260223.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 23, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 38
Headlines
10X HEALTH VENTURES: Terry Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
3T BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ramirez Claims
AGC CHEMICALS: City of the Dalles Files Suit in D. South Carolina
AHTNA INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Evans Says
ALMO STUDIO: Calle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ALTAMED HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Court Grants Prelim Settlement OK in "Fredericks"
ANCHORAGE, AK: James Sues Over State-Created Danger
ART OF SHAVING: Connelly Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ASF CONSTRUCTION: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Ramirez" FLSA Suit
BUTLER SOHO: Faces Cavaliere Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CEDAR POINT: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach
CENTRAL STATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mundell Alleges
CLASSIC T-SHIRT: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COCONUT FUNDING: Phillips Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
CORONA FAST FOOD: Sotamba Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
COVETRUS INC: $70MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 13
DARLING INGREDIENTS: Miles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DAVIDSON HOTEL: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Bunch Suit Says
DENTON COUNTY MHMR: Thomas Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE: Miller Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
DMI GC HOLDINGS: Money Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DUKES INTERIOR: Faces Barreto Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE: Fulton Sues Over Misleading Marketing
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unsafe Dermaplaning Tools
EMPIRE HOSPITALITY: Tarpeh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EVOLUTIONS BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Says
FARMERS GROUP INC: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
FAY SERVICING LLC: Ramirez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
FERRARA CANDY: Chhin Sues Over Arsenic Content in Candy Products
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Cork & Cellar Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FLOOR AND DECOR: Saldivar Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
FLOWERS4DREAMS LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
FRIENDS OF FAMILY: Weissinger Suit Removed to C.D. California
GAMESTOP INC: Weber Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
GOFUNDME INC: Munoz Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Cywinski Suit Removed to D. Vermont
GSI TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
HEARTLAND PIZZA: Daigle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HINT INC: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Carlson Sues Over False Company Statements
INSTACART: Mollins Suit Removed to E.D. New York
INTREPID STUDIOS: Burdecki Balks at Layoff Without Prior Notice
ISSA'S SCHAUMBURG CORP: Barcelo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JERSEY MIKE'S: Brewer Sues Over Undisclosed Delivery Charges
JMP PIZZA INC: Anglin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
KAMI VISION INCORPORATED: Maniquiz Files Suit in C.D. California
KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Lemus Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
LABORATORY EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Oberhausen Says
LENOVO UNITED: Christy Alleges Unlawful Sharing of Private Info
LIVE NATION: Illegally Installs Tracking Software, Scruggs Says
LIVING ROOM: Perez Balks at Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LOCKTON SOUTHEAST: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $9.9M
MASONITE INT'L: Kept Investors in the Dark, C. Illinois Fund Says
MICROF LLC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Slee Alleges
MICROSOFT CORP: Teams Illegally Collects Voice Data, Suit Claims
MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: Stonis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MILTON ADAIR: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Justin"
MISSION AREA: Driggs Files Class Action Suit in Cal. Super.
MOTAUR EXPRESS: Zuniga Suit Removed to C.D. California
MUSIC EMPORIUM: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Flores"
NEXTPATIENT INC: Moreno Files Suit in N.D. California
NORMAN S WRIGHT: Dawson-Roberts Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ONEWAY MANAGEMENT: Blackwell Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
ONYX CREATIVE: Snyder Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
ORIGIN MATERIALS: $9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8
PACIFIC ASIAN: Azucena Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
PANERA BRANDS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jones Alleges
PENNEY OPCO LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PENNSYLVANIA: Pittman Files Suit in E.D. Pa.
PETCO ANIMAL: Memery Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Pluris Holdings Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PROFESSIONAL SWINE: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD: Garza Files Suit in C.D. California
RENAISSANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Hammond Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
SAFE CREDIT UNION: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAX LLP: Fails to Safeguard Personal Information, Guercio Says
SKINESA INC: Licea Sues Over Automatic Renewing Paid Subscription
SPRING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Palmer Alleges
SPRING MANAGEMENT: Hall Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
SPRING MANAGEMENT: Stevenson Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Brown Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
STOCKTON NURSING AND REHAB: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STREAMLINE FUNDING: Ankrah Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
STRIDE RITE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SUNDAY APP INC: Hoke Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Junk Fee
TAKEDA PHARMA: Who's Who in Amitiza Antitrust Litigation
TEMPUS AI INC: Vargas Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
THG BEAUTY USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON: Court Narrows Claims in Marina Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Pallaya Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
U.S. RENAL: Moyseyenko Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Chapman Sues Over Failure to Provide Files
UNITED PARCELS: Removes Moyle Suit to E.D. New York
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII SYSTEM: Johnson Files Suit in D. Hawaii
URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS: Habash Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin
USAPE LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
USIC LOCATING: MacDonald Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL: Mawrence Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VERSANT MEDIA: Website Secretly Uses Tracking Tools, Rada Says
VIETRI INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VILLA & SONS ENTERPRISES: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, AR: Mayfield Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
WIRX PHARMACY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
ZERO FLAKES: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
*********
10X HEALTH VENTURES: Terry Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 10X Health Ventures,
LLC. The case is styled as James Terry, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 10X Health Ventures, LLC, Case
No. 1:26-cv-20841-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
10X Health System -- https://10xhealthsystem.com/ -- is a
pioneering company at the forefront of the health and wellness
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Howard Kanee, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
1508 SW 23rd St
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
Phone: (786) 933-2775
Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com
3T BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ramirez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3T BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01420 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.talltailsdog.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on September 30, 2025 to access Defendant's website from
her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's antler chew dog toy,
but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content and services.
The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, alleges the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
3T Brands, Inc. operates the website that serves as a pet supply
retailer offering products for dogs, including toys, treats, chews,
and accessories.[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
AGC CHEMICALS: City of the Dalles Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC., et al. The case is styled as City of the Dalles, an
Oregon municipal corporation, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; Amerex Corp.; Archroma
US, Inc.; ARKEMA, INC; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY;; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
Chemguard; Chemicals, Inc.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; Chubb
Fire, LTD; Clariant Corporation; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS &
CO.; DYNAX CORPORATION; Kidde, PLC; Nation Ford Chemical Company;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC; Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; United Technologies Corporation; UTC FIre &
Security Americas Corporation, Inc.; Case No. 2:26-cv-00526-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 9, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability.
AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. -- https://www.agcchem.com/
--manufactures specialty chemi cals. The Company offers glass,
electronic displays, and chemical products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael G. Stag, Esq.
STAG LIUZZA LLC
365 Canal Street, Suite 2850
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 593-9600
Fax: (504) 593-9601
Email: mstag@stagliuzza.com
AHTNA INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Evans Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TEMPEST EVANS, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AHTNA INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00362 (D. Alaska, December 19, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure,
safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information.
The complaint relates that on its computer network, Ahtna holds and
stores certain highly sensitive personally identifiable information
(PII) of the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members who are
shareholders, current and former employees, and their dependents.
These individuals who provided their highly sensitive and private
information to Ahtna in exchange for employment and/or business
services.
According to the complaint, the class action arises out of a 2025
data breach of documents and information stored on the computer
network of Ahtna. According to its Notice Letter on July 28, 2025,
Ahtna first became aware of unauthorized access to its computer
network. Defendant launched an investigation into the Data Breach
and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its system
between April 20, 2025 and June 1, 2025, and "acquired certain
files" containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information. Despite learning of the Data Breach on July 29, 2025,
and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach
between April and June 2025, Defendant did not begin sending
notices of the Data Breach until November 21, 2025. Since the Data
Breach, the Qilin ransomware group has claimed responsibility and
posted sample data on its dark web portal on August 13, 2025.
As a result of Ahtna's Data Breach, Plaintiff and thousands of
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of
financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket
expenses, 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, says the suit.
Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff seeks to obtain damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief for a class of individuals who
are similarly situated and have received notices of the data breach
from Ahtna.
Plaintiff Tempest Evans is a former employee of Ahtna Inc.
Defendant Ahtna Inc. is a company that provides services in
construction, environmental remediation, government contracting,
engineering, and oil & gas support industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Cooley, Esq.
Katherine Elsner, Esq.
EHRHARDT, ELSNER, & COOLEY
215 Fidalgo Avenue Suite 201
Kenai, AK 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-2876
Facsimile: (907) 283-2896
E-mail: josh@907legal.com
E-mail: katie@907legaI.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com
ALMO STUDIO: Calle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL CALLE, Plaintiff v. ALMO STUDIO INC. (ALMO FURNITURE) and
JUAN R. NAULA AND PATRICIO NAULA, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:26-cv-00659 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2026) is a class action
seeking to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wage
compensation for Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay and
compensate Plaintiff the lawful minimum wage and overtime wages at
one and one-half times his regular rate (or one and one-half times
the applicable minimum wage, whichever is greater) for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiff further brings this action under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act for Defendants' willful failure to provide written
notice of wage rates in violation of said laws.
Plaintiff Calle was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from
approximately June 15, 2023 through October 20, 2025.
Almo Studio Inc. is a furniture manufacturer with its principal
place of business in Maspeth, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
ALTAMED HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the AltaMed data
breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who had their information exposed in the incident, including those
who received notice of the AltaMed data breach or otherwise believe
they are affected.
AltaMed Security Incident: What Happened?
AltaMed Health Services Corporation, a provider of health and human
services based in Southern California, recently experienced a data
breach that potentially compromised personal information. On
December 14, 2025, the company faced a cybersecurity incident
affecting certain computer systems. AltaMed activated its incident
response plan, secured its systems and enlisted cybersecurity
experts to aid in the investigation.
According to a sample data breach letter (pictured below) that
appears to be directed to employees, information compromised in the
AltaMed Health Services Corporation data breach may include names,
addresses, Social Security numbers and compensation details.
A data breach notice posted on the company's website indicates that
patient information, including names, dates of service and payment
details, may have also been exposed.
This is at least the second data breach AltaMed has experienced in
recent years, with the healthcare provider having reported last
June that it had been affected by an August 2024 data breach.
What You Can Do After the AltaMed Data Breach
If your information was exposed in the AltaMed data breach,
attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class
action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time
spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force AltaMed to ensure they take
proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with.
[GN]
AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Court Grants Prelim Settlement OK in "Fredericks"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Kathleen Fredericks, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ameriflight,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1757-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge
Brantley Starr of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective
Action Settlement on February 12, 2026.
Upon careful examination, the Court found that the settlement is a
fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over the
FLSA's provisions for the 19 opt-in plaintiffs.
As to the Rule 23 class, previously certified by the Court, the
settlement appears to fall within the range of possible approval.
Accordingly, the Court approved the notice procedure and authorized
Plaintiff to issue notice in the forms attached as Exhibits A-C,
and approved the distribution formula and payment procedure set
forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court directed Plaintiff to
file a petition for attorneys' fees and costs two weeks prior to
the end of the objection period. A final fairness and approval
hearing is scheduled for May 11, 2026.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6CiLug from PacerMonitor.com
Defendant
Ameriflight LLC
Represented By
Shaina Elise Hicks
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC
214-987-3800
shaina.hicks@ogletree.com
John M Barcus
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC
214-987-3800
john.barcus@ogletreedeakins.com
Carlos G. Colon-Machargo
Ogletree Deakins
305-720-4082
carlos.colon-machargo@ogletree.com
Plaintiff
Kathleen Fredericks
Represented By
Rachel Williams Dempsey
Towards Justice
720-364-2689
rachel@towardsjustice.org
Rachel Julia Smit
Fair Work PC
617-841-8188
rachel@fairworklaw.com
David Seligman
Towards Justice
720-248-8426
david@towardsjustice.org
Ashley E Tremain
Tremain Artaza PLLC
469-573-0229
ashley@tremainartaza.com
Myriam E. Matos-Bermudez
787-754-8700
mmatos@dtslaw.com
ANCHORAGE, AK: James Sues Over State-Created Danger
---------------------------------------------------
Conrad James, I, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE; ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ANCHORAGE FIRE DEPARTMENT; ANCHORAGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT; ANCHORAGE HEALTH DEPARTMENT; and JOHN DOES 1-10
(Municipal Employees/Agents), Case No. 3:26-cv-00034-SLG (D.
Alaska, Jan. 20, 2026), is brought alleging that the Defendants
have moved beyond mere negligence into in State-Created Danger,
actively placing citizens positions of unavoidable peril in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
In the dead of the Alaskan winter, the Defendants have constructed
a "bureaucratic machinery of death"--a system that ostensibly
offers aid while systematically stripping homeless individuals,
particularly Alaska Natives and those with disabilities, of their
constitutional personhood. Through a labyrinth of arbitrary
"trespass" bans, discriminatory transit denials, religious
persecution, and the maintenance of squalid, dangerous containment
zones masquerading as "shelters," the Municipality has violated the
social contract and the supreme law of the land, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a "qualified individual with a disability."
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE is final policymaker responsible for the
customs and practices challenged herein.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ART OF SHAVING: Connelly Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Art of
Shaving-FL, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Connelly, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Art of
Shaving-FL, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-20843-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 9,
2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Art of Shaving -- https://www.theartofshaving.com/ -- offers
elegant hand-crafted razors & shaving accessories for men.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Berman, Esq.
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com
ashamis@shamisgentile.com
ASF CONSTRUCTION: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Ramirez" FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Alejandro Ramirez et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. E.N.
Home Improvement Inc. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
22-CV-1086 (EK)(PCG) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric R Komitee of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
the motion to dismiss filed by ASF Construction & Excavation Corp.
and Andre Fernandes for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were
granted leave to amend and were also directed to show cause why
their wage notice and wage statement claims should not be dismissed
for lack of Article III standing.
The named Plaintiffs are construction workers who brought claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against
two corporations and two individuals they alleged functioned
collectively as their joint employers. Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendants failed to pay them for all hours worked and for
overtime, and also failed to provide them with required wage
statements and notices. Defendant Andre Fernandes owns ASF
Construction & Excavation Corp. and oversees its daily operations,
determines how its employees are paid, and establishes work
schedules and hours of work. Defendant Carlos Arevalo owns E.N.
Home Improvement Inc., which would issue corporate checks to pay
ASF workers; those checks often bounced. All Plaintiffs alleged
different dates of employment, ranging from May 2018 to March 2022,
and that they regularly worked more than forty hours per week
without compensation for that time.
The court found that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that ASF
Construction and Fernandes were their employers. On formal control,
the Second Circuit's Carter test requires assessment of whether the
putative employer had the power to hire and fire employees,
supervised and controlled work schedules or conditions of
employment, determined the rate and method of payment, and
maintained employment records. The complaint's allegations against
ASF Construction simply parroted the Carter factors without any
supporting factual content. There were no allegations regarding how
or when ASF Construction and E.N. Home made employment decisions,
no specific decisions cited, and no allegations as to which company
interviewed or offered employment to which Plaintiff.
The allegations regarding Fernandes fared no better. The complaint
alleged that he was responsible for determining work schedules,
determining how Plaintiffs were paid, distributing pay, and
maintaining employment records. The court found these conclusory
allegations lacked specific factual content and simply parroted the
Carter factors. Additionally, the complaint's allegation that
Fernandes distributed pay was in tension with its allegation that
E.N. Home and Arevalo, not Fernandes, paid Plaintiffs.
The court also rejected Plaintiffs' lumping of all Defendants
together, noting it is well established in this Circuit that
Plaintiffs cannot simply lump Defendants together for pleading
purposes. On functional control, under the Zheng factors, the
complaint touched on only two elements - supervision and use of
premises and equipment - both of which were conclusory and
group-pled. The complaint did not allege whether ASF Construction
and E.N. Home employees worked at the same jobsite at the same
time, or where those jobsites were. The court therefore dismissed
the claims against ASF Construction and Fernandes.
The court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend, noting they had not
yet had an opportunity to add further factual allegations about ASF
Construction and the relationship among the Defendants following
the court's earlier ruling on service of process.
The court, on its own initiative, directed Plaintiffs to show cause
why their New York Labor Law wage statement and wage notice claims
should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court noted that technical violations of the Labor Law are not
enough; a Plaintiff must allege actual injuries suffered as a
result of the alleged wage notice and wage statement violation.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/FVBTZNY/Ramirez_et_al_v_EN_Home_Improvement_Inc_et_al__nyedce-22-01086__0073.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
from PacerMonitor.com
Defendants
ASF Construction & Excavation Corp.
Represented by:
Saul D. Zabell
Zabell & Collotta, PC
631-589-7242
szabell@laborlawsny.com
Ryan M. Eden
Zabell & Associates
631-589-7242
reden@laborlawsny.com
Yongjin Bae
Hang & Associates, PLLC
718-353-8588
ybae@hanglaw.com
Carlos Arevalo
Represented by:
Oscar Alvarado
Hang and Associates PLLC
718-353-6288
troylaw@troypllc.com
Yongjin Bae
Hang & Associates, PLLC
718-353-8588
ybae@hanglaw.com
Jian Hang
Hang & Associates, PLLC
718-353-8588
jhang@hanglaw.com
E.N. Home Improvement Inc.
Represented by:
Oscar Alvarado
Hang and Associates PLLC
718-353-6288
troylaw@troypllc.com
Yongjin Bae
Hang & Associates, PLLC
718-353-8588
ybae@hanglaw.com
Jian Hang
Hang & Associates, PLLC
718-353-8588
jhang@hanglaw.com
Andre Fernandes
Represented by:
Yongjin Bae
Hang & Associates, PLLC
718-353-8588
ybae@hanglaw.com
Plaintiffs
Juan De la Rosa
Represented by:
Roman M. Avshalumov
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
718-263-9591
avshalumovr@yahoo.com
James Patrick Peter O'Donnell
718-263-9591
jamespodonnell86@gmail.com
Alejandro Ramirez
Represented by:
Roman M. Avshalumov
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
718-263-9591
avshalumovr@yahoo.com
James Patrick Peter O'Donnell
718-263-9591
jamespodonnell86@gmail.com
Mediator
Andrew Kimler
Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP
3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 1E9
Lake Success, NY 11042
BUTLER SOHO: Faces Cavaliere Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNY CAVALIERE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUTLER SOHO LLC d/b/a BUTLER BAKE SHOP and
ROD COLIGADO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01060 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 6, 2026) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act,
seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants'
unlawful labor practices.
According to the complaint, Butler Bake Shop has failed to pay
Plaintiff Cavaliere and other similarly situated workers overtime
pay at time and a half of their hourly rate, even though they
worked up to 50 hours per workweek. The Defendants also failed to
provide the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-managerial workers
with: (1) spread-of-hours pay when they worked shifts spanning over
10 hours; (2) wage notices at their time of hiring and when their
wage rates changed; and (3) accurate wage statements with each
payment of wages.
Plaintiff Cavaliere has worked as a food preparer, cook, and runner
for Defendants since approximately November 2021.
Butler Soho LLC owns, operates, and does business as Butler Bake
Shop, a bakery with locations in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
sanchez@pechmanlaw.com
CEDAR POINT: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Cedar Point
Health data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who had their information exposed in the incident, including those
who received notice of the Cedar Point Health data breach or
otherwise believe they are affected.
Cedar Point Health Security Incident: What Happened?
On June 16, 2025, Cedar Point Health, a medical services provider
based in Western Colorado, detected unauthorized access to its
network. Steps were then taken to secure the network and initiate
an investigation, which ultimately revealed that files might have
been accessed or taken on June 15, 2025.
After a review, Cedar Point Health concluded on January 27, 2026
that the compromised files possibly contained personal or protected
health information. The data breach potentially exposed
individuals' names, addresses, birthdates, medical and clinical
information, health insurance and financial account details, and
identification numbers like driver's licenses, passports, and
Social Security numbers or ITINs. The types of exposed information
varied by individual.
Those affected by the Cedar Point Health data breach should be
notified by mail provided the company has their mailing address.
What You Can Do After the Cedar Point Health Data Breach
If your information was exposed in the Cedar Point Health data
breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a
class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy,
time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force Cedar Point Health to ensure
they take proper steps to protect the information they were
entrusted with. [GN]
CENTRAL STATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mundell Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANET MUNDELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL STATES DERMATOLOGY SERVICES, LLC
d/b/a DOCS DERMATOLOGY GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00135-DRC
(S.D. Ohio, February 6, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the
Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and
Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information
and protected health information, culminating in a massive and
preventable data breach.
On January 26, 2026, the Defendant had published a press release on
Morningstar in an attempt to notify its affected patients of the
data breach. Due to Defendant's negligent failure to secure and
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information,
cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to
commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal
lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal
damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems
just and proper.
Central States Dermatology Services, LLC provides medical,
surgical, and cosmetic dermatology services, as well as conducting
certain clinical trials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Ave S, Ste 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
CLASSIC T-SHIRT: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CLASSIC T-SHIRT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01369 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) is
a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.theclassictshirt.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on October 29, 2025, to access Defendant's website from
his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's Short Sleeve Crew
Neck shirt, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal
access to Defendant's online goods, content and services, relates
the complaint.
The complaint adds that the website contains access barriers that
prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and
screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited
to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly
formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Classic T-Shirt Company, LLC operates the website that offers
sells T-shirts, long sleeves, sweatshirts, and related
apparel.[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
COCONUT FUNDING: Phillips Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coconut Funding
Corporation. The case is styled as Michael Phillips, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coconut Funding
Corporation, Case No. CACE26002285 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.,
Feb. 9, 2026).
Coconut Funding -- https://coconutfunding.com/ -- specializes in
providing alternative business finance solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rena A. Lerner, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, Florida 33305
Phone: 813-340-8838
Email: rena@jibraellaw.com
CORONA FAST FOOD: Sotamba Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corona Fast Food
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Luis Sotamba, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Corona Fast Food Corp.
doing business as: Kennedy Fried Chicken, Mohammad Yakub, Manzoor
Ahmed, Case No. 1:26-cv-00742 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
Corona Fast Food Corp. doing business as Kennedy Fried Chicken in
Corona, New York offers a variety of dining options for lunch or
dinner, ranging from casual to more upscale choices.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
COVETRUS INC: $70MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 13
------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING
AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of common stock of
Covetrus, Inc. ("Covetrus") (Nasdaq: "CVET") whose shares were
exchanged for $21.00 per share in cash on October 13,2022.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Bucks County Employees'
Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"), Individually and on behalf of the
Class, have reached a proposed settlement with defendants Clayton
Dubilier & Rice, LLC, CD&R VFC Holdings, L.P., CD&R Investment
Associates IX, Ltd., Ravi Sachdev, and Sandra Peterson
(collectively, "Defendants" for $70,000,000 In cash (the
"Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated In the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release
between Plaintiffs, Defendants and Covetrus, dated January 29, 2026
(the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at
www.CovetrusStockholderLitigation.com. If approved by the Court,
the Settlement will receive all claims in the Action as against
Defendants.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on April 13, 2026
at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice Chancellor,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North
King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by Zoom (in
the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (1) determine
whether the Action may be finally maintained as a non-opt-out class
action and whether the Class should be finally certified, for
purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2): (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs
may be finally appointed as the representatives for the Class and
Plaintiffs' Counsel finally appointed as counsel for the Class, and
whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately
represented the interests of the Class in the Action; (iii)
determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (iv)
determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (v) determine whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair
and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine
whether the application by Plaintiffs' counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees end expenses, and any incentive awards to
Plaintiffs, should be approved; (vii) hear and rule on any
objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
and/or to the application by Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, including any incentive awards to
Plaintiffs; and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly
be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any
updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to
the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or
remote appeerances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.CovetrusStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action end the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at Covetrus Stockholder Litigation, c/o
Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded
from the Settlement website,
www.CovetrusStockholderLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Class Members" in accordance with the proposed Plan of
Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as
is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation,
all Class Members who held or beneficially owned shares of Covetrus
common stock at the Closing on October 13, 2022 and therefore
received, or were entitled to receive, the Transaction
Consideration for their "Eligible Shares" will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Class
Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which
will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net
Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares. As
explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Class Members
will be made in the same manner in which Class Members received the
Transaction Consideration. Class Members do not have to submit a
claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' counsels application for an award
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and any incentive awards to
Plaintiffs in connection with the Settlement must be filed with the
Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs' counsel end Defendants'
counsel such that they are received no later than March 20, 2026,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiffs' counsel.
Request for Notice:
Covetrus Stockholder Litigation
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Contact Plaintiffs Counsel for all other inquiries:
Michael J. Barry
Rebecca A. Musarra
Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
mbarry@gelaw.com
rmusarra@gelaw.com
Ned Weinberger
MichaelC.Wagner
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
nweinberger@labaton.com
mwagner@labaton.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Dated: February 11, 2026
DARLING INGREDIENTS: Miles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MILES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DARLING INGREDIENTS INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-00318-X (N.D. Tex., February 6, 2026) challenges labor
policies and practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor
Standards and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's practice and policy of
not paying Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective members for all
earned overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times
their properly calculated regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek is a violation of the FLSA and
the state law.
Named Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
November 29, 2022, until December 4, 2024, as an hourly, non-exempt
manufacturing employee. Specifically, Named Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant as an hourly Cooker at a rendering facility in Iowa.
Darling Ingredients Inc. is a Dallas, Texas-based company that
collects and recycles animal processing by-products and used
restaurant cooking oil.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
DAVIDSON HOTEL: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Bunch Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEFFAN BUNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIDSON HOTEL COMPANY LLC, a foreign
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00067 (E.D.
Wash., February 5, 2026) is a collective and class action on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated current and former
hourly or non-exempt employees of Defendant who were denied proper
payment for all hours worked and overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington law, and were denied
meal and rest periods as prescribed by and pursuant to Washington
law.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant or its predecessor as
a sous chef since approximately May of 2016, excluding some periods
of separation.
Davidson Hotel Company LLC is a foreign limited liability company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devin Kathleen Epp, Esq.
Derek Moretz, Esq.
LAWYERSFORJUSTICEPC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (818) 587-8423
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com
DENTON COUNTY MHMR: Thomas Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denton County MHMR
Center. The case is styled as Squire Thomas, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Denton County MHMR Center, Case No. 26-0836-477 (Tex. Dist. Ct.,
Denton Cty., Jan. 23, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Injury/Damages - Not Motor Vehicle."
Denton County MHMR Center is a local Non-Profit Community Center
specializing in the treatment of and service delivery to
individuals in Denton County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
4131 N Central EXPY STE 900
Dallas, TX
Phone: 800-237-1277
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE: Miller Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct General
Insurance Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Rebecka Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc. doing business as: Direct
Auto Insurance, Case No. 2:26-cv-01480 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Direct General Insurance Co. -- https://www.directauto.com/ --
operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property and
casualty insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
DMI GC HOLDINGS: Money Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nia Money, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. DMI GC HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 2:26-cv-10491-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich., Feb. 11, 2026), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by Plaintiff
arising from Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA by failing
to pay proper overtime wages.
The Defendant classified its customer service representatives as
non-exempt and tasked them with the primary job duty of providing
over-the-phone customer service. The Defendant violated the FLSA by
systematically failing to compensate its customer service
representatives for work tasks completed before and after their
scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's
timekeeping system, which resulted in customer service
representatives not being paid for all overtime hours worked,
overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime and in non
overtime workweeks, for regular hours.
More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate its customer
service representatives for the substantial time they spent turning
on and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to
clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system, and shutting
down/logging out of various computer programs and software after
they clocked out at the end of each day, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked remotely for Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt deposit services customer representative from August 7,
2024 through September 14, 2024.
The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company, and is
registered to do business in Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Phone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
DUKES INTERIOR: Faces Barreto Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL BARRETO, Plaintiff v. DUKES INTERIOR PAINTING CORP. and
DUKE'S INTERIOR PAINTING OF NY, INC. (DBA DUKES PAINTING) and
VISARE KRASNIQI and JETMIR SHALA, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:26-cv-01015 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2026) is a class action
arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the related provisions from
Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.
The complaint seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in the amount
of $61,187.50, liquidated damages equal to 100% of unpaid wages for
willful violations, statutory damages of $5,000 for failure to
provide proper wage notices, statutory damages of $5,000 for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees for Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
painter from approximately March 19, 2023 through November 15,
2025.
Dukes Interior Painting Corp. is a construction company based in
New York that focuses on interior painting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE: Fulton Sues Over Misleading Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fulton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, Case No.
5:26-cv-00582-PCP (N.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2026), is brought on behalf
of herself and all similarly situated Wipes consumers who purchased
Wet Ones Antibacterial Hand and Wet Ones Hydrating Hand Sanitizer
(collectively, the “Products”) which were misleading and
falsely marketed as hypoallergenic in violations of California’s
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; California’s Unfair Competition
Law; Violation of California’s False Advertising Law; Violations
of Consumer Protection Statutes; Breach of Express Warranties; and
Unjust Enrichment.
The Defendant markets the Products as being “hypoallergenic.”
However, unbeknownst to reasonable consumers, the Products contain
fragrance—a chemical allergen that dermatologists and
toxicologists widely recognize as a common cause of allergic
contact dermatitis. In each event, the inclusion of these known
fragrance allergens renders Defendant’s “hypoallergenic”
claims false and misleading.
Prior to making her purchases, Plaintiff saw and relied on
Defendant’s representations that the Products were
“hypoallergenic.” Based on the representation, Plaintiff
reasonably believed that the Products were formulated to reduce the
likelihood of allergic reactions and did not contain commonly
recognized fragrance allergens. Plaintiff relied on this
representation when she decided to purchase the Products.
Accordingly, this representation was part of the basis of her
bargain, in that Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products on
the same terms had she known that the representation was untrue,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s Wet Ones Fresh Scent Products
for her personal use multiple times during the applicable statute
of limitations, with her most recent purchase occurring from
Amazon.com on July 6, 2025, while residing in San Jose,
California.
The Defendant markets the Products as being
“hypoallergenic.”[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC.
140 Broadway, Fl. 46
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com
nsari@gucovschilaw.com
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unsafe Dermaplaning Tools
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers filed a class action
lawsuit against Edgewell Personal Care Company and Schick US.
Why: The plaintiffs allege Schick's dermaplaning products are
falsely advertised as safe for at-home use.
Where: The Schick class action was filed in Connecticut federal
court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses Schick of falsely advertising
its dermaplaning tools as safe for at-home use.
Plaintiffs Jillian Frederick and Ching Yu Yang filed the class
action complaint against Edgewell Personal Care Company and Schick
US on Oct. 3 in Connecticut federal court, alleging violations of
state and federal consumer laws.
Dermaplaning, a popular skin care treatment, has gained traction
for its ability to exfoliate the skin and remove fine facial hair,
leaving a smooth and radiant complexion, the plaintiffs allege.
In response to its rising popularity, Schick began selling
dermaplaning devices directly to consumers, advertising them as
tools that provide "expert" care at home, the Schick class action
lawsuit says.
However, the plaintiffs argue that using these tools without
professional supervision poses significant risks, including cuts,
infections and long-term dermatological damage.
Schick's marketing claims allegedly conflict with medical guidance
The plaintiffs allege that Schick's marketing misleads consumers
into believing they can safely use the tools at home despite
warnings from medical professionals that the procedure should be
performed by trained aestheticians or dermatologists.
The plaintiffs allege that they purchased Schick's dermaplaning
devices based on the company's misleading advertising and were
unaware of the potential risks.
They claim they would not have bought the products had they known
the truth and argue that the company's failure to disclose these
risks constitutes false advertising and a breach of consumer
trust.
The class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United
States who purchased Schick's dermaplaning devices.
The plaintiffs are suing for violations of California and New York
consumer laws and for breach of warranty and contract. They are
seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and
a jury trial.
In separate class action, a customer is suing Edgewell Personal
Care Brands alleging the company falsely advertised its Wet Ones
antibacterial hand wipes as hypoallergenic.
The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Miller, Laurie Rubinow,
Rrita Osmani and Natalie Finkelman Bennet of Miller Shah LLP and
Zachary Arbitman and George A. Donnelly of Feldman Shepherd
Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP.
The Schick class action lawsuit is Frederick, et al. v. Edgewell
Personal Care Company, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01663, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut. [GN]
EMPIRE HOSPITALITY: Tarpeh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Hospitality,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Siehannah Ploh Tarpeh, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Empire Hospitality,
LLC, Does 1 to 100, Case No. 26CV003293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Empire -- https://empirelodging.com/ -- is a GSA contract holder
providing high quality lodging, transport, and meals for government
programs and employees across the country.[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
EVOLUTIONS BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLUTIONS BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01366 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.bedstu.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on August 5, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's leather shoes, but
encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content and services.
The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and
screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited
to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly
formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, adds the complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Evolutions Brands, Inc. operates the website that offers
handcrafted leather footwear, including boots, sneakers, sandals,
and casual shoes, as well as related accessories such as belts and
leather care products.[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
FARMERS GROUP INC: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Tiffany Johnson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Group, Inc. doing
business as: Farmers Insurance, Case No. 1:26-cv-01468 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 9, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Farmers Insurance Group -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is an
American insurer group of vehicles, homes and small businesses and
also provides other insurance and financial services products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
FAY SERVICING LLC: Ramirez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fay Servicing, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Matilde Ramirez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fay Servicing, LLC;
Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee of MFRA Trust
2014-2 and in its capacity as trustee for other similarly situated
mortgage-backed securitization trusts, Case No. 57297/2026 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty., Feb. 10, 2026).
The nature of suit stated as Commercial - Contract.
Fay Servicing, LLC -- https://www.fayservicing.com/ -- provides
mortgage lending services. The Company offers mortgages, loans,
refinance, licensing, and other related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Andrew Higgs, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES A. HIGGS
45 N Broad St.
Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450
Phone: +1 973-834-8044
FERRARA CANDY: Chhin Sues Over Arsenic Content in Candy Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHANNY CHHIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY, an
Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01186-KAW (N.D.
Cal., February 6, 2026) is a consumer class action brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other members of the
Class, against the Defendant for its failure to disclose on its
packaging that its candy products contain (or have a material risk
of containing) arsenic.
According to the complaint, nowhere on the Defendant's products'
packaging is it disclosed that the contents contain (or have a
material risk of containing) arsenic. Based on these omissions, no
reasonable consumer had any reason to know, suspect, or expect that
the Products contained arsenic.
Furthermore, reasonable consumers like Plaintiff, who were
purchasing the products for consumption for their children,
themselves and/ or their family members, would consider the
presence (or risk) of arsenic to be a material fact when
considering whether to purchase the products. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers would not have purchased
the products or would have paid substantially less for the products
if they had known about this risk, says the suit.
Ferrara Candy Company is involved in the manufacture, design,
testing, packaging, labeling, marketing, advertising, promotion,
distribution, and sales of the candy products throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arturo Peña Miranda, Esq.
Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
STERLINGTON, PLLC
228 Park Avenue South, Suite 97956
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 433-2993
E-mail: arturo.pena@sterlingtonlaw.com
jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Christopher J. Pollack, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLC
17 East Main Street, #200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 266-2893
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: jmartin@awkolaw.com
cpollack@awkolaw.com
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Cork & Cellar Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cork & Cellar, LLC, Angela Sterling dba
Angela Sterling Photography, and Vladimir Midoun dba V Midoun
Photography, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A., WORLDPAY, INC., WORLDPAY, LLC,
WORLDPAY ISO AND ECOMMERCE, LLC, and ENHANCED PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC,
Case No. 2026-CH-00123 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 10, 2026, and
assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01523.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of two classes, termed the Section 632 Class and the Section
632.7 class. The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: Violation
of California Penal Code Section 632 against Fifth Third Bank;
Violation of California Penal Code Section 632 against Worldpay;
and (3) Violation of California Penal Code Section 632 against
Enhanced Payment; Violation of California Penal Code Section 632.7
against Fifth Third; Violation of California Penal Code Section
632.7 against Worldpay; and Violation of California Penal Code
Section 632.7 against Enhanced Payment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
Nicholas J. Secco, Esq.
Olivia E. Sullivan, Esq.
Andrea C. Hoover, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 212-4949
Facsimile: (312) 767-9192
Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com
nsecco@beneschlaw.com
osullivan@beneschlaw.com
ahoover@beneschlaw.com
- and -
Charles G. Wentworth, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF LOFGREN & WENTWORTH, P.C.
536 Crescent Blvd. Suite 200
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone: (630) 469-7100
Email: cwentworth@elrlaw.com
FLOOR AND DECOR: Saldivar Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as RIKKI SALDIVAR and FRANCISCO ALEMAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV33551, was
removed from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on January 8, 2026.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00714-ODW-MAR to
the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action against Defendant: (1)
failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and
permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business
expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (7)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8)
unfair business practices.
Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. provides flooring
products. The Company offers vinyl coverings, ceramic tiles, floor
molding, decorative glass, counter tops, finishing accessories, and
wood flooring products. Floor and Decor Outlets of America serves
customers in the United States.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Whang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dwhang@seyfarth.com
- and -
Gina Gi, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
E-mail: ggi@seyfarth.com
FLOWERS4DREAMS LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS4DREAMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01364 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.flowersfordreams.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on June 27, 2025, to access
Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for
Defendant's bouquet products, but encountered barriers that denied
his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and
services.
The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, asserts the
complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
FLOWERS4DREAMS, LLC operates the website that offers handcrafted
bouquets for various occasions.[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
FRIENDS OF FAMILY: Weissinger Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stephanie Weissinger, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. FRIENDS OF FAMILY HEALTH
CENTER, Case No. 25STCV37642 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 9, 2026, and
assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01345.
This action falls squarely within the stated statutory protection.
According to the operative complaint, this civil action arises out
of Friends of Family's alleged failure to properly safeguard and
protect the personally identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") provided to Friends of Family
by its patients, including the Plaintiff, in relation to Friends of
Family's provision of medical treatment services. This action seeks
damages from Friends of Family, in addition to declaratory and
injunctive relief. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleged the following
causes of action: Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Implied
Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and
Negligent Training, Hiring, and Supervision.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James F. Monagle, Esq.
Edgar F. Navarrete, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (267) 930-1529
Email: jmonagle@mullen.law
enavarrete@mullen.law
GAMESTOP INC: Weber Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
JAKE WEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GAMESTOP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-00060-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., January 8, 2026) is a class
action suit brought against GameStop, Inc. for violating the
California Digital Property Rights Transparency Law.
On its website -- https://www.gamestop.com -- the Defendant tells
consumers the option to "buy" or "purchase" digital copies of many
of the same video games they can purchase physical copies of. But
when consumers "buy" digital versions of video games through
GameStop's website, they don't receive the same property rights
they would have, had they purchased physical copies of the games
through its brick-and-mortar stores. Instead, in many cases, they
receive "a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license," to
access the game, which is maintained in the video game
manufacturer's sole discretion, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and members of the Class were damaged and have
suffered economic injuries as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's unlawful and/or unfair business practices, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff purchased a digital copy of Elden Ring - Nightreign
on Defendant's website on June 23, 2025. Before this purchase, he
encountered a purchase flow substantially similar to the one
depicted in this complaint.
GameStop, Inc. develops, owns, and operates gamestop.com, which is
used throughout California and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
50 Main Street, Suite 475
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 874-0710
Facsimile: (914) 206-3656
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
GOFUNDME INC: Munoz Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
SAL MUNOZ; and SHIRLEY VANASCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOFUNDME INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:26-cv-01217 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2026) alleges violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendant's
ecommerce website, www.gofundme.com, (the "Website"), the Defendant
displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. Defendant's cookie
banner discloses that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives
users the option to control how they are tracked and how their
personal data is used.
Contrary to users' express rejection of cookies and tracking
technologies, Defendant caused cookies, including the Third
Parties' cookies, to be sent to Plaintiffs' and other visitors'
browsers, stored on their devices, and transmitted to the Third
Parties along with user data. These cookies permitted the Third
Parties to track and collect data in real time regarding Website
visitors' behaviors and communications, including their browsing
history, visit history, website interactions, user input data,
demographic information, interests and preferences, shopping
behaviors, device information, referring URLs, session information,
user identifiers, and/or geolocation data—including whether a
user is located in California, says the suit.
GoFundMe Inc. operates a social fundraising platform. The Company
enables clients to raise money online for life's important moments
and personal causes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
todd@gutridesafier.com
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Cywinski Suit Removed to D. Vermont
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabrielle Cywinski, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. GREEN MOUNTAIN HIGHER EDUCATION
CONSORTIUM, INC., Case No. 25-CV-05248 was removed from the Vermont
Superior Court, Chittenden County, to the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont on Feb. 9, 2026, and assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-00030.
The State Court Action alleges that Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and the putative class' personally identifying
information ("PII"), resulting in a data security incident
impacting Defendant which occurred on or around between October 30,
2024 and November 20, 2024 (the "Incident"). The Plaintiff alleges
that the Incident resulted in the unauthorized access to and/or
acquisition of the PII of approximately 3,184 individuals. The
Complaint in the State Court Action alleges causes of action
sounding in: negligence; breach of implied contract; unjust
enrichment; and breach of fiduciary duty.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. James Mackall, Esq.
SHILLEN MACKALL SELDON & SPICER, P.C.
21710 Maxham Meadow Way, Suite 2A
Woodstock, VT 05091
Email: djmackall@PromotingJustice.com
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven J. Zakrzewski, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
145 Pine Haven Shores Road, Suite 2999
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
Phone: (802) 448-6048
Email: szakrzewski@grsm.com
- and -
Joseph Salvo, Esq.
John T. Mills, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
One Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 269-5500
Fax: (212) 269-5505
Email: jsalvo@grsm.com
jtmills@grsm.com
GSI TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of GSI Technology Inc. (NASDAQ: GSIT) resulting from
allegations that GSI Technology may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased GSI Technology securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=52527 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 3, 2026, a post was issued on
Stockwits in which it stated that "GSI is almost certainly hiding
that their chip did not run Gemma-3 at all, only the pre-generation
RAG phase. APU lack the MAC units required for matrix
multiplication, which is critical for AI workloads."
On this news, GSI Technology's stock price fell $1.08 per share, or
14.2%, to close at $6.52 per share on February 4, 2026.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that
time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a
Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities
Class Action Services for number of securities class action
settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each
year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for
investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by
law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys
have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
HEARTLAND PIZZA: Daigle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kajsa Daigle, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. HEARTLAND PIZZA LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00268-JRS-MKK
(S.D. Ind., Feb. 9, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards
Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
owed to themself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed
by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores.
The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages).
The Defendant's systematic failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback" to Defendant such that
the hourly wages they pay to Plaintiff and Defendant's other
delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all outstanding
obligations to Defendant. The Defendant fails to reasonably
approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses to
such an extent that their drivers' net wages are diminished beneath
the federal minimum wage requirements. In sum, Defendant's
reimbursement policy and methodology fail to reflect the realities
of delivery drivers' automobile expenses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and "Class Members" are Defendant's current and
former delivery drivers.
The Defendant owns and operates several Pizza Hut franchise stores,
including stores within this District and this Division.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550
Dallas, TX 75243
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
HINT INC: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
---------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. Hint, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01391 (N.D.
Ill., February 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.drinkhint.com to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Cole and other blind or
visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
On December 9, 2025, Plaintiff Cole was searching online for
sugar-free flavored water. During his search, he came across the
Defendant's website and decided to explore the website with the
intent to make a purchase. However, Plaintiff Cole encountered
multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing
the order. Specifically, the navigation menu contained sub-menu
elements that were not accessible using the keyboard. The Plaintiff
was unable to use the "Tab" or arrow keys to access or select items
within the sub-menus. This prevented him from fully browsing
product categories and limited his ability to locate relevant
purchasing options, says the suit.
Plaintiff Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Hint, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of flavored
still water, sparkling water, variety packs, bulk cases, and
subscription bundles focused on sugar-free, unsweetened hydration
beverages.[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
E-mail: Achan@ealg.law
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Carlson Sues Over False Company Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
IAN CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JACQUELINE E.
SHEA, and PETER KIES, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00803 (E.D. Pa.,
February 6, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of
the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Inovio
securities between October 10, 2023 and December 26, 2025, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
Inovio's lead product candidate is INO-3107 for the treatment of
recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, a life-long, rare disease of
the respiratory tract caused by HPV infection. At all relevant
times, the Defendants touted the prospects of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration granting accelerated approval and/or priority
review for the Biologics License Application (BLA) of INO-3107 for
the treatment of RRP.
The complaint relates that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) manufacturing for
Inovio's CELLECTRA medical device was deficient; (ii) accordingly,
Inovio was unlikely to submit the INO-3107 BLA to the FDA by the
second half of 2024; (iii) Inovio had insufficient information to
justify the INO-3107 BLA's eligibility for FDA accelerated approval
or priority review; (iv) accordingly, INO-3107's overall regulatory
and commercial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times, says the complaint.
Inovio is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery,
development, and commercialization of DNA medicines to treat and
protect people from diseases associated with, inter alia, human
papillomavirus.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily C. Finestone, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: efinestone@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
INSTACART: Mollins Suit Removed to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kenneth M. Mollins, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Instacart (Maplebear
Inc.), Case No. 632386/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 9,
2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00724.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
putative class members, asserts claims against Instacart for
allegedly engaging in deceptive acts and practices in violation of
New York General Business Law Section 349 (Count I), false
advertising in violation of New York General Business Law Section
350 (Count II), breach of contract (Count III), unjust enrichment
(Count IV), fraud (Count V), and fraud in the inducement (Count
VI). These claims arise from Plaintiff's allegations concerning
Instacart's subscription membership program (known as
"Instacart+"), which Plaintiff characterizes as involving
"deliberate, systematic, and concealed deception" of "long-term
subscription members."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 451-9621
Fax: (212) 486-2093
Email: minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
INTREPID STUDIOS: Burdecki Balks at Layoff Without Prior Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB BURDECKI and ZAKARY STRANGE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTREPID STUDIOS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00728-AGS-JLB (S.D. Cal., February 5,
2026) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the other
similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant, who
were terminated without cause, and who were not provided 60 days'
advance written notice of their terminations, as required by the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees, seek to be paid their accrued paid time off and unpaid
wages for all employees. They further seek to recover under
California and Ohio state laws for Defendant's failure to pay wages
owed for their final weeks of work, unused paid time off, and to
issue a final paystub, and waiting time penalties, for themselves
and the other similarly situated employees.
Plaintiff Burdecki was employed by Defendant as a Gameplay Engineer
I and worked remotely and reported to, and received assignments
from Defendant's facility located in San Diego, California from
January 2025 until his termination on February 2, 2026.
Intrepid Studios, Inc. was founded by John Moore and Steven Sharif
in 2015 that produced video games and related products in the
entertainment industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gail C. Lin, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com
- and -
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
ISSA'S SCHAUMBURG CORP: Barcelo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yordanis Barcelo and Alberto Mollejas, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Issa's Schaumburg Corp, Isass
Venezuelan Food, LLC, Luisa Estrada de Escalona, and Carlos
Escalona, Case No. 1:26-cv-01489 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 9, 2026), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for failure to pay all overtime wages
due for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiffs also sue under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act ("IWPCA") for failure to pay all wages when due.
In violation of the FLSA and the IMWL, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one
half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of forty in a workweek. Defendants also violated the IWPCA
by failing to pay Plaintiffs all wages when due. As a remedy for
Defendants' acts, Plaintiffs seek relief for unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages under the FLSA, state law remedies including
treble damages and interest under the IMWL, and attorneys' fees and
costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant Isass LLC at a restaurant
operating as Issas Venezuelan Food in Illinois.
The Defendants operates a restaurant located in Schaumburg,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 420-6784
Email: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com
JERSEY MIKE'S: Brewer Sues Over Undisclosed Delivery Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BREWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JERSEY MIKE'S, INC. and JERSEY MIKE'S
FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00535 (C.D.
Cal., February 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition
Law, and other state consumer protection statutes.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other consumers can
purchase orders for pickup or delivery from Defendants' local
Jersey Mike's restaurant by using their uniform online ordering
system on the Jersey Mike's mobile application, which consumers can
download on their personal mobile device.
The retail prices of Jersey Mike's products are identical whether a
customer makes a purchase for pickup or delivery in the App.
However, Jersey Mike's imposes a $2.99 "Delivery Charge" for
delivery orders, which is disclosed on a customer's Order Summary
at checkout. When consumers place a delivery order on the App, they
are charged an undisclosed service fee, which is hidden within a
line item labeled "Taxes & Fees." This service fee is charged in
addition to the conspicuously disclosed delivery charge, says the
suit.
As a result of the service fee, consumers pay a uniformly higher
price for delivery orders than advertised. For this reason, the
Plaintiff seeks damages and other equitable remedies both
individually and for the proposed classes.
Jersey Mike's is submarine sandwich franchise that operates over
3,000 locations in all 50 states of the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (615) 921-6501
E-mail: astraus@milberg.com
- and -
Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
LEE SEGUI, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
E-mail: eruben@leesegui.com
tpacheco@leesegui.com
- and -
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
LEE SEGUI, PLLC
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
E-mail: hsegui@leesegui.com
JMP PIZZA INC: Anglin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Anglin, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. JMP PIZZA INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00030 (E.D. Tenn., Feb.
9, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to themself
and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at
their pizza delivery stores.
The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages).
The Defendant has reimbursed delivery drivers less than the
reasonably approximate amount of their automobile expenses to such
an extent that it diminishes these employees' wages beneath the
federal minimum wage. The Defendant knew or should have known that
their pay and reimbursement policies, practices and methodology
result in failure to compensate delivery drivers at the federal
minimum wage. The Defendant, pursuant to their policy and practice,
violated the FLSA by refusing and failing to pay federal minimum
wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The
Plaintiff and all similarly situated delivery drivers are victims
of a uniform and employer-based compensation and reimbursement
policy. This uniform policy, in violation of the FLSA, has been
applied, and continues to be applied, to all delivery driver
employees in Defendant's stores, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and "Class Members" are Defendant's current and
former delivery drivers.
The Defendant owns and operates several Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
11300 North Central Expy., Suite 550
Dallas, TX 75243
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com
KAMI VISION INCORPORATED: Maniquiz Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kami Vision
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Jeremiah Maniquiz,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Kami Vision Incorporated doing business as:
YI Technologies, Does 1-20, Case No. 5:26-cv-00233-JGB-DTB (C.D.
Cal., Jan. 20, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act.
Kami Vision Incorporated -- https://kamivision.com/en-us -- designs
and develops software solutions. The Company offers platform where
developers contribute artificial intelligence models.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: 323-306-4234
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Lemus Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kindercare Education
LLC. The case is styled as Rosa Perez Lemus, Jennifer Spreckels,
Leota Ellis, Stacia Michalewicz, Erin Edgley, Serena Townsend,
Sarah Ramirez, Kimberly Theisen f/k/n Rogers, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kindercare
Education LLC, Case No. 603131/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.,
Feb. 10, 2026).
The nature of suit stated as Torts - Other (New York Labor Law).
KinderCare Learning Centers, LLC -- https://www.kindercare.com/ --
is an American operator of for-profit child care and early
childhood education facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marijana Frances Matura, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-499-9100
LABORATORY EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Oberhausen Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA OBERHAUSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORATORY EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02132 (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 9, 2026) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Oberhausen was employed by the Defendant as a lab
courier.
Laboratory Express, Inc was founded in 1997. The company's line of
business includes the arranging of transportation of freight and
cargo. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles P. Yezbak, III (TNR BPR # 018965
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
P.O. Box 159033
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
Email: Yezbak@yezbacklaw.com
David R. Ricksecker
- and -
Patrick J. Miller-Bartley
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telehone: (202) 833-8855
Email: dr@mselaborlaw.com
pmb@mselaborlaw.com
LENOVO UNITED: Christy Alleges Unlawful Sharing of Private Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER CHRISTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:26-cv-01133-LJC (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2026) arises from the
Defendant's unlawful data-sharing of American citizens' sensitive
information with a foreign adversary of the United States in direct
violation of the U.S. Department of Justice's Data Security
Program.
In April 2025, the Department of Justice implemented the Data
Security Program, a national security program codified at 28 C.F.R.
Part 202, known as "Bulk Data Transfer Rule," and more formally
known as the "Rule Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal
Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered
Persons."
The complaint relates that when Plaintiff visited www.lenovo.com,
to browse for products and, ultimately, to purchase a Legion Tower
7i Gen 10 (Intel) with RTX(TM) 5080, the Defendant facilitated the
interception and disclosure of the full-page context and persistent
identifiers to third parties. Allegedly, Lenovo knowingly and
systematically used communications and associated covered personal
identifiers intercepted from American citizens for the purpose of
sharing U.S. consumers' data with covered persons without the
safeguards required by U.S. law.
In direct violation of the DOJ Rule, Lenovo -- through its
automated advertising infrastructure and associated databases --
transmits Plaintiff's and potentially millions of other American
consumers' data to China, alleges the suit.
Lenovo is a U.S.-based operating subsidiary of Lenovo Group
Limited, a Hong Kong-incorporated multinational technology company
with its principal corporate operations headquartered in Beijing,
China. The Company makes, markets, and sells computers, computer
accessories, and related products like tablets, monitors, servers,
and storage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victor J. Sandoval, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
111 W. Ocean Blvd Ste 426
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 534-5907
E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
LIVE NATION: Illegally Installs Tracking Software, Scruggs Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY SCRUGGS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
26STCV01177 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 8, 2026) is a
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
California residents who have accessed and used www.livenation.com
-- a website that Defendant provides for public access and use
pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant surreptitiously installs
and operates tracking software on the website without providing
users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The
software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's
commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted
advertising, and the monetization of consumer data.
To achieve these goals, the Defendant enables third-party
technologies on its website that function as unlawful pen registers
and/or trap-and-trace devices or processes. These technologies
automatically capture and transmit non-content dialing, routing,
addressing, and signaling information including Internet Protocol
addresses, page URLs, referrer headers, timestamps, session
identifiers, and device or browser identifiers to third-party
servers in real time during users' interactions with the website,
says the suit.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California, that
owns, operates, and/or controls the website, an online platform
through which LIVE NATION promotes, markets, and facilitates access
to live entertainment events and related services for
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
- and -
Ross Cornell, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC
40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Telephone: (562) 612-1708
E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com
LIVING ROOM: Perez Balks at Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE D. BATZ PEREZ, Plaintiff v. LIVING ROOM RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE
INC AND LIVING ROOM RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE 2.0 INC ALI ZULQURNAIN
and JULIA MALKOVA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00677
(E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2026) is an action on Plaintiff's behalf and
on behalf of other employees in similar positions against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
This complaint is brought for federal and state claims relating to
unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours wages,
and failure to maintain records.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
spread of hours pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff was employed first as a dishwasher from approximately
August 2021 through December 2023, and later as a kitchen
assistant/sous-chef helper from January 2024 through the end of his
employment on December 22, 2024.
Living Room Restaurant and Lounge Inc. is engaged in the restaurant
business based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
LOCKTON SOUTHEAST: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $9.9M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Lockton Southeast has agreed to pay
$9.9 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to
resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach.
The Lockton Companies settlement benefits individuals who were
notified of the Lockton Southeast data breach that occurred on Nov.
20, 2024.
Plaintiffs in the Lockton Companies data breach class action
lawsuit claim that Lockton Southeast failed to prevent a 2024 data
breach that compromised sensitive information such as Social
Security numbers and health data. The breach could have been
prevented with reasonable cybersecurity measures, the class action
lawsuit contends.
Lockton Southeast is an insurance company that offers a variety of
insurance products and services.
The company has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $9.9
million settlement to resolve the Lockton Companies data breach
class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Lockton Companies settlement, class members
can receive either a cash payment or a cash payment and additional
benefits.
Class members who experienced documented losses as a result of the
data breach can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for these
losses. These losses can include unreimbursed fraud or identity
theft losses, professional fees, credit expenses and miscellaneous
charges.
Class members who did not experience documented losses can receive
a pro rata share of the settlement fund. Exact payments will vary
depending on the number of participating class members.
All class members are eligible for one year of free credit
monitoring through CyEx Financial Shield Complete. This service
includes credit monitoring, transaction monitoring, identity
monitoring, bank account monitoring, $1 million in identity theft
insurance and more.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 7, 2026.
The final approval hearing for the Lockton Companies settlement is
scheduled for May 7, 2026.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by April 7, 2026.
Who's Eligible
The settlement class consists of all living persons in the United
States who were notified of the Lockton data breach.
Potential Award
Up to $5,000 in documented losses, alternative pro-rata cash
payout
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit reports,
tax documents, receipts, bills or invoices.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/07/2026
Case Name
Beasley, et al. v. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies LLC, et
al., Case No. 2516-CV36137, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri
Final Hearing
05/07/2026
Settlement Website
TheLocktonDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Beasley v. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies LLC, et al.
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
info@thelocktondatacompetition.com
(833) 754-7264
Class Counsel
Jeff Ostrow
KOOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
Gary M. Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Defense Counsel
Alfred J. Saikali
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN]
MASONITE INT'L: Kept Investors in the Dark, C. Illinois Fund Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL ILLINOIS CARPENTERS HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, HOWARD C. HECKES,
and RUSSELL T. TIEJEMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01052
(S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2026) is a federal securities class action
on behalf of the Plaintiff and all sellers of the common stock of
Masonite between June 5, 2023 and February 8, 2024, inclusive,
asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Masonite and certain of
the Company's senior officers and directors during the Class
Period.
This action arises from Defendants' material omissions and
misrepresentations concerning Owens Corning's offers to purchase
all of Masonite's outstanding common stock at significant premiums
to the Company's stock price and the Company's repurchases of
millions of dollars' worth of its shares without disclosing
material nonpublic information about Owens Corning's offers, which,
if disclosed as required, would have indicated to investors that
Masonite's stock was worth significantly more.
On February 9, 2024, Masonite announced that it successfully
negotiated the transaction with Owens Corning. Masonite made no
disclosure concerning Owens Corning's offers for approximately
eight months, while the Company repurchased millions of dollars of
its own shares at prices far below Owens Corning's offers. In
total, Masonite repurchased nearly 270,000 of its outstanding
shares from unsuspecting investors for approximately $25 million
between June 2023 and December 2023, despite knowing that Owens
Corning was continuously proposing offers at a significant premium
to Masonite's then stock price. At the same time, Defendants made
numerous misleading statements touting this significant repurchase
activity, repeatedly updating investors about these buybacks during
the Class Period and telling investors the buybacks were meant to
"distribut[e] capital back" to investors, all with no disclosure
concerning Owens Corning's credible offer(s) to acquire Masonite
shares at materially higher prices. Masonite also affirmatively
represented to investors that its repurchases complied with Rule
10b5-18, which does not permit repurchases while aware of material
nonpublic information. As a result, Masonite omitted material
information about Owens Corning's offers that the Company had a
duty to disclose, and Defendants made material misrepresentations
about Masonite's repurchases, in violation of the federal
securities laws.
The magnitude of the proposed transaction, the credibility of the
bid by a company of Owens Corning's stature, and the degree of
interest shown by Owens Corning, in total, illustrate that the
Owens Corning's offer would have been material and significant to a
reasonable investor in making their investment decision. When
investors learned the truth that Owens Corning was willing to buy
all of the Company's outstanding stock for a significant premium
above the trading price, Masonite's stock price climbed sharply,
the complaint relates.
This action seeks damages on behalf of sellers of Masonite stock
during the Class Period who were harmed as a result of these
violations of the federal securities laws by Defendants.
Masonite International Corporation is a global designer,
manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of interior and exterior
doors and door solutions for the residential and non-residential
building construction markets' new construction and repair,
renovation and remodeling sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
malba@rgrdlaw.com
johlmann@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
Adam Savett, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
jruthizer@wolfpopper.com
asavett@wolfpopper.com
MICROF LLC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Slee Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SLEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICROF, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-mi-99999 (N.D. Ga., January 5, 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 Plaintiff and Class Members provided
their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable
expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would
comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential
and secure from unauthorized access.
On December 29, 2025, Defendant reported that an unauthorized
third-party accessed its network. The following types of Private
Information were exposed as a result of the Data Breach: name,
Social Security Number, and financial information.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to take precautions
designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. As a
result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice
process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was
exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered
and will continue to suffer injuries including financial losses
caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or
diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the
Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing
identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against
Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and
breach of implied contract.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.
Plaintiff James Slee is a citizen and resident of Raeford, North
Carolina.
Defendant Microf, LLC is an equipment leasing and financing
company, based in Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casondra Turner, Esq.
MILBERG, PLLC
260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (771) 772-3086
E-mail: cturner@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
MICROSOFT CORP: Teams Illegally Collects Voice Data, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that five Illinois residents filed a
class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp.
Why: The plaintiffs allege Microsoft Teams illegally collects voice
data in violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA).
Where: The Microsoft class action lawsuit was filed in a Washington
federal court.
A new Microsoft class action lawsuit accuses Microsoft Corp. of
illegally collecting and analyzing the voice data of users of its
Teams software without providing proper notice as required under
Illinois law.
Plaintiffs Alex Basich, Kristin Bondlow and three others filed the
class action complaint against Microsoft Feb. 5 in a Washington
federal court, alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act.
The Microsoft class action lawsuit claims the software's real-time
transcription feature works by capturing speakers' voices during
online meetings and assessing qualities like pitch, tone and timbre
to identify who said what.
While that alone isn't illegal, Microsoft's failure to inform users
of how their voice data would be used violated BIPA, the Illinois
residents claim.
The lawsuit argues that to legally obtain an Illinois user's
voiceprint, the company would need to first inform users of how the
data would be used and how long it would be stored. A user would
then need to provide a written release allowing the collection, the
plaintiff claimed.
Microsoft failed to inform voice data was being collected, lawsuit
claims
According to the lawsuit, the issue began with Microsoft Teams'
introduction of an automated transcription feature in 2021. The
feature relied on a process called diarization, which
differentiates voices based on their identifying characteristics
and creates "individual speaker profiles in the form of
voiceprints," the plaintiffs say.
"Microsoft never informed Teams meeting participants that their
biometrics, such as voiceprints, were being collected during
Microsoft Teams Meetings," the Microsoft class action says.
"Microsoft also failed to inform Teams meeting participants of the
specific purpose for the collection or storage of their biometrics
and failed to provide meeting participants with a schedule setting
out the length of time which those biometrics would be collected,
stored, used, and destroyed."
The plaintiffs want to represent a class of Microsoft Teams
participants whose biometric information was captured by
Microsoft's transcription feature while they resided in Illinois,
dating to March 1, 2021.
The Microsoft Teams class action lawsuit demands actual damages or
$1,000 per negligent violation, whichever amount is greater. If the
BIPA violation was intentional or reckless, damages could rise to
$5,000 per violation.
Open AI and key investor Microsoft are facing allegations, now
consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation, that the
companies used the work of journalists and other copyrighted work
to train the artificial intelligence program ChatGPT.
The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley S. Keller and Jofrey M.
McWilliam of Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, Brian Levin and Nicholas
Miranda of Levin Law P.A. and Jonathan D. Waisnor and James M. Fee
of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP.
The Microsoft BIPA class action lawsuit is Basich et al. v.
Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:26-cv-00422, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington. [GN]
MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: Stonis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Stonis, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MIDWEST PHYSICIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a
DULY HEALTH AND CARE, a limited liability company, Case No.
1:26-cv-01465 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 9, 2026), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") and common
law.
The Defendant failed to compensate its Receptionists, like
Plaintiff, for all work performed. Instead, Defendant required its
Receptionists to perform compensable work before and after their
scheduled shifts when they are not clocked into Defendant's
timekeeping system. This corporate policy and practice results in
Receptionists not being paid for all time worked. The Defendant,
through its managers, had actual and constructive knowledge that
its Receptionists were completing this off-the-clock work without
compensation. Nevertheless, Defendant suffered or permitted, and in
fact, trained and required, its Receptionists to complete this
unpaid work. The Defendant's Receptionists were entitled to full
compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times
their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee
as a Receptionist for Defendant in or around Schaumburg, Illinois.
The Defendant is a healthcare provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Phone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
MILTON ADAIR: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Justin"
------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Daudi Justin and the Community Service
Society of New York, Plaintiffs, v. Milton Adair Tingling, in his
official capacity as County Clerk of New York County and
Commissioner of Jurors, Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 10370 (NRB)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss in full and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the case was
closed.
Plaintiff Daudi Justin is a Black man who resides in Manhattan and
works as a lawyer in Harlem. In 2009, Justin was convicted of a
felony after pleading guilty to criminal possession of a controlled
substance in the third degree. Plaintiff Community Service Society
of New York is a non-profit organisation headquartered in Manhattan
that supports individuals with past convictions to overcome
barriers to civic participation. Defendant Milton Tingling is the
County Clerk of New York County and Commissioner of Jurors for the
Supreme Court, New York County, responsible for enforcing laws
relating to the drawing, selection, summoning, and empanelling of
jurors.
On December 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed this putative class action
challenging Section 510(3) of New York's Judiciary Law, which
disqualifies individuals with felony convictions from serving on a
jury, as applied only in New York County. Plaintiffs claimed that
Section 510(3) causes the underrepresentation of Black people in
the Manhattan jury pool because of a local history of racialized
policing and prosecution, and that there would have been 17,100
additional Black jurors over the last decade if not for the
operation of Section 510(3). Plaintiffs sought a judicial
declaration that Section 510(3) violates the Fourteenth Amendment
and an injunction barring enforcement of the disqualification in
New York County.
The court previously dismissed plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment claims
for lack of standing. On the remaining Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection claim, the court applied the framework from Castaneda v.
Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (1977), under which a plaintiff must show:
(1) membership in an identifiable group singled out for different
treatment; (2) substantial underrepresentation; and (3) that the
underrepresentation is due to a selection procedure susceptible of
abuse or not racially neutral.
The court assumed the first two Castaneda prongs were satisfied. On
the third prong, the court held that Section 510(3) is racially
neutral on its face and that the alleged underrepresentation of
Black individuals is not ineluctable. The disproportionate
exclusion of Black individuals with felony convictions is the
product of actions by third-party actors, namely police and
prosecutors, and the effect of the statute is variable depending on
those actions. The court noted that an individual can avoid the
statute's application by refraining from committing a felony.
The court also found that Section 510(3) is not susceptible of
abuse. Jury selection frameworks are susceptible of abuse when they
provide a clear and easy opportunity for racial discrimination. The
court held that Section 510(3) sets out objective criteria for
juror eligibility and that no subjective decision is required to
determine a prospective juror's eligibility on the basis of a
felony conviction. The court further noted that plaintiffs did not
allege that defendant exercised his discretion in a racially
discriminatory manner, such as by returning White individuals with
felony convictions to the jury pool while refusing to return
similarly situated Black individuals.
The court also considered plaintiffs' claims under the Brown v.
City of Oneonta framework and found that plaintiffs failed to state
a claim under any of the three available paths to prove intentional
discrimination, including the path requiring a showing that Section
510(3) was enacted because of its adverse effect on Black
individuals.
Under rational basis review, the court held that New York has a
legitimate interest in upholding the probity of its juries and that
excluding individuals with felony convictions from jury service is
rationally related to achieving that purpose.
The court cited consistent holdings from courts across the country
upholding similar statutes. The court rejected plaintiffs'
arguments that voir dire could fully resolve any probity concern
and that people with felony convictions are as capable of serving
as jurors as any other group, finding these arguments raised policy
debates unsuitable for judicial resolution. The court also
distinguished cases in which felon exclusions from employment and
licensing were struck down, noting that New York provides an
individualized process for restoring jury eligibility through a
Certificate of Relief from Disabilities or Certificate of Good
Conduct, a process Justin chose not to pursue.
.
A copy of the Court's decision dated February 13 is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aslfJv from PacerMonitor.com
DEFENDANT
Milton Adair Tingling
New York, NY 10007
Counsel:
Anjali Bhat — New York Attorney General — 212-416-8632 —
anjali.bhat@ag.ny.gov
PLAINTIFFS
Community Service Society of New York
Counsel:
Isaac Berkman Zaur — Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP — 212-633-4310
— izaur@cgr-law.com
Amanda Wong — Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP — 212-633-4310 —
awong@cgr-law.com
Royce Liverant Zeisler — Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP —
908-812-8516 — rzeisler@cgr-law.com
Christopher Thomas Dunn — New York Civil Liberties Union —
212-344-3005 — cdunn@nyclu.org
Perry Grossman — New York Civil Liberties Union — 212-607-3300
— pgrossman@nyclu.org
Daniel Ross Lambright — New York Civil Liberties Union —
212-607-3341 — dlambright@nyclu.org
Daudi Justin, and all others similarly situated
81 West 126th St., Apt. 4C
New York, NY 10027
Counsel:
(Same as Community Service Society of New York)
Isaac Berkman Zaur — Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP
Amanda Wong — Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP
Royce Liverant Zeisler — Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP
Christopher Thomas Dunn — New York Civil Liberties Union
Perry Grossman — New York Civil Liberties Union
Daniel Ross Lambright — New York Civil Liberties Union
MISSION AREA: Driggs Files Class Action Suit in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Mission Area Health
Associates. The case is styled as JESSE DRIGGS, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MISSION AREA HEALTH
ASSOCIATES, Case No. CGC26632713 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
January 9, 2026).
The case type refers to other non-exempt complaints.
A case management conference is set for June 24, 2026.
Mission Area Health Associates is a San Francisco, California-based
nonprofit organization providing primary medical care to low-income
families and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott E. Cole, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
555 12th Street Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
MOTAUR EXPRESS: Zuniga Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jennifer Zuniga and Antonio Tapia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MOTAUR EXPRESS; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 24CV05222 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Feb. 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01393.
The Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to permit rest breaks; failure to reimburse
business expenses; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; and violation of Business and Professions Code sections
17200.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
Eva M. Nofri, Esq.
Richard A. Westmoreland, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
eva.nofri@morganlewis.com
richard.westmoreland@morganlewis.com
- and -
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Fax: +1.415.442.1001
Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
MUSIC EMPORIUM: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MUSIC EMPORIUM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01383 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2026) is
a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.themusicemporium.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on October 6, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's Northfield Big Mon
Sunburst instrument, but encountered barriers that denied his full
and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and
services.
The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Music Emporium, Inc. operates the website that offers a
selection of guitars, mandolin-family instruments, banjos,
ukuleles, and supporting accessories.[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
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Flores"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton,
as Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The National Football League;
New York Football Giants, Inc. d/b/a New York Giants; Miami
Dolphins, Ltd. d/b/a Miami Dolphins; Denver Broncos Football Club
d/b/a Denver Broncos; Houston NFL Holdings, L.P. d/b/a Houston
Texans; Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC d/b/a Arizona
Cardinals; Tennessee Titans Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Tennessee
Titans; and John Doe Teams 1 through 26, Defendants, Case No.
22-CV-871 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie E. Caproni of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and denied Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration in full.
This is an employment discrimination case in which Plaintiffs,
current and former NFL coaches, sued the NFL and various member
teams for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 1981 and several New Jersey, New York, and Florida
state laws. The case had been idling at the starting block for four
years while the parties argued over whether the case would be
litigated in federal court or arbitration.
Each Plaintiff had employment contracts with various NFL teams
providing that the NFL Commissioner would oversee an alternative
dispute resolution process for all disputes arising between the
parties. The Flores-Dolphins and Wilks-Cardinals agreements
incorporated the NFL Dispute Resolution Procedural Guidelines
(DRPG). The Horton-Titans agreement did not.
On March 1, 2023, the court compelled arbitration of claims brought
by Flores against the Miami Dolphins, by Wilks against the Arizona
Cardinals, and by Horton against the Tennessee Titans, as well as
all related claims against the NFL. The court declined to compel
arbitration of Flores's claims against the New York Giants, Denver
Broncos, and Houston Texans.
On Defendants' appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed on alternative
grounds, finding that the NFL failed to provide a neutral forum
that could even be called an arbitration and that Flores could not
effectively vindicate his statutory rights in the forum provided,
given the designation of the NFL Commissioner as the default
arbitrator and the lack of express arbitral procedures. Defendants'
petition for rehearing en banc was denied and the mandate issued.
Plaintiffs thereafter moved for reconsideration of the portion of
the March 1 Order compelling arbitration, arguing that the Second
Circuit's decision necessarily affected its correctness.
The court found that the Second Circuit's decision constituted an
intervening change in controlling law warranting revision of the
prior order. The court rejected Defendants' argument that the
claims at issue were distinguishable because the DRPG supplied
procedural safeguards absent from the NFL Constitution.
According to the court, adding some procedure via the DRPG did not
fix the forum's lack of independence nor make the process
bilateral. The NFL Constitution still provided the Commissioner
with the authority to unilaterally dictate arbitral procedure. The
court observed that the DRPG is just an outgrowth of the NFL
Constitution and appears to be only as binding as is beneficial to
the NFL.
The court further noted that this case illustrated the failures of
the NFL to provide a process constituting arbitration as that term
is used by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Defendants had appointed Peter Harvey, a friend but not an employee
or staff member of the NFL, to arbitrate, which the Second Circuit
found facially inconsistent with the DRPG. The court concluded that
the NFL's unilateral control over the dispute resolution process
was the fatal flaw, and that flaw was not cured by the DRPG. These
agreements, the court held, remained a prospective waiver of a
party's right to pursue statutory remedies.
The court therefore lifted the stay, granted Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, and denied Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration in full. All claims of Plaintiffs Brian Flores, Steve
Wilks, and Ray Horton against the NFL and various member teams may
now proceed in the Southern District of New York. The parties were
directed to appear for a pretrial conference on April 3, 2026 and
before that on March 26, 2026, the parties must submit a joint
letter.
A copy of the Court's case is available at
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/QRICD3Y/Flores_v_The_National_Football_League_et__nysdce-22-00871__0182.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
from PacerMonitor.com
AMICUS
Amici Curiae Law Professors
Counsel:
Kevin Todd Mintzer — Law Office of Kevin Mintzer, P.C. —
646-843-8180 — km@mintzerfirm.com
DEFENDANTS
Denver Broncos
Counsel:
Brette Morgan Tannenbaum — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP — 212-373-3852 — btannenbaum@paulweiss.com
Loretta Lynch — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP —
212-373-3000 — lelynch@paulweiss.com
Lynn Beth Bayard — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
— 212-373-3054 — lbayard@paulweiss.com
Brad Scott Karp — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
— 212-373-2384 — bkarp@paulweiss.com
Maia Usui — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP —
212-735-3000 — maia.usui@skadden.com
Miami Dolphins, Ltd.
(Represented by same counsel as Denver Broncos)
New York Football Giants, Inc.
(Represented by same counsel as Denver Broncos)
The National Football League
(Represented by same counsel as Denver Broncos)
Arizona Cardinals Football Club LLC
(Represented by same counsel as Denver Broncos)
Houston NFL Holdings, L.P.
(Represented by same counsel as Denver Broncos)
Tennessee Titans Entertainment, Inc.
(Represented by same counsel as Denver Broncos)
John Doe Teams 1 through 26
(No counsel listed)
PLAINTIFFS
Brian Flores
Ray Horton
Steve Wilks
Lead / Shared Counsel:
Douglas Holden Wigdor — Wigdor LLP — 212-239-9292 —
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
Michael John Willemin — Wigdor LLP — 212-257-6829 —
mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
David Evan Gottlieb — Wigdor LLP — 212-257-6800 —
dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
John Elefterakis — Elefterakis & Elefterakis P.C. —
212-532-1116 — john@elefterakislaw.com
Jacqueline Donajy Carranza — Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek —
212-532-1116 — jcarranza@eeplaw.com
Marjorie Mesidor — Marjorie Mesidor, Attorney at Law —
212-930-6010 — mm@marjoriemesidor.com
Additional Counsel (Steve Wilks):
Michael W. Caspino — Price Caspino — 949-899-9188 —
mcaspino@pricecaspino.com
NEXTPATIENT INC: Moreno Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NextPatient, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Carla Moreno, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NextPatient, Inc., Skin and
Beauty Center, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00597-HSG (N.D. Cal., Jan.
20, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
NextPatient -- https://www.nextpatient.co/ -- provides healthcare
software designed to enhance the patient experience by automating
scheduling, payment processing, and digital check-in among other
features.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sonjay Singh, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (646) 829-1389
Email: ssingh@sirillp.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Catherine Elizabeth Ybarra, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 376-3739
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
cybarra@sirillp.com
NORMAN S WRIGHT: Dawson-Roberts Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER DAWSON-ROBERTS, as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Norman S. Wright
Mechanical Equipment Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan,
Plaintiff v. NORMAN S. WRIGHT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LLC, THE NORMAN
S. WRIGHT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP
PLAN COMMITTEE, RICHARD F. LEAO, ROBERT L. BEYER, and SALVATORE M.
GIGLIO, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01171 (N.D. Cal., February 6,
2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.
The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to invest the
non-employer stock assets of the Norman S. Wright Mechanical
Equipment Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan prudently and
for the exclusive benefit of ESOP participants.
Specifically, Committee Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by (a) investing substantially all Other Investments Account assets
in cash and cash equivalents, which provide inadequate returns for
long-term retirement savings; (b) failing to consider investing OIA
investments across appropriate asset classes such as stocks and
bonds; (c) failing to implement and follow a prudent investment
policy for the OIA; and (d) failing to monitor OIA investments and
make changes as appropriate, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff Dawson-Roberts is a resident of Auburn, California, who
worked for the Company from 2015 until 2022 as the Customer Service
Manager, Parts Division. He is a participant in the ESOP.
Plaintiff's ESOP account would be worth more today if not for
Defendants' fiduciary mismanagement. His future ESOP account growth
will be impaired if Defendants are not enjoined from further
mismanagement, says the suit.
Norman S. Wright Mechanical Equipment LLC provides heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
Nina Wasow, Esq.
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN &
WASOW LLP
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com
nina@feinbergjackson.com
- and -
Mark Thomson, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Ave, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com
ONEWAY MANAGEMENT: Blackwell Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Blackwell, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. ONEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00306
(W.D. Tex., Feb. 9, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to themself and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores.
The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages).
The Defendant's systematic failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback" to Defendant such that
the hourly wages they pay to Plaintiff and Defendant's other
delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all outstanding
obligations to Defendant. The Defendant fails to reasonably
approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses to
such an extent that their drivers' net wages are diminished beneath
the federal minimum wage requirements. In sum, Defendant's
reimbursement policy and methodology fail to reflect the realities
of delivery drivers' automobile expenses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and "Class Members" are Defendant's current and
former delivery drivers.
The Defendant owns and operates several Papa John's franchise
stores, including stores within this District and this
Division.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
- and -
Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550
Dallas, TX 75243
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
ONYX CREATIVE: Snyder Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Onyx Creative Inc. The case
is captioned Riley Snyder, an individual; on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Onyx Creative Inc., Case No.
2026CUOE059601 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., January 8, 2026).
The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged employment law
violation.
A case management conference is set for June 4, 2026.
Onyx Creative Inc. is an American architecture and design
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Ricotta, Esq.
ANTICOUNI & RICOTTA
201 N Calle Cesar Chavez, Ste 105
Santa Barbara, CA 93103-3256
Telephone: (805) 845-0864
Facsimile: (805) 845-0965
E-mail: nicole@anticounilaw.com
ORIGIN MATERIALS: $9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of Origin Materials, Inc. Securities
(NASDAQ: ORGN and ORGNW):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased publicly traded
securities of Origin Materials, Inc. ("Origin Materials") on the
open market of a U.S. stock exchange during the period from March
7, 2023 through August 9, 2023, and who were allegedly damaged
thereby ("Settlement Class").
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 Eastern District of California, that the Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiff for the proposed Settlement Class has reached an
agreement with the Defendants to settle the claims in the class
action (the "Action") for $9,000,000 (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable William B. Shubb, on
June 8, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of California, Robert T. Matsui United States
Courthouse, Courtroom 5, 14th Floor, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine
whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with
prejudice as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement; and (iii)
approve Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing,
or hold it telephonically or by video conference without providing
another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. You may obtain a Claim Form and review the
Internet Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Internet Notice") on the website
https://www.strategicclaims.net/OriginMaterials/ or by contacting
the Claims Administrator at:
Origin Materials, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
P.O. Box 230
Media, PA 19063
Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net
Inquiries, other than requests for the Internet Notice/Claim Form
or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to
Lead Counsel:
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
(212) 779-1414
Originmaterialsinfo@bernlieb.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 4,
2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Internet Notice such that it is received no later than May 4, 2026.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Internet Notice, such that they are received no later than May 4,
2026.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2026.
The Honorable William B. Shubb
United States District Judge
PACIFIC ASIAN: Azucena Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
JAQUELINE AZUCENA, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC ASIAN CONSORTIUM IN
EMPLOYMENT, a California nonprofit corporation doing business as
PACE; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
26STCV01281 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 8, 2026) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants knew or should have
known Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive wages
for all time worked, including regular, overtime, and double times
wages. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges that
Defendants failed to pay her and Class Members all wages owed for
work required to be performed in violation of California state wage
and hour laws.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants maintain a practice
and/or policy of failing to track all minutes actually worked by
Plaintiff and Class Members and failing to pay Plaintiff and Class
Members for all minutes worked at the proper rates of pay. The
Defendants engaged, suffered, or permitted Plaintiff and Class
Members to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by
requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to clock out for rest periods
and attend company meetings off the clock.
The Plaintiff seeks overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of
premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, waiting time
penalties, wage statement penalties, indemnification of
work-related expenses, other provisions of California law, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
handling incoming calls, scheduling appointments, making follow-up
calls to obtain information and documentation. She worked for the
Defendants from approximately December of 2022 through October of
2025.
Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment is a non-Profit organization
in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason W. Rothman, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: jason@tomorrowlaw.com
PANERA BRANDS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jones Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PANERA BRANDS, INC. d/b/a PANERA BREAD,
Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00198 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 9, 2026) alleges
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act for failure of the
Defendant to make reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and
the Class's sensitive data.
According to the complaint, in or around late 2025, Panera
discovered that unauthorized third parties had gained access to its
computer systems and obtained sensitive personal information
maintained by Panera (the "Data Breach"). The data breach was not
the result of a sophisticated or unforeseeable attack but instead
stemmed from Panera's failure to implement and maintain reasonable
data security safeguards appropriate to the nature and sensitivity
of the information it collected, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of Panera's negligent conduct,
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals suffered concrete
injuries, including loss of privacy, exposure of sensitive personal
information, increased risk of identity theft and fraud,
out-of-pocket expenses, and time and effort spent mitigating the
ongoing consequences of the breach.
Panera Brands, Inc. operates as a casual restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don M. Downing, Esq.
Morry S. Cole, Esq.
GRAY RITTER GRAHAM
701 Market Street, Suite 800
St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
Telephone: (314) 241-5620
Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
Email: mcole@grgpc.com
ddowning@grgpc.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Madison M. DeMaris, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
madison.demaris@zimmreed.com
PENNEY OPCO LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PENNEY OPCO LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Elizabeth Hernandez Lopez, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. PENNEY OPCO LLC, JCPENNY,
Case No. 26STCV04531 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10,
2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment."
Penney OpCo LLC (JC Penney) -- https://www.jcpenney.com/ --
operates a chain of department stores that offers a portfolio of
private and national brands.[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
PENNSYLVANIA: Pittman Files Suit in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, et al. The case is styled as Gabriel Isham Pittman,
and those similarly situated, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; Respondent, Case No. 5:26-cv-00886-JFL (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 9, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Federal).
Pennsylvania -- https://www.pa.gov/en -- officially the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is a state located in the
Mid-Atlantic, Northeastern, Appalachian, and Great Lakes regions of
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
PETCO ANIMAL: Memery Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Memery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., Case No.
3:26-cv-00823-H-SBC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2026), is brought pursuant
to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA")
and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") (the IMWL and
IWPCA are collectively referred to as the "Illinois Acts").
Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have
routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were
not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise,
Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40
hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked.
During the relevant time period(s), the Defendant knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the
proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. The
Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff
and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked and
the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during
the relevant time period(s). The Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective/Class Members seek to recover all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and other damages owed under the
FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Petco as a Pet Sylist in Illinois
from 2021 until March 2025.
Petco provides pet-related supplies, food, and medical services
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua I. White, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (323) 551-9221
Fax: (310) 654-4093
Email: josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com
william@laurelemploymentlaw.com
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Pluris Holdings Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Pluris Holdings, LLC and Pluris Wedgefield,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHILADELPHIA
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2020-CA004390-O was removed
from the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida,
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Feb. 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-00335.
The Plaintiffs also seek prejudgment interest and request an award
of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action.
The Plaintiffs assert four causes of action against PIIC: breach of
duty to defend; breach of duty to indemnify; breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and statutory insurance
bad faith.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan L. Kranz, Esq.
Jennifer N. Yencarelli, Esq.
Francella Guido, Esq.
LONDON FISCHER LLP
100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 720-2000
Fax: (305) 371-4516
Email: Jkranz@londonfischer.com
Jyencarelli@londonfischer.com
FGuido@londonfischer.com
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Davis, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SERVICES USA INC., Case
No. 4:26-cv-01068 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 10, 2026), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's
failure to pay overtime wages.
The Defendant required Plaintiff to work more than forty hours in a
workweek without receiving full overtime compensation. The
Defendant underpaid Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers
overtime compensation required under the FLSA. The Defendant's
conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to
be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a MWD Field Operator and/or
Field Superintendent from August of 2021 to the present.
Phoenix Technology Services USA, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing horizontal and directional drilling services to oil
companies across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
PROFESSIONAL SWINE: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fortino Leon, Alberto Mendez, Alvaro Josue May May, and Juana Arcos
on behalf of themselves and all other laborers similarly situated,
known and unknown v. PROFESSIONAL SWINE MANAGEMENT LLC, and
PROFESSIONAL SWINE EMPLOYMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-04039-MMM-RLH
(C.D. Ill., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") and Illinois
common law for: the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees federal and Illinois-mandated minimum
wages for all time worked, all earned wages and other benefits.
The Defendants breached the terms of their agreement with the TN
Visa Plaintiffs and similarly situated TN Visa employees by:
Failing to pay all earned wages at the agreed upon hourly rate of
pay; Failing to pay for expenses related to obtaining work visas;
and Failing to pay earned vacation days as part of their final
compensation. The Defendants deducted the legal fees related to
obtaining and renewing visas for TN Plaintiffs and similarly
situated TN Visa employees, including the cost of the visa itself,
from the wages of those employees.
The Defendants deducted the cost of the TN Visa Plaintiffs and
similarly situated TN Visa employees' inbound travel expenses from
the wages of those employees. The Defendants' practice of deducting
expenses it had promised to cover from the TN Visa Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated TN Visa employees' earned wages resulted
in the TN Visa Plaintiffs and other similarly situated TN Visa
employees receiving less than the agreed upon hourly wage rate. The
Defendants' failure to pay the benefits it promised, including
Visa-related expenses, also violated the terms of the TN Visa
Plaintiffs' and similarly situated TN Visa employees' agreement
with Defendants under the IWPCA, and breached their employment
contract, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
The Defendant PSM provides comprehensive management to dozens of
pork facilities, known as Carthage System, located across the
United States, but with a concentration in the Midwest, including
but not limited to Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan, among
others.[BN]
The Plaintiffs were represented by:
Alvar Ayala, Esq.
FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
77 West Washington, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (224) 522-3178
Email: aayala@flapillinois.org
- and -
Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
WORKERS' LAW OFFICE
1341 W. Fullerton Ave, Suite 147
Chicago, IL 60614
Phone: (312) 945-8737
Email: cwilliams@workers-law-office.com
QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD: Garza Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qantas Airways LTD.
The case is styled as Michelle Garza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Qantas Airways LTD., Salesforce,
Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00732-LB (C.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Qantas Airways Limited, doing business as QANTAS --
https://www.qantas.com/ -- is the flag carrier of Australia, and
the largest airline by fleet size, international flights, and
international destinations in Oceania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 981-4800
Fax: (415) 981-4846
Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
RENAISSANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Hammond Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renaissance
Entertainment Productions, Inc. The case is styled as Chantel
Hammond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Renaissance Entertainment Productions, Inc., Case No.
603099/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Feb. 10, 2026).
The nature of suit stated as Other Matters - Contract.
Renaissance Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ren-ent.com/ -- is a
full-service production company specializing in attractions, shows,
films, spectaculars, master planning and consultation.[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
SAFE CREDIT UNION: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAFE CREDIT UNION.
The case is styled as Andrew Smith, all others similarly situated
v. SAFE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 26CV001617 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 23, 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:
Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Fax: (872) 263-1109
Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com
SAX LLP: Fails to Safeguard Personal Information, Guercio Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD GUERCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAX LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-19013
(D.N.J., December 29, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold
Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons in a preventable data breach of
Defendant's inadequately protected computer network.
The complaint relates that as part of its business, and in order to
gain profits, Defendant obtained and stored the personal
information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession
and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information,
Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it.
On August 7, 2024, Sax LLP became aware of suspicious activity on
its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a
subsequent forensic investigation, Sax determined that
cybercriminals infiltrated this inadequately secured network and
gained access to its files. The personally identifiable information
(PII) accessed by cybercriminals included names, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license information, and
government issued ID numbers.
Plaintiff received a notice letter in the mail from Defendant on
December 27, 2025, informing him that his Personal Information was
specifically identified as having been exposed to cybercriminals in
the Data Breach. As a result, Plaintiff has already expended time
and suffered loss of productivity from taking time to address and
attempt to ameliorate, mitigate, and address the future
consequences of the Data Breach, including investigating the Data
Breach, researching how best to ensure that he is protected from
identity theft, reviewing account statements and other information,
and taking other steps in an attempt to mitigate potential harm
caused by the Data Breach. In the last two months, Plaintiff has
also experienced an increase of spam calls and emails, says the
suit.
For this reason, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data
security systems and protocols, future annual audits,
Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other
remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper.
Plaintiff Leonard Guercio was an employee of Defendant for just
under a year, until May 2023.
Defendant Sax LLP is an accounting firm that provides accounting,
tax, and advisory services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
SKINESA INC: Licea Sues Over Automatic Renewing Paid Subscription
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Licea, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SKINESA, INC., a Georgia corporation, d/b/a WWW.SKINESA.COM,
Case No. 26STCV01956 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 20,
2026), is brought as a result of the Defendant's violation of
California’s Automatic Renewal Law (the “ARL”),
California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”),
California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”),
California’s False Advertising Law (the “FAL”), and
California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”), California
Business & Professions Code, due an automatic renewing paid
subscription to www.skinesa.com (the "Website"), which caused
Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant.
The Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous
service offers to consumers in California in violation of the
ARL” by: failing to provide “clear and conspicuous”
disclosures mandated by California law; and failing to provide an
acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or
continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and
information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of
being retained by the consumer. The ARL imposed a statutory duty
upon Defendant to disclose such information to consumers who
purchased subscriptions from Defendant or entered into continuous
service agreements with Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased "Skinesa Skin Probiotic" from Defendant via
the Website at a price of $53.29 on August 27, 2025.
The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide
and in California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SPRING MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Palmer Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRING MANAGEMENT OK, LLC D/B/A LUMIO DENTAL
F/K/A SPRING DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00068-CDL (N.D.
Okla., Feb. 9, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive data.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a
litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and
protected health information about its current and former employees
and patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems (the "Data Breach").
It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access
to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. 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' and patients' PII/PHI.
Spring Management OK, LLC d/b/a Lumio Dental f/k/a Spring Dental is
a full-service dental office offering dental care for patients of
all ages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
SPRING MANAGEMENT: Hall Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spring Management OK,
LLC. The case is styled as Amber Hall, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Spring Management OK, LLC doing
business as: Lumio Dental, Case No. 4:26-cv-00076-SH (N.D. Okla.,
Feb. 12, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for E.R.I.S.A.
Spring Management OK, LLC doing business as Lumio Dental --
https://lumiodental.com/ -- is a dental partnership organization
dedicated to preserving the integrity of private practice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com
wbf@federmanlaw.com
SPRING MANAGEMENT: Stevenson Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spring Management OK,
LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Stevenson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spring Management OK,
LLC doing business as: Lumio Dental, Case No. 4:26-cv-00078-JFJ
(N.D. Okla., Feb. 12, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Spring Management OK, LLC doing business as Lumio Dental --
https://lumiodental.com/ -- is a dental partnership organization
dedicated to preserving the integrity of private practice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com
wbf@federmanlaw.com
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Brown Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company. The case is styled as Angela Brown,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No.
1:26-cv-01486 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 9, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a group of
mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Berman, Esq.
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com
ashamis@shamisgentile.com
STOCKTON NURSING AND REHAB: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Nursing and
Rehab Center LLC, et al. The case is styled as Corazon Garcia,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stockton Nursing and Rehab Center LLC, Eduro Healthcare, LLC,
Fresno Nursing and Rehab Center LLC, Oakhurst Nursing and Rehab
Center LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0000993 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Feb. 9, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Stockton Nursing Center -- https://stocktonnrc.com/ -- is a
Medicare-certified skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility
located on Shelley Court in Stockton, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
1700 W Burbank Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91506-1313
Phone: 213-493-6300
Fax: 213-336-3704
Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com
STREAMLINE FUNDING: Ankrah Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Streamline Funding,
LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Oforiwah Twumasi Ankrah. on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Streamline
Funding, LLC doing business as: Fundible, Case No.
1:26-cv-00784-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 10, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Streamline Funding -- https://streamlinefunding.com/ -- is a
prominent provider of loans for residential real estate investment
projects.[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
STRIDE RITE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stride Rite Children's Group, LLC d/b/a Merrell, Case
No. 0:26-cv-01382-KMM-EMB (D. Minn., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought
arising because Defendant's Website (www.merrell.com) (the
"Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and
its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the
ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the
Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the
Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital
barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and
equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes
available to its sighted Website users.
Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.
The Defendant offers footwear and apparel for sale including, but
not limited to, shoes, boots, sneakers, sandals, tops, bottoms,
jackets, backpacks, hats, accessories, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
SUNDAY APP INC: Hoke Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Junk Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Hoke and Laniesa Shafer, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SUNDAY APP, INC., Case No.
1:26-cv-00333-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 20, 2026), is brought seeking
monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory
relief from The Defendant, arising from its deceptive and unfairly
disclosed junk fee (“Sunday Platform Fee” or the “Fee”).
The Defendant offers a QR-code-based payment tools that allow
consumers to quickly pay restaurant checks using their mobile
phones, purportedly to streamline business operations and improve
customer experience. In reality, however, the Defendant monetizes
this “convenience” by imposing a mandatory the Defendant
Platform Fee that is hidden or inadequately disclosed until the end
of the checkout process—after consumers have already invested
substantial time and committed to using The Defendant to complete a
payment. The Defendant prioritizes hidden revenue over
transparency, exploiting consumer trust at each transaction.
Specifically, through its QR-code online payment flow, the
Defendant allows consumers to scan QR codes displayed on receipts,
checks, or payment screens using their mobile phones to pay for
their bills at restaurants and other businesses without assistance
from an employee. The Defendant does not clearly and prominently
disclose--before consumers proceed through the payment flow--that
the Defendant will automatically add an additional “Platform
Fee” to the transaction total.
However, the Defendant surreptitiously adds a Sunday Platform Fee
to all transactions completed using the Sunday platform. This fee
is not optional, is not tied to any consumer-selected add-on, and
is assessed solely because the consumer pays through Sunday which
is encouraged and even required by many restaurants. This deceptive
practice is intentionally designed to catch consumers off guard and
extract additional revenue without their informed consent, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs used Sunday to pay.
The Defendant App, Inc. is a restaurant payments technology company
based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (786) 289-9471
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMA: Who's Who in Amitiza Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Trial is set to begin April in In re Amitiza Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 21-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.). Know the legal
professionals and experts involved in this high-profile case in
this latest report by Class Action Updates, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com
Plaintiffs' Experts:
1. Dr. Rena Conti, Associate Professor of Markets, Public
Policy and Law in the Questrom School of Business at Boston
University.
2. Susan Marchetti, Senior Consultant, Expert Witness,
Antitrust Litigation Practice at consulting firm, Acumen Biopharma
3. Nicole Maestas, Economist, Margaret T. Morris Professor of
Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School and a Research
Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research
4. Dr. Uwe Christians, Professor at University of Colorado
Denver, and Director, iC42 Clinical Research & Development
5. Todd Clark, Managing Director and Partner in L.E.K.
Consulting's San Francisco office, co-leading the firm's Healthcare
Services sub-sector
6. Dr. Martin E. Kovach, Director at Greylock McKinnon
Associates
This consolidated class action, pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts before Judge Myong
J. Joun, involves allegations that defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited and related entities engaged in anticompetitive
conduct -- specifically, through a 2014 patent settlement agreement
with Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. -- to delay generic competition for
Amitiza(R) (lubiprostone), resulting in overcharges to direct
purchasers and end-payors.
This case remains active, with class certification granted for both
DPP and End-Payor Plaintiff (EPP) classes in 2025, and trial
proceedings anticipated in the near term.
TEMPUS AI INC: Vargas Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tempus AI, Inc. The
case is styled as Maren Vargas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tempus AI, Inc., Case No.
1:26-cv-01525 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Tempus AI, Inc. -- https://www.tempus.com/ -- is an American health
technology company founded in 2015 by Eric Lefkofsky in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
THG BEAUTY USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THG Beauty USA LLC d/b/a Dermstore LLC, Case No.
0:26-cv-01398-JWB-ECW (D. Minn., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought arising
because Defendant's Website (www.dermstore.com) (the "Website" or
"Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to
people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both
the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective
communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing
regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also
asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the
Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital
barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and
equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes
available to its sighted Website users.
Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.
The Defendant offers beauty supplies and accessories including, but
not limited to, skin care products, sunscreen, hair care products,
makeup, body care products, tools and devices, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON: Court Narrows Claims in Marina Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as 31 Alanson Lane, LLC, and Matthew Vastola,
on behalf of themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Town of Southampton, the Town Board of Southampton, and the
Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of
Southampton, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-8938 (NJC) (LGD)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York denied in part and
granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint.
The Complaint pursues claims on behalf of a class of all persons
who paid dimensional fees to the Board of Trustees to obtain
Trustees Permits in order to construct, build, re-build, repair, or
restore boathouse, deck, bulkhead, dock, piling, catwalk, jetty,
revetment, ramp, walkway, or stair construction for the period of
six years prior to the filing of the action.
Plaintiff 31 Alanson Lane, LLC owns Molnar's Landing Marina and
Bar, a property located in the unincorporated community of Hampton
Bays in the Town of Southampton. The property includes a marina
next to a dug canal known as Foster's Creek. Both the marina and
Foster's Creek were excavated out of dry land in the early 1900s,
the marina's portion of which was privately owned.
In 2021 and 2022, Plaintiff Matthew Vastola, the manager of
Molnar's Landing, began to refurbish the decks, catwalks, hard
docks, and floating docks along the marina. On March 22, 2022, a
Town police officer ordered Vastola to cease construction and
issued him a ticket to appear at the Southampton Justice Court,
alleging violations of Sections 111-37 and 111-30(A) of the Town
Code for engaging in construction without the Trustees' approval.
On March 6, 2023, the Trustees voted to approve the Trustees permit
in exchange for payment of a $35,280.00 dimensional fee. Plaintiff
paid the fee, and on April 14, 2023, the Trustees issued the
permit. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on December 5, 2023.
The Complaint brings six causes of action, including federal
takings and due process claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claims
under the New York Constitution, claims under Section 10 of the
Municipal Home Rule Law, and common law claims for malicious
prosecution, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the
Court should exercise Burford abstention, and in the alternative,
under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court considered and denied the Burford
abstention argument. The Court found that none of the three
applicable factors -- the degree of specificity of the state
regulatory scheme, the need to give debatable construction to a
state statute, and whether the subject matter is traditionally one
of state concern -- favored abstention. Defendant pointed to no
state legislation governing Southampton waterways, relying instead
on broad delegations of authority contained in statutes enacted in
1818 and 1831, followed by nearly two hundred years of legislative
silence.
On the federal takings claim, the Court found that the Complaint
plausibly alleged that the $35,280.00 dimensional fee bears no
reasonable relationship to the cost of administering and enforcing
the Trustees Permit process and is arbitrary and exorbitant,
particularly given that Plaintiff sought only to refurbish existing
fixtures at the marina. The motion to dismiss the federal takings
claim is therefore denied.
On due process, the Court found that Defendant failed to
demonstrate the Trustees had regulatory jurisdiction over the
marina, as Defendant did not explain why the marina, which was dug
out of privately held upland, qualifies as a Town water as a matter
of law. The due process claim predicated on lack of regulatory
jurisdiction therefore survives. However, the Court dismissed the
due process claim targeting the excessiveness of the dimensional
fee, finding it duplicative of the federal takings claim, as
substantive due process cannot do the work of the Takings Clause.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's takings, due
process, and local government tax claims under the New York
Constitution. A notice of claim was not required because Plaintiffs
bring claims on behalf of a putative class seeking to vindicate a
public right. The Court also noted that Defendant entirely failed
to address Plaintiff's Municipal Home Rule Law Section 10 claim;
therefore, that claim also survives.
The Court granted the motion to dismiss the common law claims. The
malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims were not included
in the Notice of Claim and are not brought on behalf of a broader
class. The unjust enrichment and money had and received claims are
entirely duplicative of the surviving takings and due process
claims and therefore dismissed.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer on whether Plaintiff
seeks leave to amend the dismissed claims and to submit a joint
letter to the Court by February 27, 2026.
A copy of the Court's decision dated February 15, 2026 is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ik3kCg from PacerMonitor.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Pallaya Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Neil Pallaya, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.,
Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Aisin
Corporation, Ltd., Aisin World Corp. of America, Inc., Case No.
2:25-cv-10613 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on Jan. 20, 2026.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00411-JMA-JMW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa -- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Adam M. Bucci, Esq.
Paula R Brown, Esq.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
abucci@bholaw.com
pbrown@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexandra Julia Kennedy-Breit, Esq.
Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 250-1800
Fax: (213) 250-7900
Email: akennedy-breit@kslaw.com
eric.kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
U.S. RENAL: Moyseyenko Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against U.S. Renal Care, Inc. The
case is styled as ELLA MOYSEYENKO, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 26STCV01274 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 8, 2026).
The complaint is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of
labor law.
The case is assigned to Hon. Laura A. Seigle.
U.S. Renal Care, Inc. provides in-center and home dialysis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N Brand Blvd., Ste 840
Glendale, CA 91203-2920
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
E-mail: r.shkodnik@d.law
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Chapman Sues Over Failure to Provide Files
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Chapman and Laiza Williamson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a
foreign public utility corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown
Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-03411-7 SEA (Cal. Super. Ct.,
King Cty., Jan. 23, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to provide personnel files to Plaintiffs and Class members
in accordance with RCW 49.12.250.
Effective July 27, 2025, employers are required to provide a copy
of personnel files within 21 calendar days after an employee,
former employee, or their designee requests the files. The
personnel files must be provided at no cost to the employee, former
employee, or their designee. For the purposes of RCW
49.12.240-.261, “personnel file” includes the following
records, if the employer creates such records: All job application
records; All performance evaluations; All nonactive or closed
disciplinary records; All leave and reasonable accommodation
records; All payroll records; and All employment agreements.
From July 27, 2025, through the present, the Plaintiffs and Class
members requested copies of their personnel files from Defendant.
the Plaintiffs and Class members provided notice of intent to sue
to Defendant. Defendant did not provide the Plaintiffs and Class
members with copies of their complete personnel files within 21
calendar days of their requests. At least five calendar days have
elapsed after the Plaintiffs and Class members provided notice of
intent to sue to Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs and Class members are current and former Washington
employees of Defendant.
The Defendant is an American multinational shipping, receiving, and
supply chain management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
Hannah 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
UNITED PARCELS: Removes Moyle Suit to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DANIEL MOYLE; ROY WELSH; TRAVIS
STEELE; and FARI MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCELS SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of King (Case No.
501063/2026) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on Feb. 9, 2026.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:26-cv-00706. The case is assigned to Judge Ann M
Donnelly and referred to Magistrate Lara K Eshkenazi.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) delivers packages and documents.
The Company provides global supply chain services and
less-than-truckload transportation, primarily in business consists
of integrated air and ground pick-up and delivery network. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Leslie A. Lajewski, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 656-1600
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII SYSTEM: Johnson Files Suit in D. Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Hawaii
System, et al. The case is styled as Dana Rosemarie Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
University of Hawaii System, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Case No. 1:26-cv-00066 (D.
Haw., Feb. 11, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
The University of Hawaiʻi System -- https://www.hawaii.edu/ -- is
the public higher education system of the state of Hawaii.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS
Pauahi Tower
1003 Bishop St, Ste 2300
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 524-5644
Fax: 599-1881
Email: rhatch@bfrhawaii.com
URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS: Habash Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tariq Habash, Delia Govea, Andrew Phillips,
Catalina Torres, United Egg Producers, Inc., and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Urner Barry Publications, Inc.,
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Daybreak Foods, Inc., Hillandale Farms
Corporation, Opal Foods LLC, Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-07733 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on Feb. 10, 2026.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00102 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Urner Barry -- https://www.urnerbarry.com/ -- provides
comprehensive market coverage across all major center-of-the-plate
proteins.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
The Foundry Building
1050 30th Street N.W,
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (929) 709-1493
Email: byagman@sshhzlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eyitayo O. St. Matthew-Daniel, Esq.
Katherine B. Forrest, Esq.
Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
Staci Yablon, Esq.
Natalie Marie Pita, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 373-3229
Email: tstmatthewdaniel@paulweiss.com
KForrest@paulweiss.com
rsperling@paulweiss.com
syablon@paulweiss.com
npita@paulweiss.com
- and -
Christopher E. Ondeck, Esq.
Jared M. DuBosar, Esq.
Stephen R. Chuk, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 600S
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 525-0865
Email: condeck@proskauer.com
jdubosar@proskauer.com
schuk@proskauer.com
- and -
John I. Grossbart, Esq.
Joshua Concannon, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 876-8000
Email: john.grossbart@dentons.com
joshua.concannon@dentons.com
- and -
Jay Leonard Levine, Esq.
PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
2020 K Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 778-3000
Email: jlevine@porterwright.com
USAPE LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USAPE LLC d/b/a BAPE, Case No. 0:26-cv-01303 (D. Minn.,
Feb. 10, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.us.bape.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not
fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have
low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the
Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital
barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and
equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes
available to its sighted Website users.
Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.
The Defendant offers apparel and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, tops, bottoms, shorts, sweatshirts, hoodies,
dresses, jackets, footwear, jewelry, hats, accessories, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
USIC LOCATING: MacDonald Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Darren MacDonald and Nolan Shipman, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. USIC LOCATING SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 1:26-cv-00270-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., Feb. 9, 2026), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law ("MMFWL"), and the
Massachusetts Wage Act ("MWA") (collectively, the "Massachusetts
Acts"), and unpaid straight time and overtime wages pursuant to
Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"); the Colorado wage Rules and
Regulations ("CWRR") (the CWCA and CWRR are collectively referred
to as the "Colorado Acts").
Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members have
routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members were
not paid overtime of at least one and one-half times their regular
rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Likewise, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective/Class Members
worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully
compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. USIC
knowingly and deliberately faded to compensate Plaintiffs and the
Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each
workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular
basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by USIC in Massachusetts during the
relevant time period(s).
USIC provides underground utility locating services to its
customers throughout the continental United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARRAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: (614) 2214221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL: Mawrence Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vascular and
Interventional Physician Partners, LLC (VIPP). The case is styled
as Myrna Mawrence, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Vascular and Interventional Physician Partners, LLC
(VIPP), Case No. 26CUB00491 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 9,
2026).
The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited for Other Tort."
Vascular and Interventional Physician Partners, LLC (VIPP) --
https://vippllc.com/ -- is one of the largest healthcare providers
in California that provides integrated care to patients with
diabetes and leg wounds [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq.
Carly Roman, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Fax: (872) 263-1109
Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com
croman@straussborrelli.com
VERSANT MEDIA: Website Secretly Uses Tracking Tools, Rada Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALLA RADA, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. VERSANT MEDIA, LLC and E! ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10679 (S.D.N.Y., December 23,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to
disclose the presence of the tracking tools on its website.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Rada used Defendants'
Website, https://www.eonline.com to read articles and watch videos.
Through Defendants' placement of Tracking Tools on the Website,
users' personal information, including browsing activity and device
identifiers, was tracked as soon as they visited the Website.
The complaint alleges that when Plaintiff Rada interacted with
Defendants' Website on November 2, 2024, her sensitive information
was disclosed to "Tracking Entities". The Plaintiff then began to
receive unsolicited advertisements relating to the content she
viewed. When she visited the Website in 2025, Plaintiff Rada
attempted to use the cookie banner to disable the Tracking Tools,
believing the Website's claim that she could disable marketing
cookies. Despite Defendants' assertions, choosing to decline all
non-essential cookies did not disable the Tracking Tools. The
Website continued to track Plaintiff and intercept her personal
information, including browsing activity and device identifiers,
after she chose to decline the marketing cookies. She would not
have used the Website had she known that her Sensitive Information
would be disclosed to unauthorized third parties, the complaint
adds.
Plaintiff Alla Rada is a citizen of California who resides in Los
Angeles, California.
Versant Media, LLC, parent company of E! Entertainment Television,
has been engaged in the business of producing film and television
content for several decades.
E! Entertainment Television, LLC owns and manages a website,
https://www.eonline.com which provides users with access to online
articles, photos, videos, and entertainment news.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Gary Ishimoto, Esq.
Christopher V. DeVivo, Esq.
Michael N. Pollack, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
E-mail: gishimoto@zlk.com
E-mail: cdevivo@zlk.com
E-mail: mpollack@zlk.com
VIETRI INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Vietri, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:26-cv-04035-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.vietri.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Cole and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On November 17, 2025, while searching online for Italian drinkware,
Plaintiff Cole accessed the Defendant's website which appeared
among the top search results and decided to make a purchase.
However, while navigating the website, the Plaintiff encountered
accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his
ability to complete a transaction. While using a screen reader, he
encountered numerous unlabeled buttons and links, preventing him
from understanding their function or purpose, the complaint
relates.
Plaintiff Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Vietri, Inc. operates the website that offers handcrafted Italian
ceramics and tabletop products, including plates, bowls, mugs,
cups, saucers, platters, serveware sets, drinkware, bakeware,
serving utensils, linens, and home and garden items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Office: (844) 731-3343
Direct: (718) 554-0237
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
VILLA & SONS ENTERPRISES: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villa & Sons
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Jorge Rico Montiel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Villa & Sons Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation d/b/a
Villa & Sons Builder SVCS, Case No. CU-26-00030 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Benito Cty., Jan. 23, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Villa & Sons Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.villasons.com/-- is a
reputable construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Esteban Mauro, Esq.
THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
301 N Lake Ave., Ste. 600
Pasadena, CA 91101-5129
Phone: 626-698-0048
Fax: 626-698-0049
Email: GREG@MAUROLAWFIRM.NET
WASHINGTON COUNTY, AR: Mayfield Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frank McConnell Mayfield III, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS; ARK WRECKING COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, INC. COM CRETE, LLC;
COMFORT SYSTEMS USA (ARKANSAS), INC.; CORNERSTONE DETENTION
PRODUCTS, INC.; GRANT GARRETT EXCAVATING, INC.; HARNESS ROOFING,
INC.; HIGHT JACKSON ASSOCIATES, P.A.; MULTI-CRAFT CONTRACTORS,
INC.; NABCO MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC. NABHOLZ CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION; NEW CENTURY COUNTER TOPS, INC.; PAINT INNOVATORS,
INC.; PC HARDWARE, LLC; RED DOT BUILDINGS; SMITH-DOYLE CONTRACTORS,
INC.; SPIRIT ARCHITECTURE GROUP LLC; STATE SYSTEMS, INC.; TRIMTECH,
INC.; US ASSURE INSURANCE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC.; WALKER MASONRY
& SONS, INC.; WIL-SHAR, INC.; WILJO INTERIORS OF ARKANSAS, LLC; X,
Y, Z, and JOHN DOES 1-99, Case No. 72CV-25-5697 was removed from
the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on Jan.
20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-05017-TLB.
The Plaintiff claims that funds used to expand the Washington
County jail included funds from the Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds Program (“CLFRE”) created under the
American Rescue Plan Act passed by the United States Congress in
2021. Plaintiff claims that Washington County’s use of CLFRE
funds “is restricted with some uses prohibited” under federal
law and that one of the restricted or prohibited uses is the use of
the funds for jail expansion. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott A. Irby, Esq.
Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
Eric Berger, Esq.
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, AK 72201-3699
Phone: (501) 371-0808
Fax: (501) 376-9442
Email: sirby@wlj.com
gmarts@wlj.com
eberger@wlj.com
WIRX PHARMACY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the WIRX Pharmacy
data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who had their information exposed in the incident, including those
who received notice of the WIRX Pharmacy data breach or otherwise
believe they are affected.
WIRX Pharmacy Security Incident: What Happened?
WIRX Pharmacy, a workers' compensation pharmacy operating in
multiple states including Arizona, Florida, and New York, has
announced a data breach impacting personal and protected health
information. The incident was detected on December 7, 2025,
following suspicious activity in the company's network. WIRX
secured its systems and initiated an investigation revealing
unauthorized access from December 6 to December 7, 2025. By January
23, 2026, it was determined that sensitive data was present in the
affected files.
Information that may have been compromised in the WIRX Pharmacy
data breach may include individuals' names, clinical details (e.g.,
medications, conditions, treatment information), Social Security
numbers, addresses, birth dates, and financial account or claims
information.
According to a report submitted to the Maine Attorney General's
Office, 20,104 individuals are affected by the WIRX Pharmacy data
breach.
What You Can Do After the WIRX Pharmacy Data Breach
If your information was exposed in the WIRX Pharmacy data breach,
attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class
action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time
spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force WIRX Pharmacy to ensure they
take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted
with. [GN]
ZERO FLAKES: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Zero Flakes Given, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-01314 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://hellojupiter.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On September 2, 2025, the Plaintiff searched online for scalp care
products and came across Defendant's website. However, while
attempting to purchase the Restoring Serum, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from
completing the transaction. While browsing the website, she
encountered numerous carousel regions that did not comply with
accessibility standards, as she was required to navigate through
each product within the carousel without any mechanism to skip it.
These accessibility barriers render the website inaccessible to,
and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired
individuals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Zero Flakes Given, Inc. operates the website that offers
scalp-focused haircare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Ohrenberger, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Office: (844) 731-3343
Direct: (716) 281-5496
E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law
*********
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 ***