-4060 Email: mrkelly@seyfarth.com trtran@seyfarth.com LUNA INNOVATIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE LUNA INNOVATIONS INCORPORATED DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Case No. 2:24-cv-08194-CBM-KS The Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall This Document Relates to: ALL ACTION NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF LUNA INNOVATIONS INCORPORATED ("LUNA" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK, WHO HAVE HELD IT SINCE OCTOBER 23, 2025. On October 23, 2025, Luna, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into the Stipulation to resolve the Action, which Stipulation was filed in the Court. The Action was prosecuted derivatively on behalf of Luna against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The Stipulation, and the settlement contemplated therein (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of the Court, are intended by the Parties to fully, finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge, and settle the Released Claims and to result in the complete dismissal of the Action with prejudice, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The proposed Settlement requires the Company to adopt and maintain certain corporate governance reforms and procedures, as outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation (the "Reforms"). In recognition of the substantial benefits conferred upon Luna as a direct result of the Reforms achieved through the prosecution and Settlement of the Action, and subject to Court approval, the Parties agreed on August 20, 2025 that Defendants' insurers shall pay to Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) (the "Fee and Expense Amount"). Plaintiffs' Counsel shall also apply to the Court for service awards to be paid to the two Plaintiffs in an amount of up to two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) each (the "Service Awards"), to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount. What is the Lawsuit About The Action is brought derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Luna and alleges, inter alia, that beginning on May 16, 2022, the Individual Defendants violated the federal securities laws and breached their fiduciary duties by issuing and/or causing the issuance of material misrepresentations and failed to disclose, among other things, that improper accounting procedures were used to calculate the Company's financial statements included in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, requiring the restatement of certain previously-issued financial statements. The Action alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company sustained financial and reputational harm. The Settlement Hearing, and Your Right to Object to the Settlement On February 27, 2026, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated therein (the "Preliminary Approval Order") and providing for notice of the Settlement to be provided to current Luna stockholders who owned Luna stock as of October 23, 2025 ("Current Luna Stockholders"). The Preliminary Approval Order further provides that the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on March 31, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders; (ii) consider any objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with this Notice; (iii) determine whether a judgment should be entered dismissing all claims in the Action with prejudice, and releasing the Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iv) determine whether the Court should approve the agreed-to Fee and Expense Amount; (v) determine whether the Court should approve the Service Awards to each of the two Plaintiffs, which shall be funded from the Fee and Expense Amount approved by the Court; and (vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Upon final approval of the Settlement, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. Any Current Luna Stockholder who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, or to the Fee and Expense Amount or Service Awards, may file with the Court a written objection. IF YOU MAKE A WRITTEN OBJECTION, IT MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN MARCH 10, 2026. CURRENT LUNA STOCKHOLDERS AS OF OCTOBER 23, 2025 WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION. This Notice is a summary description of the Action, the complaints, the terms of the Settlement, and the Settlement Hearing. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action, reference is made to them in the Stipulation and its exhibits, copies of which may be reviewed and downloaded at the investor relations page of the Company's website, https://ir.lunainc.com/. You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiffs' Counsel at: Timothy Brown, Esq. The Brown Law Firm, P.C. 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net, or Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Rigrodsky Law, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 683-3516 E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com Please Do Not Call the Court or Defendants with Questions About the Settlement. MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Marygold Companies, Inc.disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 19, 2020, USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh, were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Securities Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney’s fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. On September 29, 2025, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend its complaint. On November 26, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a proposed second consolidated amended complaint, which defendants have opposed. The motion remains pending before the Court. USCF LLC, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. Marygold Companies Inc. designs, markets, and supports unified messaging products. The Company's products integrate voice technology and software as a solution to the remote access needs of Internet electronic mail (e-mail), fax, and voice mail users. Marygold's software enables Internet e-mail users to have e-mail read to them over any telephone as instructed by voice command. [BN] MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit MDL in Mass. -------------------------------------------------------- Maximus, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2026, that Maximus Federal Services Inc. continues to defend MOVEit MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 1, 2023, a purported class action was filed against Maximus Federal Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maximus, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arising out of the MOVEit cybersecurity incident – Bishop v. Maximus Federal Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 (U.S. Dist. Ct. E. D. VA). The plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of individuals, alleges, among other things, that its negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff’s personally identifiable information and protected health information. The plaintiff seeks damages to be proved at trial. Since then, thirteen similar cases have been filed in federal courts across the country (inclusive of one case filed in state court and removed to federal court by the Company). On October 4, 2023, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a Motion to Transfer creating a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the District of Massachusetts for all cases related to the MOVEit cybersecurity incident. Each of the actions pending in federal courts are centralized in the MDL. On December 12, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), challenging Plaintiffs' standing to bring this suit, dismissing claims brought by four of the Plaintiffs in the MOVEit MDL. None of the dismissed claims were asserted against the Company. The Court has also named the Company as a bellwether defendant in the MDL. The Company and the other bellwether defendants submitted motions to dismiss the pending actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court granted in part and denied in part on July 31, 2025. Approximately half of the claims asserted against the Company remain, and it is proceeding to discovery regarding those claims. While the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any of the remaining proceedings, it has accrued an amount within a range of possible outcomes expected to be incurred to resolve the matters. Maximus provides health and human care services.[BN] MAXIMUS INC: Taylor MOVEit Class Suit Stayed in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- Maximus, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2026, that the Taylor MOVEit class suit is stayed in the Florida Circuit Court for the 7th Judicial Circuit, Volusia County. On September 6, 2023, an individual action related to the MOVEit incident was filed in state court in the Florida Circuit Court for the 7th Judicial Circuit, Volusia County: Taylor v. Maximus Federal Services, Case No. 2023-12349 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 7th Jud. Cir., Volusia Cnty.). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that its negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information. The plaintiff seeks damages to be proved at trial. On April 3, 2024, the Court stayed this action pending further developments in the MOVEit MDL. This case remains stayed. While the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any of the remaining proceedings, it has accrued an amount within a range of possible outcomes expected to be incurred to resolve the matters. Maximus covers a broad array of services, including the operation of large health insurance eligibility and enrollment programs, clinical services, including assessments, appeals, and independent medical reviews and technology services. MEDTRONIC INC: Athans Must Provide Expert Reports by Oct. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Athans v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05942 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown entered an order approving the parties' revised proposed schedule as follows: Fact discovery shall be completed by Aug. 10, 2026. The Plaintiff is to provide his expert reports by Oct. 9, 2026. The Defendants will provide its expert reports by Nov. 10, 2026. Expert discovery is to be completed by Jan. 8. 2027. The deadline for the submission of joint certification of completion of all discovery is Jan. 8, 2027. The final date to take the first step in dispositive motion practice and/or motion(s) for class certification is Feb. 8, 2027. The Court will hold a Status Conference on July 15, 2026, at 2:00 PM via Zoom teleconference. The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- product liability. Medtronic develops and manufactures healthcare technologies and therapies.[CC] MEDTRONIC INC: Dennis Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Napoleon Dennis, individually and for others similarly situated v. MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 0:26-cv-00849-PJS-EMB (D. Minn., Jan. 30, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act ("MFLSA"), and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act ("MPWA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. the Defendant pays them by the hour. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees overtime wages at the required rates based on their true regular rates of pay. Rather, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including performance bonuses, that the Defendant excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA, MFLSA, and MPWA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 (and 48) in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an operator 1. Medtronic is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 338-4878 Email: fisher@nka.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Ford Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ronnie Ford, Ronald Russell, and Timothy Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP, MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., and MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC,, Case No. 1:25-cv-04348 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Feb. 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:26-cv-00166-EGL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mercedes-Benz -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- combines luxury with performance across the full line of models including luxury sedans, SUVs, coupes, roadsters, convertibles & more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Werner, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 521-6700 Email: daniel.werner@splcenter.org - and - Lane L. Vines, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 Locust Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: lvines@bergermontague.com - and - Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (773) 666-4316 Fax: (215) 875-4604 - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Olivia Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: crodriguez@bm.net olanctot@bm.net The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Rudolph Simpson, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP - AL 505 20th Street N, Suite 815 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (404) 231-1400 Fax: (404) 240-4249 - and - Henry Carlton Hilson, Esq. Ronald D. Scott Williams, Esq. Michael L. Lucas, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 458-5195 Fax: (205) 458-5100 Email: chilson@burr.com mlucas@burr.com - and - Zachary J. McCormack, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 815-3000 Fax: (678) 576-2743 Email: zmccormack@burr.com - and - Jonathon Andrew Fligg, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 1331 Spring St NW, Ste 1400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 962-7541 Fax: (404) 870-8186 META PLATFORMS: Youngblood Sues Over Copyright Violations --------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN YOUNGBLOOD; NICOLE CHMURA, and CHRIS RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01100 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Meta is engaged in unauthorized acquisition -- through scraping, bulk downloading, and other extraction methods -- of various content creators' YouTube-hosted audiovisual works ("Works") at the file level by bypassing YouTube's technological measures that control access to those Works and Meta's use of those unlawfully accessed Works to train, develop, and improve Meta's "world model" artificial intelligence systems. Meta did not obtain licenses or permissions from Plaintiffs and Class members for the file level acquisition and use of their Works as training inputs for its AI models. Instead, Meta used or relied on circumvention tools and services to defeat YouTube's technological measures at scale, says the suit. Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: wedelman@milberg.com MICHAEL CIMINO: Soule Sues Over Restriction of Internet Access -------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Soule; Luis Armenta; Joshua Harroun; and Brian Carey; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michael Cimino, in his official capacity as Chief Probation Officer of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, Case No. 2:26-cv-00560-MTM (D. Ariz., Jan. 27, 2026), is brought challenging the constitutionality of the Department's policy and practice of restricting Internet access for individuals on probation who are classified as sex offenders. Although Arizona law grants probation departments discretion in imposing supervision conditions, the policy at issue functions as a de facto, indefinite ban on Internet use. This indefinite ban is imposed on sexual offenders without clear and definite standards, without meaningful opportunity for review, and without any individualized assessment that the ban is necessary to achieve public safety goals. As a result, sex offender probationers are denied access to employment opportunities, educational programs, healthcare portals, religious services, financial institutions, and essential communication with loved ones. These broad, standardless restrictions violate Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated individuals to invalidate the challenged policy and to ensure that Internet access determinations are governed by fair, individualized standards consistent with constitutional protections, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are on lifetime probation under the supervision of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department following convictions for sex offenses. Michael Cimino is the Chief Probation Officer of the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department ("MCAPD"), a division of the Arizona judiciary.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samantha K. DuMond, Esq. DUMOND LAW FIRM, PLLC 340 East Palm Lane, Suite A100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 803-4975 Facsimile: (602) 680-3330 Email: Samantha@DuMondLawAZ.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Phone: (773) 283-3913 Email: MWeinberg@sbcglobal.net - and - Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Phone: (847) 361-3869 Email: Adele@civilrightschicago.com MICRO PRECISION: Miscalculates Pay Rates, Do Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ NGHIA DO, individually and for others similarly situated v. MICRO PRECISION SWISS, LLC; and ORCHID MPS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00405 (W.D. Mich. February 6, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a CNC Operator and Quality Control Inspector from approximately January 2019 to September 2025. Throughout his employment, the Defendant paid Plaintiff under its shift differential pay scheme, paying his higher hourly rates when he worked on the second shift. However, the Defendant failed to include these shift differentials in calculating Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. In addition, the Defendant also failed to include non-discretionary production bonuses in calculating these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, says the suit. Headquartered in Mason, MI, Micro Precision Swiss, LLC manufactures components and instruments for the medical, dental, and orthopedic markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-9221 E-mail: william@laurelemploymentlaw.com - and - Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com MINNESOTA DHS: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). The case is styled as Jeffrey Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Case No. 62-CV-26-823 (Minn. 2nd Judicial Dist. Ct., Ramsey Cty., Feb. 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Other/Misc." Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) -- https://mn.gov/dhs/ -- is a cabinet level executive agency responsible for implementing major social programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medical Assistance (The Minnesota Medicaid program) and Minnesota Family Investment Program (the Minnesota Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program).[BN] MIRBEAU HOSPITALITY: Fitzgerald Files Suit in N.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mirbeau Hospitality Services, LLC. The case is styled as Karen Fitzgerald, Rachel Lumbra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mirbeau Hospitality Services, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00177-AJB-PJE (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Fraud for Account Receivable. Mirbeau Hospitality Services, LLC (MHS) -- https://www.mirbeauhospitalityservices.com/ -- specializes in developing and managing boutique hotels and spas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas-32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7011 Email: jdiamond@bursor.com - and - Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street-Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Batistoni Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Batistoni, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-444 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Cochran Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Preston Cochran, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-467 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Garrett Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Garrett, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-468 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Mallory Sues Over Negligent Sale and Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kristin Mallory on behalf of the estate of Norman Mallory, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-472 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Kristin Mallory is a natural person and is the Representative of Norman Mallory, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Ravey Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Ravey, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-01-470 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Jan. 29, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MORRIS & ASSOCIATES: Motsinger Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MOTSINGER, DAVID WILSON, and RONALD CORREIA, individually and on behalf of the Plan Participants of the Morris & Associates, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiffs v. WILLIAM MORRIS III, MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MORRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00065-FL (E.D.N.C., February 6, 2026) challenges Defendants' refusal to pay benefits due under an employee benefits plan and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On March 7, 2025 and April 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed claims pursuant to the plan's claim procedures because they received less than the fair market value for their shares in violation of ERISA and the Plan Document. Moreover, Plaintiffs provided their appeal to the Committee on June 4, 2025 after they did not substantively respond to Plaintiffs' claims. However, the Committee did not provide a substantive response to Plaintiffs' appeal at has never attempted to justify the decision not to include Morris' cash and cash equivalents in the 2022 and 2023 valuations, says the suit. Headquartered in Garner, NC, Morris & Associates, Inc. operates as an engineering design and manufacturing firm. The company specializes in custom process cooling, industrial ice makers, poultry chillers and, pathogen elimination systems used in the meat processing industry. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq. Alan B. Felts, Esq. TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A. 400 Bellemeade Street, Ste. 800 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 378-1431 Facsimile: (336) 274-6590 E-mail: AFelts@tuggleduggins.com NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Ste. 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Dickinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT LLC, et al. The case is styled as Daisy Dickinson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. CV0008938 (Cal. Super. Ct., Marin Cty., Jan. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." MSL Community Management LLC is a professional management company based in Irvine, California, specializing in providing comprehensive community management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com MULLINAX FORD : Clevenger and Rohr Sue Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- MYRA REAMES-CLEVENGER and SHIRLEY ROHR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MULLINAX FORD OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00291-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla., February 5, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect sensitive data of its current and former customers. According to the complaint, the data breach occurred on or before January 25, 2026. The Defendant has not yet begun formally notifying Class Members about the data breach even though Plaintiffs and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed and abused, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of identity theft and fraud, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. Mullinax Ford of Central Florida, Inc. is a car dealership headquartered in Apopka, FL. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com tjohnson@shamisgentile.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Zornberg Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2026, that on October 17, 2025, pursuant to a joint letter and stipulation filed by all the parties, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed in part a securities claims with prejudice and certified a class with respect to Exchange Act claims. On August 29, 2023, a purported class action, brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded NAPCO securities between November 7, 2022 and August 18, 2023, was filed in said court against the company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The action, captioned "Zornberg v. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. et al.," asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements made in the Company’s quarterly reports and earnings releases during the period of November 7, 2022 through May 8, 2023. A lead plaintiff was appointed in November 2023 and an amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2024. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 26, 2024. On April 11, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Section 11 and Section 12 claims brought against the individual defendants were dismissed; the remaining claims survived the motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2025, defendants filed Answers to the Amended Complaint. On September 29, 2025, the plaintiffs moved for class certification of both the Exchange Act and remaining Securities Act claims. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of high-tech electronic security devices, cellular communication services for intrusion and fire alarm systems as well as a leading provider of school safety solutions. NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Patel Securities Suit in EDNY ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2026, that on April 25, 2025, a purported class action, brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded NAPCO securities between February 5, 2024 and February 3, 2025, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer (who is currently the President and Chief Operating Officer). The action, captioned "Patel v. NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. et al.," asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements made in quarterly earnings releases and calls during the period of February 5, 2024 through February 3, 2025. The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of high-tech electronic security devices, cellular communication services for intrusion and fire alarm systems as well as a leading provider of school safety solutions. NATSON HOTEL GROUP: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Barnes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NATSON HOTEL GROUP & MANAGEMENT, LLC, HARE KRISHNA FOREST PARK, LLC, HARE KRISHNA AUSTELL, LLC, and SUBHASH PATEL, Case No. 1:26-cv-00463-MLB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 26, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by misclassifying and failing to compensate her and other similarly situated individuals who worked for the Defendant as hotel managers for its “efficiency” hotels (“the Efficiency Hotel Managers”) for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 per week at the required overtime premium rate. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and similarly situated Efficiency Hotel Managers as salaried employees and denied them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week. Despite knowing that the Efficiency Hotel Managers worked more than 40 hours per week, Defendants chose not to pay the Efficiency Hotel Managers the proper overtime premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per workweek. The Defendants violated the FLSA’s overtime provision willfully and with reckless disregard for the Efficiency Hotel Managers’ rights, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly employee for Hare Krishna Austell on December 10, 2023. Natson is a hotel investment and management group, owning full service, select service, and economy properties in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq. James D. Dean, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-8000 Email: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com jdean@pcwlawfirm.com NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Milberg Coleman Named Interim Class Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as James Ding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New York University, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02416-ER (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel. Having given due consideration to the factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) and finding that proposed counsel meet the adequacy requirements thereunder, the Court appointed Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Sabita J. Soneji of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Ashley M. Crooks of Hausfeld LLP as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. Israel David of Israel David LLC was appointed as Interim Liaison Counsel. Gerald D. Wells, III of Lynch Carpenter, John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow, Andrew Ferich of Ahdoot Wolfson, P.C., Thomas Loeser of Cotchett Pitre McCarthy, LLP, William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, and Charles Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP were appointed as members of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee. The Court ordered that Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Their responsibilities include: (a) presenting Plaintiff's position to the Court and opposing parties on all pretrial matters; (b) coordinating discovery consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (c) convening meetings among counsel; (d) conducting settlement negotiations on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class; (e) delegating specific tasks to ensure efficient pretrial preparation; (f) negotiating and entering into stipulations with opposing counsel; (g) monitoring counsel activities to ensure schedules are met and unnecessary expenditures are avoided; (h) performing other duties incidental to the proper coordination of pretrial activities; (i) serving as primary contact for communications between the Court and other Plaintiff's counsel; (j) ensuring proper distribution of notices, orders, and material communications; (k) communicating with opposing counsel to promote efficient advancement of the litigation; (l) making available to other Plaintiff's counsel documents produced by Defendant; and (m) allocating attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion in full and also directed the plaintiff to file a Consolidated Complaint no later than forty-five(45) days following the entry o this Order. The Court also Ordered that this Order shall apply to any action filed in, transferred to, or remanded to this Court, which related to the subject matter at issue in this case. The parties shall confer and submit for the Court's consideration an agreed-upon briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss briefing. A copy of the order on February 6, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xpcGUL from PacerMonitor.com Consolidated Plaintiff Jack Minano is represented by Deborah Marie D. De Villa and Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. Consolidated Plaintiff Jennie Whalen is represented by Brian Philip Murray of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Consolidated Plaintiff Nathan Hirsch Ward is represented by Bryan L. Bleichner and Philip Joseph Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA, along with Victoria Jennings Maniatis of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. Consolidated Plaintiff Christian Varbanovski is represented by Jeff Ostrow and Steven Sukert of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. Consolidated Plaintiff Quentin Turner is represented by Victoria Jennings Maniatis of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Gregory Haroutunian of Arnold Law Firm. Consolidated Plaintiff Alexander Thomas is represented by William Bernard Federman and Tanner Hilton of Federman & Sherwood. Consolidated Plaintiff Afif Tai is represented by Thomas Loeser of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Jonathan David Lindenfeld of Fegan Scott LLC. Consolidated Plaintiff Ethan Sam is represented by Israel David of Israel David LLC. Consolidated Plaintiff Nissim Ram is represented by Katherine Marie Aizpuru and Sabita J. Soneji of Tycko & Zavareei LLP. Consolidated Plaintiff Alondra Marisol Lozano is represented by James J. Pizzirusso, Ashley Crooks, and Steven M. Nathan of Hausfeld LLP. Consolidated Plaintiff Deron Koppel is represented by Brett R. Cohen of Leeds Brown Law PC, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider LPA, and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman. Consolidated Plaintiff Liam DuVally is represented by Gary F. Lynch and Gerald D. Wells, III of Lynch Carpenter, LLP. Consolidated Plaintiff Joseph Collins is represented by Thomas Loeser of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Jonathan David Lindenfeld of Fegan Scott LLC. Consolidated Plaintiff Jackson Buettner is represented by Philip Michael Hines of Held & Hines, LLP. Defendant New York University is represented by Casie D. Collignon of Baker Hostetler (Denver), Sean Killeen of Baker & Hostetler LLP, and Eric Robert Fish of Baker & Hostetler LLP (New York). Plaintiff James Ding is represented by Victoria Jennings Maniatis of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. NEW YORK, NY: Kulisz & Kenan Sue Over Unlawful Emergency Procedure ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAGDALENA KULISZ and SHAHAR KENAN, individually, and as co-founders acting in connection with MISS IMMIGRANT USA (a public-interest civic initiative), Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY HEALTH + HOSPITALS CORPORATION; ELVIN PARSON, M.D., in his individual and official capacities; SALOMON (last name unknown), Nurse, in his individual and official capacities; JOHN DOE NYPD OFFICERS 1-10, in their individual and official capacities; and JANE DOE / JOHN DOE HOSPITAL STAFF 1-10, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01082-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2026) challenges the use of psychiatric emergency procedures by municipal actors--public-hospital personnel and, at critical points, uniformed New York Police District officers -- as a mechanism of coercion and control, rather than as lawful, medically justified care consistent with constitutional safeguards, the New York Mental Hygiene Law, and federally protected rights. In three closely connected episodes between December 18, 2024 and January 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs sought help from NYC Health + Hospitals / Metropolitan Hospital Center, a public hospital. The first episode began as a voluntary presentation by Plaintiff Shahar Kenan for medical help, but escalated into an involuntary psychiatric detention; the second began as a voluntary presentation by Mr. Kenan to the psychiatric emergency area seeking evaluation, but again resulted in coercive confinement and related deprivations; and the third occurred when both Plaintiffs presented together seeking emergency psychiatric assistance, yet Plaintiffs were not evaluated, or treated, and Plaintiffs left without care. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate federal rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, and to challenge municipal practices that foreseeably produce coercive psychiatric confinement, inadequate procedural safeguards, and denial of equal access to emergency psychiatric services. The government of the City of New York is responsible for public education, public hospitals, social care, the environment, local transport and planning. [BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. NEW YORK, NY: Time to Complete ESI Production in Briskin Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRISKIN, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03557-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vargas entered an order granting the Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to Complete ESI Production. During the Feb. 2, 2026 conference, Defendants were unable to provide the Court with specific details related to the documents collected from DANY, the Mayor's Office and OLR, including the amount of documents collected from each source, the amount of documents deemed responsive from each source, and what type of technology assisted review (TAR) tool Defendants employed to assist in their document review. Furthermore, Defendants had not previously disclosed to Plaintiffs their use of a TAR tool to aid in their document review. Additionally, the parties have not discussed or agreed to a written protocol to govern the discovery of electronically stored information and production of documents in this matter. The Defendants are directed to produce, on a rolling basis, the responsive documents collected from DANY, the Mayor's Office and OLR. The Court further entered an order that Defendants shall complete the entirety of the ESI production of documents collected from DANY, the Mayor's Office and OLR by March 31, 2026. No further extensions of the deadline to produce the ESI production will be granted. The parties shall appear for a status conference with the Court on March 23, 2026, at 2:30pm in Courtroom 11B, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EC3yIT at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN MARIETTA: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan Marietta, LLC. The case is styled as Lisa Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nissan Marietta, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00459-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nissan Marietta -- https://www.mynissanmarietta.com/ -- is a retail automotive dealership specializing in new and used Nissan vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com OMAHA STEAKS: Cohen Sues Over Unlawful Advertisements ----------------------------------------------------- Andrew Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OMAHA STEAKS INTERNATIONAL, LLC and OMAHASTEAKS.COM, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-01061 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought under California's False Advertising Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act as a result of the Defendants unlawful advertisements of limited-time sales and discounts. The Defendant advertises purported regular prices and purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices. Defendant consistently promotes "50% Off Sitewide" with a constant stream of promotions. As soon as one ends, the next one immediately begins. After reviewing Defendant's website, www.omahasteaks.com, and seeing and relying on advertised sales, Plaintiff bought a Product from Defendant. When Plaintiff made his purchase, Defendant advertised that a purported sale was going on, and Plaintiff believed that he was being offered a steep discount from the purported regular price that Defendant advertised. And based on Defendant's representations, Plaintiff believed that he was purchasing a Product whose regular price and market value were the purported list price that Defendant advertised, that he was receiving a substantial discount, and that the opportunity to get this discount was time-limited. These reasonable beliefs caused Plaintiff to buy from Defendant. The representations that Plaintiff relied on, however, were not true. The purported regular prices Defendant advertised were not the true regular prices at which Defendant usually sells its Products. The purported discounts were not true discounts, and the sales were ongoing--not time limited. Had Defendant been truthful, Plaintiff and other consumers like him would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Omaha Steaks Products from Defendant. The Defendants manufactures, markets, and sells Omaha Steaks-branded products, including steaks, meat, seafood, and some prepared foods, through the Omaha Steaks website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: +1 (310) 656-7069 Email: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com OMTA TECH: Fails to Pay Electricians' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ KENNETH CASTRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OMTA TECH INC. d/b/a OMTA TECH, OMER TALE, individually, SAHIM [LAST NAME UNKNOWN], individually, ILHAM OZGAN, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-00133 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2026) is a wage-and-hour and retaliation action arising from the systematic failure of the Defendants to pay legally required wages to the Plaintiff and similarly situated electricians and apprentice electricians employed on commercial construction projects throughout New York. The Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and other workers as independent contractors, implemented a company-wide time-shaving policy and failed and refused to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, paid wages late and irregularly failed to provide wage notices and accurate wage statements required by law, and retaliated against workers who complained about unpaid wages, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this action individually, on behalf of all similarly situated employees, for their rights being violated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). As a result of the Defendants' blatant improper employment practices, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated with him, are entitled to substantial compensatory, liquidated and punitive damages, the suit asserts. Mr. was employed by the Defendants as an electrician from October through December 2025. OMTA is a New York-based electrical contracting business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Bonomo, Esq. PITTA LLP 120 Broadway, 28th floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 652-3890 Facsimile: (212) 652-3891 ON INC: Seeks to Dismiss Breindel First Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC BREINDEL, JOSEPH INJAYCHOCK, and RYAN NAGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 3:25-cv-01852-IM (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to dismiss Plaintiffs or, in the alternative, to strike class allegations. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6), On moves the Court to enter an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in its entirety and with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The FAC fails for the most basic reasons: it identifies no actionable misrepresentation, no duty to disclose, and no concrete injury. The law requires more than allegations of subjective disappointment with a product's characteristics. The Plaintiffs' theories rely on speculative "omission" liability and anecdotal references to a handful of mostly anonymous online comments, but those do not establish deception, materiality, or reliance as a matter of law. The lawsuit seeks to convert minor consumer dissatisfaction into a sweeping class action. The Plaintiffs' theory rests on the contention that certain models of On shoes with CloudTec technology occasionally "squeak" during wear, and that On somehow intentionally deceived purchasers by failing to disclose that possibility. The Defendant is a Swiss sportswear company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TzMLkH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Norman M. Aspis, Esq. Caroline F. Brinster, Esq. Bety Javidzad, Esq. DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP 212 West Sixth Street Jasper, IN 47546 Telephone: (812) 482-5500 E-mail: caroline.brinster@dentons.com bety.javidzad@dentons.com norman.aspis@dentons.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Herrera Due Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herrera v. Ontrac Logistics, Inc. et al (RE ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC. DELIVERY DRIVERS LITIGATION), Case No. 3:25-cv-00022-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification, ADR, and related deadlines as follows: 1. June 20, 2026, to complete ADR; 2. Aug. 10, 2026, for initial expert reports relating to class certification; 3. Sept. 8, 2026, for rebuttal expert reports relating to class certification 4. Sept. 30, 2026, to file a motion for class certification; 5. Oct. 21, 2026, file an opposition to class certification; 6. Nov. 4, 2026, to file a reply in support of a motion for class certification. The Parties further stipulate and jointly request that the hearing on class certification be continued to Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. OnTrac was a privately held logistics company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z0mBL5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Esq. Jessica Westerman, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 665 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 813-3260 Facsimile: (415) 813-2495 E-mail: peterson-fisher@katzbanks.com westerman@katzbanks.com - and - Virginia Villegas, Esq. THE VILLEGAS LAW FIRM, APC 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 903 San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 989-8000 Facsimile: (415-989-8028 E-mail: virginia@e-licenciados.com - and - Jennifer Smith, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO 1861 Bay Road East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 204-9065 Facsimile: (866) 688-5204 E-mail: jsmith@clsepa.org The Defendants are represented by: Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. Janis E. Steck, Esq. Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com jsteck@scopelitis.com candrewscavage@scopelitis.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Barrows Sues Over Misleading Representations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Gregory Barrows, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORACLE CORPORATION, LAWRENCE J. ELLISON, SAFRA A. CATZ, CLAYTON MAGOUYRK, MICHAEL SICILIA, DOUGLAS KEHRING, and MARIA SMITH, Case No. 1:26-cv-00127-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Oracle common stock between June 12, 2025, and December 16, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder as a result of the Defendants' false and misleading representations. The Defendants misled investors by touting the Company's contracts to develop data center capabilities for AI infrastructure and falsely assuring investors that the Company's significant capital expenditures ("CapEx") would quickly result in accelerated revenue growth. For example, Defendants assured investors that the Company's substantially increased spending on AI infrastructure--including for data centers used by OpenAI, the operator of ChatGPT--would rapidly convert into "accelerating revenue and profit growth" and that "we have a very good line-of-sight for our capabilities to just spend on that CapEx right before it starts generating revenue." However, on September 24, 2025, S&P Global Ratings ("S&P") warned that OpenAI "could account for more than a third of total Oracle revenues by fiscal 2028 and even a greater share by fiscal 2030," creating risks given that "OpenAI's ability to meet contractual obligations will be contingent on AI tailwinds continuing and its models being a market leader to continue to raise external financing." On this news, the price of Oracle common stock declined $5.37 per share, or nearly 2%, from a close of $313.83 per share on September 23, 2025, to close at $308.46 per share on September 24, 2025. On December 17, 2025, Financial Times reported that Blue Owl Capital "the primary [financial] backer for Oracle's largest data centre projects in the US"--had backed out of funding a $10 billion Oracle data center intended to serve OpenAI. According to the report, Blue Owl pulled out of the deal as a result of concerns about Oracle's spending commitments and rising debt levels. On this news, the price of Oracle common stock declined $10.19 per share, or approximately 5.4%, from a close of $188.65 per share on December 16, 2025, to close at $178.46 per share on December 17, 2025. This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's AI infrastructure strategy would result in massive increases in CapEx without equivalent, near-term growth in revenue; the Company's substantially increased spending created serious risks involving Oracle's debt and credit rating, free cash flow, and ability to fund its projects, among other concerns; and as a result, Defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant declines in the market value of the Company's common stock pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Oracle common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. The Oracle is a technology company that provides, among other things, infrastructure for operating artificial intelligence ("AI") programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Anthony M. Calvano, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 364-3600 Email: greg.varallo@blbglaw.com anthony.calvano@blbglaw.com - and - Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan Karissa J. Sauder KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: namjed@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com ksauder@ktmc.com PACIFIC MARITIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McColley Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA QUINTERO McCOLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01184 (N.D. Cal., February 6, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Occupational Wage Orders. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in approximately October 2006 as a non-exempt employee, at the National City Marine Terminal with the title of Long Shoreman until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants' employ in approximately July 2024. The Plaintiff and Class Members consistently worked in excess of eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week. However, the Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the proper minimum and overtime wages. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, says the suit. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Pacific Maritime Association operates as a freight, operations, and logistics company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com PAYSAFE LIMITED: Singh Sues Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------- SATNAM SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYSAFE LIMITED; BRUCE LOWTHERS; and JOHN CRAWFORD, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01048 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Paysafe securities between March 4, 2025 and November 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Paysafe's ecommerce business had significant exposure to a single high risk client; (2) as a result, the Company's credit loss reserves and write-offs were understated; (3) Paysafe had an undisclosed issue with higher risk Merchant Category Codes, making its client services difficult to bank; (4) the foregoing issues were likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenue growth and overall revenue mix; (5) as a result, Paysafe was unlikely to meet its own previously issued financial guidance for fiscal year 2025; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Paysafe's stock price fell $2.80, or 27.6 percent, to close at $7.36 per share on November 13, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Paysafe Limited is an integrated payments platform. The Company enable's businesses and consumers to connect and transact in payment processing, digital wallet, and online cash solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 PHIA GROUP LLC: Bashir Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Phia Group LLC. The case is styled as Suhad Bashir, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. The Phia Group LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-10535 (D. Mass., Feb. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Phia Group -- https://www.phiagroup.com/ -- is a CARING and experienced provider of healthcare cost containment, offering a comprehensive ecosystem of services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com PIO PIO: Lopez Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABRAHAM LOPEZ, et. al., v. PIO PIO NYC, INC. et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03998-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b). Pio is a Peruvian restaurant group in New York City. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FOTijO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 PREMIUM BRANDS: Faces Robbins Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Brands Opco LLC. The case is captioned as Sarah Robbins as a Private Attorney General, et al., v. Premium Brands Opco LLC, Case No. 26CUB00051 (Cal. Super., Jan. 7, 2062). The nature of suit states Tort: Fraud. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark Smith. Premium is a U.S.-based retailer and importer of clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Hattis, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th St, Ste 120 Bellevue, WA 98005-3543 Telephone: (425) 233-8628 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com PRIMERICA FINANCIAL: Campbell Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kashawn Campbell, Minnie Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Primerica Financial Services Insurance Marketing, Inc., Glenn J. Williams, Peter W. Schnieder, Tracy Tan, Lisa A. Brown, Robert H. Peterman, Jr., Brett A. Rogers, Julie A. Seman, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV35757 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Jan. 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01069-ODW-DSR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Primerica, Inc. -- https://www.primerica.com/ -- is a multi-level marketing company that provides insurance, investment and financial services to middle-income families in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn Danas, Esq. Maxim Gorbunov, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com mgorbunov@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily Rose Sauer, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Esq. GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-7704 Fax: (213) 229-6704 Email: esauer@gibsondunn.com lblas@gibsondunn.com jcripps@gibsondunn.com QUALITY AUTO: Misclassified Employees as Contractors, Castro Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON VALLE CASTRO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUALITY AUTO BODY REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV01280 (Cal. Super., Jan. 7, 2026) alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and the other Class members as independent contractors as a subterfuge to avoid treating them as employees. The suit contends that the Defendant's failure to classify the Plaintiff and the other Class members as employees, in violation of California law, was knowing and intentional. The decision to misclassify the Plaintiff and Class members as independent contractors was made, maintained, and enforced by the Defendant. Numerous violations, including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to maintain required records, etc., have resulted from this misclassification, the suit adds. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory, compensatory and other statutorily available relief for himself and a Class of all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant during the applicable statute of limitations period to compensate these workers for the wages the Defendant has stolen from them and to protect current and future workers from being subjected to similar unlawful working conditions perpetrated by Defendant. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an auto-body Preparation Technician. Quality operates auto body repair shops in southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq. Justin A. Wheeler, Esq. THE WHEELER LAW FIRM, APC 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 621-4988 Facsimile: (909) 621-4622 E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com jaw@scottwheelerlawoffice.com RAIN BIRD: Pafford Sues Over Failure to Properly Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Pafford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rain Bird Corporation, Case No. 4:26-cv-00061-EJM (D. Ariz., Jan. 28, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive the personal identifying information ("PII or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members that was compromised in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant collected and maintained certain PII of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who provided their PII to Defendant, directly or indirectly. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' 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 that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant. The Defendant is a global, privately-held leader in irrigation, offering over 4,000 products for agriculture, golf, landscape, and home use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7508 North 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (602) 730-100 Fax: (602) 612-6266 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com RAINBOW USA: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- BERENICE RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. RAINBOW USA INC., an unknown business entity; NEW YORK RAINBOW USA INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV01293 (Cal. Super., Jan. 7, 2026) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, and overtime wages to the Plaintiff and the other class members for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff and the other class members were required to work more than eight (8) hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants also failed to provide all requisite uninterrupted meal and rest periods to her and the other class members, and all wages owed to them upon discharge or resignation. The Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated and, thus, seeks class certification under California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The proposed class is defined as follows: "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." Plaintiff Rodriguez is an individual residing in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Rainbow is a privately held American retail apparel chain.[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 REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION: McPhee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation. The case is styled as Chris McPhee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, Case No. 26CV168025 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, doing business as Discount Tire and America's Tire -- https://www.discounttire.com/ -- is an American tire and wheel retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com RICHLAND MEDICAL: Faces Stroud Suit Over Data Security Failures --------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA STROUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICHLAND MEDICAL CENTER INC. d/b/a CENTRAL OZARKS MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-03059-JAM (W.D. Mo., February 5, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of certain individuals including name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, financial account information, medical treatment information, and/or health insurance information. On or about November 10, 2025, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized party gained access to its system that contained private information. However, the Defendant has not disclosed the details of the root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, or the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. Accordingly, 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. Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory relief. Headquartered in Richland, MO, Richland Medical Center Inc. a Federally Qualified Health Center that serves patients in Camden, Laclede, Pulaski, Miller, and Morgan Counties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com RICHTECH ROBOTICS: Diez Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luiz Gonzalez Diez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RICHTECH ROBOTICS INC., WAYNE HUANG, and MICHAEL HUANG, Case No. 2:26-cv-00231 (D. Nev., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Richtech securities between January 27, 2026 and January 29, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") as a result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements. The Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at the time they were made because there was no commercial collaboration or joint engineering effort between Richtech and Microsoft. The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Richtech claimed that it had a collaborative and commercial relationship with Microsoft when it did not; and as a result, Defendants' statements about Richtech's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Richtech securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Richtech describes itself as a "robotics and artificial intelligence ("AI") technology company focused on developing advanced embodied AI systems that aims to improve the efficiency and productivity of U.S. businesses."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com philkim@rosenlegal.com - and - Patrick R. Leverty, Esq. LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD. 608 Lander Street Reno, NV 89509 Phone: (775) 322-6636 Fax: (775) 322-3953 Email: pat@levertylaw.com RTX CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- RTX Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Two putative federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain current and former executives of the Company. The lawsuits allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements and omitting material facts relating to Pratt & Whitney's GTF engine fleet, including the impact of the powder metal issue on the fleet, in various regulatory filings. The lawsuits were consolidated, and on September 12, 2025, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated case. On October 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. RTX is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. RUMI'S KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ruiz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JOAN RUIZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUMI'S KITCHEN, LLC, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and STEPHEN KAPLAN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00664-SEG (N.D. Ga., February 5, 2026), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from approximately July 2024 to August 2025. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation at a rate of no less than time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants did not give Plaintiff and other servers oral notice that intended to pay them through a tip credit. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, the Defendants required Plaintiff and other tipped Rumi's Kitchen employees to share tips with "back of house" Rumi's Kitchen employees, says the suit. Rumi's Kitchen, LLC owns and operates a Persian restaurant in Atlanta, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com SAFE CREDIT UNION: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAFE CREDIT UNION. The case is styled as Darryl Allen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SAFE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 26CV001929 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." SAFE Credit Union -- https://www.safecu.org/ -- provides credit cards, mortgages, commercial lending, auto loans, investing & retirement planning, checking and business banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024-3807 Phone: 424-254-0441 Email: chris@frostllp.com SEEKNOW INC: Dickerson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seeknow, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jamie Dickerson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seeknow, Inc., Laddernow, LLC, Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26CV002504 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Seek Now -- https://seeknow.com/ -- is an insurance inspection platform and real estate services provider to the property and casualty insurance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Lewis, Esq. DREW LEWIS, PC 3010 Lava Ridge Ct., Ste. 120 Roseville, CA 95661-2886 Phone: 650-665-9000 SEIU LOCAL 1: Faces Williams Suit Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUSTEES OF THE SEIU LOCAL 1 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH TRUST, and TRUSTEES OF THE SEIU LOCAL 1 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01353 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026), arises from Defendants' failure in protecting customer data adequately and reasonably. On March 27, 2025, the Defendants became aware of suspicious activity related to certain email accounts. Defendants launched an investigation, which revealed that there was unauthorized access to an account on March 4, 2025 and March 27, 2025. However, the Defendants failed to promptly and properly notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach exacerbated Plaintiff and Class Members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to take appropriate measures to protect their personally identifiable information and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused by the data breach. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Trustees of the SEIU Local 1 & Participating Employers Health Trust and Trustees of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1 & Participating Employers Pension Trust provides medical, dental vision, and other employee benefits to SEIU members and their dependents The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SENTRY LEGAL PLAN: Deis Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Michael Lynn Deis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sentry Legal Plan, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10239 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Feb. 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00792 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Sentry Legal Plan -- https://www.sentryplan.com/ -- offers affordable top-tier legal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Mark J. Green, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 The Defendant is represented by: Martin Schannong, Esq. CARLSON AND MESSER LLP 5901 West Century Boulevard Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 242-2200 Fax: (310) 242-2222 SHELL TRADING: LHB Files Suit for Breach of Payment Obligations --------------------------------------------------------------- LHB VENTURES LLC, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. SHELL TRADING (US) COMPANY, FIRST INTERSTATE BANK, and BLACK BEAR OIL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00052-SPK (D. Wyo., February 10, 2026) is a class action that concerns the Defendants' past and ongoing violations of the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act (WRPA), and their continuing breaches of their payment obligations to payees regarding oil and gas products produced from wells located in Wyoming, based upon: (1) the Defendants' failures to pay the eighteen percent statutory interest which the Defendants have owed on untimely, or "late," owner payments owed on the sale of oil and gas production to those interest owners legally entitled to such payments; (2) Defendants' failures to comply with the applicable information reporting requirements to interest owners, including Defendants' failure to pay the $100 per month amounts to the royalty and overriding interest owners who were subject to the Defendants' failures to comply with the WRPA; and (3) Defendants' breaches of their royalty payment obligations to lessors and overriding royalty interest owners, based upon the Defendants' unauthorized and improper deduction of various costs from the selling price of oil produced from Wyoming wells in which lessors and overriding royalty owners have an ownership interest, in the Defendants' calculation and payment of royalties paid to the affected lessors and overriding royalty owners. According to the complaint, at various times since February 9, 2018, Defendants have failed to pay LHB Ventures and the other members of the defined Subclasses the interest owner payments to which owners have been entitled within the applicable WRPA statutory deadlines as set forth in the WRPA, and instead have made late payments to such persons, or have failed to make payments in any respect. When Defendants have made such late payments, Defendants have failed to pay LHB Ventures and the defined Subclass members the eighteen percent per annum statutory interest on such late payments which are related to oil produced in Wyoming and, in violation of the WRPA. In addition to the Defendants' failure to pay the required statutory 18 percent interest on late payments, the interest owner payments made by Defendants to LHB Ventures and other members of the defined applicable Subclasses, Defendants have consistently failed to comply with the information reporting requirements set forth in the WRPA, in numerous respects, thus making Defendants liable for the $100 per month payment to Plaintiffs and the other members of the defined Subclasses, pursuant to the WRPA, says the suit. Plaintiff LHB Ventures is a limited liability company which was established and organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, which has its principal place of business in the State of Colorado. Defendant Shell Trading (US) Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware which has its principal place of business in the State of Texas. It does not operate any wells located in the State of Wyoming, but rather entered into various legal arrangements under which Shell Trading assumed payment obligations to certain persons legally entitled to proceeds attributable to the sale of oil produced from various wells located in the State of Wyoming. Defendant First Interstate Bank has entered into a legal arrangement with Shell Trading under which it assumed the payment obligations to those persons legally entitled to proceeds attributable to the sale of oil and gas produced from various wells. Defendant Black Bear Oil Corporation is a working interest owner and the operator of approximately 160 wells located in the State of Wyoming, and makes royalty, overriding royalty, and other ownership interest payments to LHB Ventures and the other members of the applicable Subclasses on oil and gas produced by Black Bear in the State of Wyoming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Winship, Esq. WINSHIP & WINSHIP, P.C. 145 South Durbin Street, Suite 201 Casper, WY 82601 Telephone: (307)234-8991 E-mail: steve@winshipandwinship.co - and - George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: George@bartonburrows.com Stacy@bartonburrows.com Seth@bartonburrows.com SIDEPRIZE LLC: Franks Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Justin Franks, Jack Bacigalupi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SidePrize LLC doing business as: PrizePicks, Case No. 3:25-cv-04916 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Feb. 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00595-VMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. SidePrize LLC doing business as PrizePicks -- https://www.prizepicks.com/ -- is an American daily fantasy sports (DFS) operator doing business as PrizePicks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and - James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Wesley Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (310) 896-5813 Email: wes@almeidalawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Randall W. Edwards, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS-SAN FRANCISCO Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Email: redwards@omm.com SKIN LAUNDRY HOLDINGS: Adu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skin Laundry Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Margaret Adu, James Gladstone, Sarah Hill, Lourdes Padron, Courtney Page, Meagan Rios, Andrea Stull, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Skin Laundry Holdings, Inc., Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26633248 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Skin Laundry Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.skinlaundry.com/ -- operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides laser facials and dermatology products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Phone: 412-370-9110 SNAP INC: Settlement in Federal Securities Suit for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Snap Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2026, that the federal securities class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 11, 2021, the Company, and certain of its officers, were named as defendants in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our Class A common stock. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact that Apple's App Tracking Transparency framework would have on its business. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and other relief. The Company recently settled this case, but that settlement is subject to court approval. If the settlement is not approved, it will continue to litigate the case. Although it believes it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit, litigation is inherently uncertain and an unfavorable outcome could seriously harm its business. Snap Inc. is a technology company based in California. SOMNOS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Somnos, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01382 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bearaby.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Somnos, LLC sells natural, breathable home-wellness products designed to improve sleep and reduce stress. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Must File Joint Letter by May 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ayoub, et al. v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Caproni entered an order that not later than three business days after the mediation concludes, or by Friday, May 8, 2026 (whichever is earlier), the parties must file a joint letter indicating whether the mediation resulted in a settlement. If a settlement is not reached, the letter should propose next steps for this case, including deadlines by which (1) the Plaintiffs must file, and the Defendants must answer, an Amended Consolidated Complaint; (2) Fact and expert discovery must be completed; and (3) class certification must be briefed. Spectrum is an American biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GFNyDT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: James J. Beha II, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002-4995 SPINX GAMES: Custer Sues Over Unlawful Gambling Website and Apps ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Custer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPINX GAMES, LTD., Case No. 4:26-cv-01010-KAW (N.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendant to redress Defendant's widespread violations of California's gambling laws. The Defendants website and mobile apps offer casino style slots games that operate based on a digital currency called "coins" which can be purchased and wagered for extended gameplay along with other upgrades and rewards (the "SpinX Gambling Platform"). While Defendant advertises and promotes the SpinX Gambling Platform to people in California as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the SpinX Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendant sells digital coins to consumers on the SpinX Gambling Platform--including consumers in California--and then immediately accepts those coins back (from the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino style games of chance offered on the SpinX Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager virtual coins on the SpinX Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more of these coins, which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, unlock new gambling games or extend their gameplay once they have run out of coins to wager with. The Plaintiff and numerous other California residents have lost significant sums of their hard-earned money buying and placing wagers with coins on the SpinX Gambling Platform, and Defendant has, in turn, reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained. California's gambling law clearly prohibits the type of gambling offered by Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff set up an account with Defendant to gain access to the SpinX Gambling Platform services. SpinX Games, Ltd. owns, operates, and receives significant revenue from its online "social" casino available through their website and mobile apps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com STATE FARM: Safont Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for enlargement of page limitation for motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due on February 14, 2026. Drafting of the Motion for Class Certification is mostly complete. Because of the factor-driven nature of class certification -- at least nine factors under Rules 23(a) and 23(b) -- the Motion approaches 25 pages. In particular in this case, The Plaintiffs give the superiority factor extensive analysis. 3. Plaintiffs therefore ask this Court for a five-page extension over the 20-page limit allowed under the local rules. State Farm provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zLtWbA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 200 Southeast Second Avenue Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com md@lklsg.com - and – Paulino A. Núñez Jr., Esq. Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 E-mail: pan@rtgn-law.com frr@rtgn-law.com - and – Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745-2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com SUPERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Bellisario Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Regina A. Bellisario, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees v. SUPERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and DOES I to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV03600 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the California Labor Codes as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper compensation. The Defendants' violated the Labor Code as a result of The Defendants' unpaid wages and interest thereon and other relief for willful misclassification of Plaintiff and all other current and former aggrieved California-based hourly non-exempt employees; failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to pay overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick time at the regular rate of pay; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant and is a representative of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. SUPERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, LLC operates in Los Angeles County and employed Plaintiff and aggrieved employees in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Daniel C. Keller, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com dkeller@lelawfirm.com SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sysco San Francisco, Inc. The case is styled as Eduardo Huerta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc., Case No. 26CV168437 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sysco San Francisco, Inc. -- https://sysco.com/San-Francisco -- is the largest food distributor in the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 TESLA INC: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tesla, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dionne Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tesla, Inc., Manpowergroup US Inc., Manpowergroup Talent Solutions, LLC, Case No. 26CV167500 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Tesla Inc. -- https://www.tesla.com/ -- operates as a multinational automotive and clean energy company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 TFC PARTNERS: Faces Ferrer Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TFC PARTNERS, INC. ET AL. The case is captioned as FERRER, MARIANNE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. TFC PARTNERS, INC., et al., Case No. CGC26632689 (Cal. Super., Jan. 7, 2026). TFC is a privately-held company that operates in the business support services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Suh, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. OLYMPIC BOULEVARD SUITE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 E-mail: msuh@lelawfirm.com TOPPS COMPANY INC: Marquez Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Topps Company, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Marquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Topps Company, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-01063 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Topps Company, Inc. -- https://www.topps.com/ -- is an American company that manufactures trading cards and other collectibles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Tamiko Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 365-3225 Email: lomoto@faruqilaw.com VAIL CORP.: Mackey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vail Corp. The case is styled as Hunter Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Vail Corp., Case No. CACE26001758 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 29, 2026). Vail Resorts, Inc. -- https://www.vailresorts.com/ -- is the premier mountain resort company in the world and a leader in luxury, destination-based travel at iconic locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com VFJH LLC: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VFJH, LLC, D/B/A SPIRITS AND SPICE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01367 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant failed to build its website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs. As a result, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on July 7, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services, says the suit. VFJH, LLC own and operates the website, www.spiritsandspice.com, which offers whiskies, rums, and liqueurs for sale, as well as related products such as cocktail ingredients, gourmet foods, artisanal snacks, glassware, and gift sets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com VOLUME SERVICES: Adler Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Casey Adler, Cody Urquhart, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Volume Services, Inc., Sodexo Inc., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-01939 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 30, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01174-GW-ADS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Volume Services, Inc., doing business as Centerplate, operates entertainment and convention venues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eden Zakay, Esq. Jackland K. Hom, Esq. Jaclyn M Joyce, Esq. Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. Shani O Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 255-9047 Email: eden@zakaylaw.com jackland@zakaylaw.com jaclyn@zakaylaw.com jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com shani@zakaylaw.com - and - Perssia Pearl Razma, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM APC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 599-8292 Email: prazma@jcl-lawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq. Matthew Ryan Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com WACOAL AMERICA: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WACOAL AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01381 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.cw-x.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Wacoal America, Inc. designs, manufactures, and supplies intimate apparels for women. The Company offers bras, panties, and shape wears. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com WALT DISNEY: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------- The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2026, that on June 5, 2025, the company and plaintiffs reached a settlement in principle to settle all claims on behalf of all YouTube TV, DirecTV Stream and fuboTV subscribers. The settlement was contingent on plaintiffs' counsel obtaining or having authority to settle claims on behalf of all three subscriber classes, court approval, and other contingencies. At a joint mediation held on October 3, 2025, the company and plaintiffs reached a settlement in principle to settle all claims on behalf of all YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream subscribers. The settlement is contingent on counsel obtaining court approval and other contingencies. A preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for February 19, 2026. On November 18, 2022, a private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to YouTube TV (Biddle Action). The plaintiffs asserted a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that Disney uses certain pricing and packaging provisions in its carriage agreements with virtual multi-channel video programming distributors to increase prices for and reduce output of certain services it offered. The company filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on January 31, 2023. On September 30, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the company's motions to dismiss and, on October 13, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating this with another case. On October 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee antitrust and consumer protection laws based on substantially similar allegations as the initial action. It seeks injunctive relief, unspecified money damages and costs and fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for failure to state a claim on December 1, 2023. On May 30, 2025, the plaintiffs in initial action filed a proposed Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, adding a class of fuboTV subscribers, a Clayton Act claim challenging the company's acquisition of fuboTV on behalf of fuboTV subscribers, and a claim under Sherman Act. The Walt Disney Company is a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate that is headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California. WALT DISNEY: Unger Antitrust Suit Ongoing in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------------- The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2026, that on January 14, 2025, a private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to fuboTV (Unger Action), asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also alleged that Disney impermissibly bundles ESPN with other Disney networks and unjustly enriched itself. Said action has since been transferred to the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2025 under the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protection laws of thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. They seek damages and injunctive relief, including an injunction requiring the company to segregate or divest any interest in Fubo and Hulu, or in the alternative, business assets relating to Fubo and Hulu + Live TV. The company and Unger's counsel did not reach a settlement at a October 3, 2025 mediation. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration of individual claims and dismiss class claims on December 19, 2025. A hearing on the motion is set for March 19, 2026. The Walt Disney Company is a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate that is headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California. WATERTON RESIDENTIAL: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATERTON RESIDENTIAL, LLC, d/b/a One Plantation, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60294-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.oneplantationapartments.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Waterton Residential, LLC, d/b/a One Plantation manages and operates apartment communities. The Company offers apartment homes and living spaces to individuals and families. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com WERNER MEDIA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, See Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WERNER MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00211-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website, https://www.ghostbed.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Werner Media Partners, LLC manufactures mattresses and bedsprings. [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 WIN-VINELAND LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. WIN-VINELAND LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-01081 (D.N.J., Feb. 3, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the places that she 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 arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property and been a guest on several occasions over the years her last visit to the Property occurred on August 23, 2025. Ms. Cheli visited the Property as a prospective bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property has already been the subject of an ADA claim, and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers she has personally experienced, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired person. The Defendant's property/place of public accommodation – a hotel known as Wingate by Wyndham Vineland/Millville – is located in Vineland, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to March 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hudgins, et al., v. Windstream Services LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00523 (E.D. Ark., Filed May 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr., entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended until March 4, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Windstream is a telecommunications provider.[CC] WISE UP FINANCIAL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wise Up Financial LLC. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Wise Up Financial LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00616-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Wise Up Financial LLC is your go-to source for better health benefits without the hassle of phone calls.[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 - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave, Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 626-2098 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com WISNER BAUM: Denney Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Denney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WISNER BAUM, LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-01075 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant claims to "represent thousands of clients injured in commercial transportation accidents, harmed by pharmaceutical drugs, medical devices or consumer products across the United States and worldwide." As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its employees, clients, and others. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). An unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's computer network between October 8, 2025 and October 9, 2025. According to the Breach Notice Defendant "detected unusual activity" on its computer network, and individuals' names, Social Security numbers, bank account and routing numbers, and medical information "may have" been "obtained. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees,' clients,' and others' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having been a client of Defendant. The Defendant is personal injury law firm based in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com YOUNG'S TRANSPORTATION: Kaestner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young's Transportation Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kristine Kaestner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees pursuant to Labor Code Section 2698 et seq v. Young's Transportation Services, LLC, Stephen Young, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV002181 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Young's Transportation Services, LLC -- https://www.youngstransportationservices.com/ -- offer dependable and efficient transport solutions for non-medical, ambulatory clients throughout Sacramento and the surrounding areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Peery, Esq. THE PEERY LAW FIRM 4550 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824 Phone: 818-995-4079 Fax: 818-995-6514 Email: ap@peerylaw.com ZEE.DOG LLC: See Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZEE.DOG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00212-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Feb. 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.zeedog.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. ZEE.DOG, LLC collection of dog accessories, including collars, leashes, harnesses, toys, and other pet accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law Telephone: (463) 777-4196 ZHEALTH INC: Haver Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against zHealth Inc. The case is styled as Brian Haver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. zHealth Inc. d/b/a zHealth EHR, Case No. 8:25-cv-02853 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Zhealth Inc. doing business as ZHealth HER -- https://www.zhealthehr.com/ -- is a cloud-based electronic health record (EHR) software designed for chiropractic practices to streamline operations, improve workflow, and enhance patient care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***