251125.mbx

251125.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 235 Headlines 1993 LEXINGTON: Mercer Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers 5100 N. STATE: Kirksey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages 6TH MERIDIAN: Cano Suit Removed to D. Colorado 9F INC: "Holland" Sent to Magistrate for Settlement Talks AGE OF EMPIRE INC: Jacinto Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AGILON HEALTH: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims AIDA COCONUT GROVE: Tonos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ALAMO MIT LLC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas AMERICAN ECONOMY: Linyard Sues Over Homeowners Policy Rate Hikes AMNEAL PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hatfield" AMNEAL PHARMA: COLCRYS(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Metformin Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharma Antitrust Suit Remains Pending AMYLYX PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Shih" ANTHEM INSURANCE: Wiretaps Private Info, Alexander-Fetterman Says AT&T INC: $177MM Breach Suit Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Jan 15 AXON ENTERPRISE: Faces Antitrust Suit over Security Devices AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on Settlement Set for Feb. 10, 2026 BEYOND MEAT: Faces Securities Suit Probe Due to Impairment Charges BIG DADDY'S OYSTER: Bond Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages BIOAGE LABS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: "Cheriyala" Remains Pending BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: "Drulias" Remains Pending BLUEGROUND US INC: Iskander Suit Removed to C.D. California BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Continues to Defend Mishal, Berger Class Suit BP ASSETS: Powell Seeks to Recover Porters' Unpaid Wages CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Fix Fresh Shell Eggs' Prices CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Egg Price Fixing Scheme CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES: Securities Suit Ongoing in MA Court CHEMOURS COMPANY: Continues to Defend Customers' Suit in Georgia CHEVRON CORPORATION: Coleman Suit Removed to C.D. California CHUNG LLC: Awarded $10K in Costs Following Jury Trial Victory CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kennedy Says CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Larson Says CONDUENT BUSINESS: Moody Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info CONSOLIDATED EDISON: $725k Settlement in Moses Gets Initial Nod CONSUMERS ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Paint Markings of Private Trees CORODATA CORPORATION: Manrique Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CRIMSON WINE: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in California CRONOS GROUP: Appeal in Israeli Class Suit Remains Pending CRONOS GROUP: Awaits Prelim OK of Settlement in NY Suit CRONOS GROUP: Continues to Defend Ontario Class Suit CURALEAF INC: Doe Sues Over Exploited Health Information CYTOKINETICS INC: Faces Securities Suit in California D.M. BURR FACILITIES: Packer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime DATANYZE LLC: Continues to Defend Telemarketing Fraud Class Suit DAVITA INC: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California DECKERS OUTDOOR: Discloses Private Info to 3rd Parties, Ortiz Says DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Myers Suit Removed to E.D. California DOLLAR TREE INC: Murphy Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina DUPONT CO: Judge Grants Preliminary OK in Contamination Suit Deal EATON CORP: Must Cease Communication with Class Members, Ct. Says EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Court Limits for Class Certification Briefs EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Court Narrows Claims in Patel Suit ELITE FACILITY: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Bid to Amend Class Complaint Tossed EVERGY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Maryland FALLS SHOPPING CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property FEDERAL EXPRESS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 3, 2026 FEDERAL EXPRESS: Parties Seeks Class Cert. Briefing Schedule FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Kessler Urges Investors to Join Securities Suit FLAGSTAR FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $31.5MM FUJIFILM DIOSNYTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Alleges FUNKO INC: "Lynch" Remains Pending in Delaware FUNKO INC: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in Workers' Suit FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Washington FUTURHEALTH INC: Faces Hickey Suit Over Data Privacy Violations GAMBALE INSURANCE: Collins Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida GEICO: Undervalues Total Loss Vehicles, Abdullah Says GEN MANHATTAN: Cantu Sues Over Minimum and Overtime Wages GEV IO LLC: Miesbauer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by Jan. 16, 2026 GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES: $725K Settlement in "Moses" Wins Prelim OK HELIA HEALTHCARE: High Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages HELLOFRESH SE: Agrees to Settle Automatic Renewal Suit for $7.5MM HERBALIFE LTD: Faces DeSimone Labor Suit HIGH HOOK: Morgan Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class HIMS & HERS: Continues to Defend Sookdeo Securities Class Suit HIMS & HERS: Continues to Defend Yaghsizian Securities Class Suit HORMEL FOODS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims HOSPITAL SISTERS: Judge Preserves Genetic Privacy Class Litigation HOVE MEDIA: Ludlow Sues Over Losses From Bovada Gambling Platform HP HOOD: Faces Labrusciano-Carris Suit Over Mislabeled Oat Milk HP INC: Crosby Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users INVACARE CORPORATION: El-Homsi Sues Over Failure to Secure PII JACK'S FAMILY: Jordan Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Systems JADE INDUSTRIES: Henry Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers JEFFREY PARKER: Hardy Suit Removed to D. Colorado JELD-WEN HOLDING: Canadian Antitrust Suit Settlement Has Court OK KEEN INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. KISS VENTURES: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property KOHLS INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile Application KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Employee Suit in California LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Disseminates False Info, Indiana Public Says LATINOS RESTAURANTE: Campos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LAWNSTARTER INC: Smith Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas LEIDOS INC: Faces Walker Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges LEND-A-LOAN LLC: Datres Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Refrigerators LIBERTY FIRST LENDING: Vitello Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California LOEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Portillo Class Suit in Washington LOEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Segal Class Suit in Illinois LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Programs Class Suit LULULEMON USA INC: Done Suit Removed to C.D. California MEDICAL CENTER: Claim Forms in Breach Suit Settlement Due Jan. 2 MIB GROUP: $2.4MM Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Feb. 4 MID AMERICA PET: Claim Forms in $5.5MM Suit Settlement Due Feb. 5 MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL: Breached Fiduciary Duty, Lagafuaina Says MONISON PALLETS: Romero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MURPHY REHABILITATION: Class Cert Bid Response Due Nov. 26 NANOGAMES LLC: Jones Sues Over Illegal Nano Gambling Platform NAPCO SECURITY: Continues to Defend Zornberg Securities Class Suit NATIONAL TENANT: Class Certification Bids in Rogers Suit Stayed NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Georgia NIDEC CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims OLYMPIA-LAYTON LLC: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend Hubacek Securities Class Suit ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 2026 PAPAYA GAMING: Agrees to Settle Mobile Gaming Class Suit for $15MM PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Armas Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Continues to Defend SDNY Suit PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D.N.Y. PINNACLE WEST: Continues to Defend Nuclear Wage Class Suit PRIMO BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16 PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY: $19.5MM Deal in Wholesale Suit Has Final OK PRUVIT VENTURES: Carrera Suit Removed to N.D. California REGENCY FURNITURE: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REPLIMUNE GROUP: Faces "Jboor" Securities Suit RICK CASE: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Hebert Suit Alleges RM ACQUISITION: Wyatt Sues Over Failure to Provide Map Updates ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Awaits Court OK of Securities Suit Settlement ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Continues to Defend "Dey" ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Continues to Defend "Golubowski" ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Pay Transparency Suit Proceeding in Discovery ROKIT DRINKS IMPORTS: Roldan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RXSIGHT INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit SAPP BROS: Faces Loebach Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info SCANLAN THEODORE: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website SCOTTS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Forever Chemicals SCYNEXIS INC: Shareholder Suit over Antifungal Drug Dismissed SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Price-Fixing Antitrust Suit SEALED AIR: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Clayton Dubilier & Rice SERVICE FIRST: Sutton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIG SAUER: Faces Class Action Over Handgun's Safety Defect SOLARIS ENERGY: "Pirello" Remains Pending in Texas SUNOCO LP: Faces Orr Suit Over Illegal Use of Data Broker Software SUNSTAR VENDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marquez Alleges TAPESTRY INC: Ransom Suit Transferred to C.D. California TARGET CORP: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud TESLA INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Racial Discrimination Class Suit TICKETMASTER LLC: Abbott Suit Removed to C.D. California TILRAY BRANDS: Kha Files Mislabeling Suit Over Protein Powder TOGETHER COMPUTER: Faces James Suit Over Copyright Infringement TRADE DESK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Calif. Securities Suits TRADE DESK: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Delaware TREACE MEDICAL: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "McCluney" TTI OUTDOOR: Faces Hicks Suit Over Defective Pressure Washers U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Drip Pricing UNITED STATES: Sued Over Reservists' Denied Differential Pay UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Kim Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Lundy Balks at Unsecured Personal Info UPLEAD LLC: Miller Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. UPONOR INC: Fitzpatrick Sues Over PEX Pipes' Oxidation Defect UWM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Escue" UWM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Website Tracking Suit VITAMIN SHOPPE: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website WAGAMAMA USA: Odonnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WELLS FARGO: $33MM Trial Scams Suit Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK WESTCHESTER POINT: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property WEX INC: Yamashita Sues Over Unlawful and Deceptive Junk Fee WINTERGREEN ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Merger With KIKA Technology WM TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Ishak" Securities Suit ********* 1993 LEXINGTON: Mercer Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ STACEY MERCER, Plaintiff v. 1993 LEXINGTON LLC, a New York limited liability company, and LEX CANDY CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09245 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff has at all material times suffered from a qualified disability under the ADA. As a result of a criminal act perpetrated on her, the Plaintiff is paraplegic with no use of her legs, and has limited use of her left arm. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied full access to, and full enjoyment of the facilities at a real property owned by the Defendant, and/or any accommodations offered to the public therein in that Plaintiff was restricted and limited by her disabilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. The Plaintiff was and is blocked by physical barriers to access at the subject property, dangerous conditions, and ADA violations, existing upon the property, including inaccessible entrance, lack of signage identified by the International Symbol of Accessibility, absence of an access route from site arrival points, and failure to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all facilities are readily accessible to and usable by disabled individuals, says the suit. 1993 LEXINGTON LLC, a New York limited liability company, is the owner of that real property located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik M. Bashian, Esq. BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C. 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 279-1554 Facsimile: (516) 213-0339 E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com 5100 N. STATE: Kirksey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Dontiea A. Kirksey, and other similarly situated individuals v. 5100 N. STATE ROAD 7 FLL, INC d/b/a PLAZA HOTEL FORT LAUDERDALE, Case No. 0:25-cv-62258-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours weekly, and she was compensated for overtime hours. However, the Plaintiff was not paid for all her overtime hours. The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly, and she noticed that she was missing overtime hours every week. The Plaintiff worked a minimum of 50 hours weekly, or 10 overtime hours, but she was never paid 10 overtime hours weekly. The Plaintiff estimates that she was not paid for an average of 7 overtime hours per week. Thus, the Plaintiff was not compensated at time and one-half her regular rate for overtime hours, as required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Plaza Hotel Fort Lauderdale as a non exempt, full-time front desk employee from June 15, 2025, to September 05, 2025. Plaza Hotel Fort Lauderdale is a hotel centrally located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com 6TH MERIDIAN: Cano Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Cano, individually and for others similarly situated v. 6TH MERIDIAN SPECIALTIES LLC d/b/a PHOENIX MINING v. CRAIG HOSPITAL, Case No. 2025-CV-30030 was removed from the 7th Judicial District Court for Gunnison County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03573-RMR. In his Complaint, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the potential class members, asserted claims for relief under various Colorado wage laws, including the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and their implementing regulations ("COMPS Orders") and Colorado's Civil Theft laws.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay Reimer, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 292-5617 Email: lreimer@fisherphillips.com - and - Micah D. Dawson, Esq. 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 Email: mdawson@fisherphillips.com 9F INC: "Holland" Sent to Magistrate for Settlement Talks --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Craig J. Holland, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 9F Inc. et al., Defendants, No. 2:21-cv-00948 (MEF)(MAH) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey administratively terminated the Defendants' motion to dismiss and referred the parties to the Magistrate Judge to explore settlement possibilities before further briefing on complex statute of repose issues. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff's claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 are barred by the . . . Act's statute of repose, because the only named plaintiff who currently presses Section 11 claims was added in that capacity via the Second Amended Complaint, which was filed after the repose period expired." The relevant statute of repose only bars action[s] that are brought after the repose period has lapsed. This raised the question: did the filing of the Second Amended Complaint count as the "br[inging]" of an action? The Court examined Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Orrstown Financial Services Inc., 12 F.4th 337, 350 (3d Cir. 2021). In that case, the question was whether a plaintiff could file an amended complaint reasserting previously-dismissed claims against a defendant after the expiration of the repose period. To answer the was-it-an-action question, the court of appeals looked mainly to: (1) the text of the '33 Act; (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which sheds lights on when an "action" ends; and (3) cases that had considered the relationship between actions, complaints, and time-bars. Of these, Rule 54(b) principles seemed to loom largest. The parties here appeared to agree that the statute of repose's clock started running in August 2019, with the relevant IPO, and that the repose period ended three years later. As of that time, in August 2022, a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' then-pending first amended complaint was pending before Judge Arleo. On November 29, 2022, Judge Arleo granted the motion and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against all of the parties. The Court noted that under the Rule 54-focused logic of the case cited, Judge Arleo's November 2022 dismissal might have ended the action, such that any amended complaint filed after that point would count as a new action being brought. However, the Court observed that the court of appeals distinguished between final and conditional orders, and it is only the former that seems to end an action. This framed the question: under the logic of Rule 54, did Judge Arleo's November 2022 order end the action, or was her order "conditional"? The Court explained that if the November 2022 order is not taken as having ended the action, then a later pleading would arguably be just fine, a part of the larger case that was brought before the repose period ran out. In the opposite direction, if the November 2022 order is taken as having ended the action, then a later pleading would seem to come after the expiration of the repose period, barred but for possible application of Rule 15's relation-back doctrine. The ability of Rule 15 to "permit[] amendment outside an otherwise applicable statute of repose" when that amendment would add a new party is an open question in the Third Circuit, and a tough[] one. The Court stated that the issues raised here are potentially difficult, and how they are resolved could potentially make an important, bottom-line difference in this case. Thinking the issues through will require meaningful additional legal briefing. Before directing the parties to invest more time, the Court's view was that it would be beneficial to refer the parties to the United States Magistrate Judge, with an eye to determining whether it may be possible to resolve this matter without further litigation. Accordingly, the Court administratively terminated the motion. The United States Magistrate Judge will issue an order at an appropriate time as to next steps. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mWwr0u from PacerMonitor.com AGE OF EMPIRE INC: Jacinto Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jesus B. Jacinto, and other similarly situated individuals v. Age of Empire Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-25205-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2025), is brought for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and retaliatory damages under United States laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA or the "Act"). The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after January 2022, (the "material time") without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff worked 61 weeks with 42.5 hours, and 61 weeks with 46.5 hours weekly. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff 4 overtime hours worked for 61 weeks, for which he worked overtime hours on Thursdays and Fridays. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, but he was not compensated for overtime hours as required by law. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendant controlled his schedule and activities. Defendant knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were working every week. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, says the complaint. The Plaintiff performed as a general construction worker. Age of Empire is a construction general contractor company, specializing in concrete restoration and roofing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com AGILON HEALTH: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of agilon health, inc. (NYSE: AGL) resulting from allegations that agilon health may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased agilon health 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=46039 https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39889or 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 August 4, 2025, agilon health issued a press release entitled "agilon health Reports Second Quarter 2025 Results." Commenting on the results, agilon health's Executive Chair stated that "as we progressed through this transition year, it's become clear that the industry headwinds are more acute than previously expected[.]" Further, the release announced that the company was "suspending its previously issued full-year 2025 financial guidance and related assumptions." On this news, agilon health's stock fell 51.5% on August 5, 2025. 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, at the time, achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] AIDA COCONUT GROVE: Tonos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Tonos, and other similarly situated individuals v. AIDA COCONUT GROVE LLC, COLIBRI 4 HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a AIDA, MARCO BARDONE, and EDUARDO P. GAVILAN, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-25204-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2025), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under United States laws. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or the "Act"). The Plaintiff worked 65 hours weekly (deducting only one hour of lunchtime). The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants controlled his schedule and activities. Defendants were aware of the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt, full-time restaurant employee from February 19, 2025, to September 14, 2025. Aida Coconut Grove is a Mexican restaurant located in Coconut Grove, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ALAMO MIT LLC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alamo MIT, LLC. The case is styled as Willis Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alamo MIT, LLC doing business as: Mission Mitsubishi, Case No. 5:25-cv-01447 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alamo MIT, LLC doing business as Mission Mitsubishi -- https://www.missionmitsubishi.com/ -- offers new and used Mitsubishi cars, trucks, and SUVs to our customers near New Braunfels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com AMERICAN ECONOMY: Linyard Sues Over Homeowners Policy Rate Hikes ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEN LINYARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00436-JCB (E.D. Tex., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Texas Insurance Code. According to the complaint, AEIC has increased their rates on homeowners several times over the last few years. When AEIC's policyholders renew their annual homeowners insurance policies with AEIC, all of the rate increases that AEIC implemented during the last year are combined and take effect on renewal. The increased rate increases the premium, and the policyholder pays the significantly increased premium upon renewal. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a proposed Class comprising all persons who renewed residential property insurance policies with AEIC for a property in Texas during the past two years, where AEIC's rate increases resulted in the policyholder paying a premium that was at least 10% greater than the premium paid by the policyholder for the 12-month period, or policy period, preceding the renewal, and who were damaged thereby. American Economy Insurance Company, a Liberty Mutual/Safeco Company, provides homeowners insurance to over 100,000 policyholders covering property in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson L. Linyard, Esq. LINYARD PLLC 6744 Avalon Ave. Dallas, TX 75214 Telephone: (214) 415-0580 E-mail: gray@linyardpllc.com - and - Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hatfield" --------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling of its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative consumer class action styled Hatfield v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 1:25-cv-7248 (N.D. Ill.). In addition, on June 27, 2025, Amneal was named as a defendant along with CVS in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint in Hatfield made factual allegations similar to those in the Leonard case and purported to plead, individually and on behalf of a class of purchasers in Illinois and states with similar consumer protection laws, counts of violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and unjust enrichment. On June 30, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and, upon joint stipulation of the parties, the court agreed to hold that motion in abeyance. On July 28, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint to identify the correct defendants and add jurisdictional allegations. On September 26, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss was filed on October 27, 2025, and defendants' reply is due on November 17, 2025. AMNEAL PHARMA: COLCRYS(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the lawsuit alleging an illegal conspiracy to restrict output of generic COLCRYS(R). On November 14, 2023, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and other health plans filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against multiple manufacturers, including the Company, alleging an illegal conspiracy to restrict output of generic COLCRYS(R). See UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund et al. v. Takeda Pharma. U.S.A., Inc. et al, No. 1:23-cv-10030 (S.D.N.Y.). On February 28, 2024, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 13, 2024 and March 27, 2024, Amneal submitted a letter and brief, respectively, informing the court of its position that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lacks personal jurisdiction over Amneal. That motion remains pending and the deadline to respond to the complaint is set at 45 days after the court resolves the motion to transfer. AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Metformin Suit ------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the metformin marketing and sales practices litigation. Beginning in 2020, Amneal was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking compensation for economic loss allegedly incurred in connection with their purchase of generic metformin allegedly contaminated with NDMA. See In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH) ("In re Metformin"), Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-13728 (D.N.J.), and Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.). On January 7, 2025, the court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint in In re Metformin without prejudice and granted plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint. On February 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in In re Metformin, which incorporated the allegations of plaintiff Brice and plaintiff Hann, and then filed notices of voluntary dismissal of Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-13728 (D.N.J.) and Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.) as standalone actions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' response in opposition was filed on April 7, 2025 and defendants' reply was filed on April 22, 2025. AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharma Antitrust Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the generic pharmaceuticals pricing antitrust litigation remains pending. Beginning in March 2016, various purchasers of generic drugs filed multiple putative antitrust class action complaints against a substantial number of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including the Company, alleging an illegal conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers. They seek unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Most of these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (See In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2724 (E.D. Pa.)). Some purchasers have brought similar lawsuits in state courts in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York. In 2019 and 2020, Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico named the Company in two complaints alleging a similar conspiracy and seeking similar damages. These cases are pending in the District of Connecticut. See Connecticut, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-00710-MPS and Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., 3:20-cv-00802-MPS. In these matters, the Company has filed various motions to dismiss, some of which remain pending. Fact discovery is underway in MDL No. 2724 and in one of the State Attorneys General cases naming the Company as a defendant, Connecticut, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.. In the other, Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., defendants' joint motions for summary judgment were fully briefed on April 7, 2025. The Court denied one of those motions, related to claim-splitting, on August 13, 2025, and denied in substantial part another of those motions, related to the timeliness of Plaintiffs' claims, on October 31, 2025. two other joint motions for summary judgment, related to Plaintiffs' overarching conspiracy and state law claims, remain pending. In Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., defendant-specific motions for summary judgment, including a motion filed by the Company, were served on July 9, 2025. Responses to those defendant-specific motions were served on October 7, 2025, and replies are due November 21, 2025. Trials for the first multi-district litigation ("MDL") cases chosen for bellwether treatment, none of which name the Company as a defendant, have been stayed pending the Third Circuit's review of the MDL court's class certification decision. The MDL court selected the Humana I case -- which names Impax Laboratories, LLC ("Impax") as a defendant -- as a subsequent bellwether. See Humana Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC et al., No. 2:18-cv-03299-CMR. Summary judgment motions in Humana I are due on March 6, 2026, and replies are due on April 20, 2026. Trial is scheduled to begin on September 15, 2026. AMYLYX PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Shih" ----------------------------------------- Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the putative class action lawsuit styled Shih v. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case Number 1:24-CV-00988. On February 9, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our current and former officers (Shih v. Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case Number 1:24-CV-00988, or the Shih Complaint). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 24, 2024. The Shih Complaint asserts a claim against all defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under Section 20(a) against certain current and former officers as alleged controlling persons. The Shih Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the commercial results and prospects for RELYVRIO. The Shih Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief that the court deems appropriate. On August 12, 2024, the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the Court, and assigned docket number 1:24-CV-12068. Following the transfer, on September 6, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the Shih Complaint. On September 30, 2025, the Court issued an order finding that the majority of the alleged misstatements are inactionable, but ultimately denied the motion to dismiss. The Company filed an answer on October 30, 2025. ANTHEM INSURANCE: Wiretaps Private Info, Alexander-Fetterman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN ALEXANDER-FETTERMAN, ERIC MARKSON, JENAY REYNOLDS-SIBBACH, AARON ROSEN, KEVIN SMITH, and NANCY WINCHESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC., and ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC. f/k/a ANTHEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02282-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind., November 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment under Indiana common law. According to the complaint, Elevance (along with its public-facing subsidiary, Anthem) wiretapped its insureds in a brazen and invasive betrayal of trust. Defendants harvested highly sensitive health-related information from their insureds using hidden tracking tools, and secretly disseminated this private health-related information to third parties. The Plaintiffs were not notified of Defendants' hidden tracking and harvesting of their private information, which began as soon as Plaintiffs loaded Defendants' website. Nor were Plaintiffs provided any opportunity to limit or consent to Defendants' tracking and harvesting of their personal health information, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief to redress Defendants' unlawful interception and misuse of their private health-related information. The Plaintiff has been insured under a health policy of Anthem through his employer, California State University, Long Beach, since 2025. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, dental and vision, and disability insurance services. Anthem Insurance serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Chen Kasher, Esq. Cort VanOstran, Esq. Sean M. Milford, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com ckasher@uselaws.com cvanostran@uselaws.com smilford@uselaws.com AT&T INC: $177MM Breach Suit Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Jan 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Sullivan Kilroy, writing for The Street, reports that when it comes to giving tech companies our data, we have a certain amount of trust that they will protect it. After all, we give them our most personal information, including Social Security numbers and passwords, with the expectation that they will keep it safe. Most of the time, that trust goes unquestioned. But every once in a while, it's broken. AT&T's $177 million data-breach settlement is a stark reminder that even the biggest companies can put our data at risk. AT&T data breach will cost the company millions AT&T Inc. has agreed to a $177 million settlement to resolve class-action lawsuits. These stemmed from two major data breaches that affected millions of current and former customers whose personal data ended up on the dark web. The company did not admit wrongdoing but opted to settle to avoid prolonged litigation costs and risk. "We have agreed to this settlement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation," AT&T said in statement to AP News, adding that the company remains "committed to protecting our customers' data and ensuring their continued trust in us." In March 2024, AT&T revealed it had exposed data from approximately 7.6 million current customers and 65.4 million former account holders, including Social Security numbers, birthdates, and passcodes. The sensitive information was posted online, as reported by AP. Later in 2024, the company revealed a second breach, this time involving unauthorized downloads of call- and text-related data from a cloud platform dating back to 2022. AT&T stated the breach did not include the content of calls or texts. Both incidents led to multiple lawsuits consolidated in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The $177 million settlement resolves claims from both breaches. Who qualifies for the potential AT&T payouts The settlement is split into two sub-funds: roughly $149 million for the first breach (AT&T 1) and $28 million for the second (AT&T 2), also per AP. Eligible claimants may receive: -- Up to $5,000 for documented losses from the first breach (AT&T 1). -- Up to $2,500 for documented losses from the second breach (AT&T 2). -- Customers impacted by both breaches could qualify for combined payments up to $7,500, according to Business Insider. Payouts will depend on documented losses linked to the breaches and the number of valid claims. They will also be subject to the deduction of administration and legal fees. Deadlines and instructions for AT&T data-breach claims To receive payment, claims must be submitted by December 18, 2025. The court will hold a final approval hearing on January 15, 2026, according to Telecom Data Settlement. [GN] AXON ENTERPRISE: Faces Antitrust Suit over Security Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Axon Enterprise, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that pending in the District of New Jersey captioned Township of Howell, Monmouth County, New Jersey vs. Axon Enterprise, Inc. and Safariland, LLC (Case No. 3:23-cv-7182) is a purported antitrust class action brought by three municipalities based largely on the Federal Trade Commission's allegations. An in-person case management conference is scheduled for December 12, 2025. The complaint is about Axon's alleged scheme to unlawfully obtain and maintain its monopolies in long-range conducted energy weapons and body-worn camera systems, which allow police departments to record, store, and use video evidence collected while police officers are on duty. Axon Enterprise, Inc.is a provider of public safety technology solutions. AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on Settlement Set for Feb. 10, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Axsome Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has set the Gru class suit settlement hearing on February 10, 2026. On May 13, 2022, Evy Gru filed a putative class action complaint captioned Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the SDNY District Court, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and one director, which the Company refer to as the Securities Class Action. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false statements and omissions concerning the Company's Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls practices, and its NDA with the FDA, with respect to one of its then product candidates, AXS-07, now Symbravo®. The named plaintiff sought unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On August 11, 2022, the SDNY District Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action, one of whom later withdrew. On October 7, 2022, the Securities Class Action plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which contained substantially similar allegations as in the initial complaint. On September 25, 2023, the SDNY District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 13, 2023, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a letter seeking leave to file an amended complaint and to substitute new plaintiffs. On January 22, 2024, the SDNY District Court granted that motion and ordered that the case name be changed to In re Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation. On January 26, 2024, the replacement plaintiffs renewed their request for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, and, on February 6, 2024, the SDNY District Court granted that request. Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on February 7, 2024. On March 11, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 31, 2025, the SDNY District Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against three of Axsome's current and former officers and allowing the claims against the Company and two current officers to proceed. On October 27, 2025, the SDNY District Court preliminarily approved the terms of a settlement resolving the Securities Class Action. A settlement hearing is scheduled for February 10, 2026. Axsome is a biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapies for central nervous system conditions that have limited treatment options. BEYOND MEAT: Faces Securities Suit Probe Due to Impairment Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ: BYND) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Beyond Meat, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/beyond-meat-inc-class-action-investigation. Why Is Beyond Meat Being Investigated for Securities Fraud? Beyond Meat makes plant-based meat alternatives. In late 2023, the company went through a global operations review and depreciated certain long-lived assets. Beyond Meat said that these assets were recorded in assets held for sale in its consolidated balance sheet at the lower of their carrying value or fair value less costs to sell, and that there were no impairments. BFA is investigating whether Beyond Meat inflated the value of certain long-lived assets. Why Did Beyond Meat's Stock Drop? On October 24, 2025, Beyond Meat announced that it "expects to record a non-cash impairment charge for the three months ended September 27, 2025, related to certain of its long-lived assets," which it "expected to be material." On this news, the price of Beyond Meat stock dropped roughly 23%, from $2.84 per share on October 23, 2025 to $2.185 per share on October 24, 2025. Then, on November 3, 2025, the company delayed its earnings announcement for 3Q 25 as it needed more time to complete the impairment review. This news caused Beyond Meat stock to decline substantially during the trading day on November 3, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/beyond-meat-inc-class-action-investigation. What Can You Do? If you invested in Beyond Meat you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/beyond-meat-inc-class-action-investigation Or contact: Ross Shikowitz, Esq. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/beyond-meat-inc-class-action-investigation {GN} BIG DADDY'S OYSTER: Bond Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Mary Bond, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BIG DADDY'S OYSTER BAR, INC., a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and DAVID M. SUTHERLAND, an individual, Case No. 3:25-cv-00240-LMM (N.D. Ga., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover from Defendants minimum wage, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants did not provide notice of an intent to Plaintiff to pay its servers by the tip credit method, pursuant tothe provisions of FLSA. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants required Plaintiff and other tipped Big Daddy's Oyster Bar employees to pay a "house fee" to "back of house" Big Daddy's Oyster Bar employees. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiffs and its servers to tip out back of the house employees. In addition, Defendants charges its servers $2.00 per shift for silverware. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff did in fact pay a "house fee" to Defendants each shift that she worked. The Defendants were not entitled to utilize the FLSA's tip credit provision to credit Plaintiff's tips towards a portion of their minimum wage obligations. In each workweek during the relevant time period, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at or above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for each hour worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants, having been employed by Defendants from January 2021 to February 2025. Big Daddy's Oyster Bar is a bar and restaurant that offers food and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com BIOAGE LABS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Bioage Labs, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit pending in a California court. On January 7, 2025, a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court, Northern District Court of California, naming the Company, the Company's directors and certain of the Company's officers as defendants, and alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering and seeks damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the Court. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: "Cheriyala" Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------ Blacksky Technology Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action lawsuit styled Cheriyala v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC, remains pending. On May 8, 2024, a putative class action relating to the Merger was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action is captioned Cheriyala v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC ("Cheriyala") (Del. Ch. 2024). The Cheriyala complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against the former directors of the Osprey Board, the former officers of Osprey, and the Sponsor; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against BlackSky Holdings, Inc. and certain directors and officers of Legacy BlackSky; and unjust enrichment claims against an Osprey director. The Cheriyala complaint seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. BLACKSKY TECHNOLOGY: "Drulias" Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------- Blacksky Technology Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action lawsuit styled Drulias v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC, et al., remains pending. On May 7, 2024, a putative class action relating to the Merger of Legacy BlackSky on September 9, 2021 with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Osprey was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action is captioned Drulias v. Osprey Sponsor II, LLC, et al. ("Drulias") (Del. Ch. 2024). The Drulias complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the former directors of Osprey (the "Osprey Board"); the former officers of Osprey; and Osprey Sponsor II, LLC (the "Sponsor"); and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against HEPCO Capital Management, LLC; JANA Partners LLC; and a director of Legacy BlackSky. The Drulias complaint seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The terms of the Merger required the Company to indemnify the directors of Osprey. BLUEGROUND US INC: Iskander Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tamer Iskander, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUEGROUND US, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28778 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10738. In the Complaint, Iskander claims that Blueground violated Senate Bill 478, known as the "Honest Pricing Law," which amended the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA") to require certain businesses, such as event ticket sellers and restaurants to include all mandatory fees or charges in the advertising or listing price for a good or service.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason Strabo, Esq. Julian Andre, Esq. Tala Jayadevan, Esq. Erica Lang, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Phone: +1 310 277 4110 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730 Email: jstrabo@mwe.com JAndre@mwe.com Tjayadevan@mwe.com elang@mwe.com BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Continues to Defend Mishal, Berger Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Boardwalk Pipeline Partners LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Mishal and Berger class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the Trial Court) against the following defendants: the Company, Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and BPHC (together, Defendants), regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right). On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to the approval of the Trial Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right. On September 28, 2018, the Trial Court denied approval of the Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which, among other things, added Loews as a Defendant. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Trial Court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Trial Court ruled on the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to trial. A trial was held the week of February 22, 2021, and post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14, 2021. On November 12, 2021, the Trial Court issued a ruling in the case. The Trial Court held that Boardwalk GP breached the Limited Partnership Agreement and found that Boardwalk GP was liable to the Plaintiffs for approximately $690.0 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest (approximately $166.0 million), post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. The Trial Court's ruling and damages award was against Boardwalk GP, and not the Company or its subsidiaries. The Defendants believed that the Trial Court ruling included factual and legal errors. Therefore, on January 3, 2022, the Defendants appealed the Trial Court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the Supreme Court). On January 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court contesting the calculation of damages by the Trial Court. Oral arguments were held on September 14, 2022, and on December 19, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Trial Court's ruling and remanded the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings related to claims not decided by the Trial Court's ruling. Briefing by the parties at the Trial Court on the remanded issues was completed in September 2023. A hearing on the remanded issues was held at the Trial Court in April 2024. In September 2024, the Trial Court ruled in favor of the Defendants on all of the remanded issues. On October 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs appealed the Trial Court's ruling on the remanded issues to the Supreme Court. Briefing on this appeal was completed in March 2025 and a hearing on this appeal occurred in June 2025. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP operate the business through its primary subsidiary Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (Boardwalk Pipelines), and its operating subsidiaries, which consist of integrated pipeline and storage systems for natural gas and natural gas liquids and other hydrocarbons based in Texas. BP ASSETS: Powell Seeks to Recover Porters' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN POWELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BP ASSETS 82 LLC, NEW PARK MANAGEMENT LLC, PARKOFF OPERATING CORP., and NYRE SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09302 (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. This is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the federal and state laws, seeking from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages due to off-the-clock work, (2) unpaid uniform costs and uniform maintenance fee, (3) improper wage deductions, (4) unpaid spread of hours, (5) unpaid wages for the improper withholding of Mr. Powell's last paycheck, (6) statutory damages, (7) liquidated damages, and (8) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining of Defendants' unlawful wage practices, seeking from Defendants: (1) economic damages, (2) emotional distress damages, (3) liquidated damages, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2022, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a non-exempt hourly porter, at Defendants' residential apartment buildings. He worked for Defendants until he was terminated in retaliation by Defendants on August 23, 2024. BP Assets 82 LLC owns and operates a row of residential apartment buildings in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clara Lam, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: clam@bkllawyers.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Fix Fresh Shell Eggs' Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- KING KULLEN GROCERY CO., INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.; ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.; VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC; HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC.; HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC., HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC; HILLANDALE FARMS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC. d/b/a EXPANA; EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC.; UNITED EGG PRODUCERS; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02274-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., November 6, 2025) arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs from at least as early as January 1, 2022, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist. As part of the unlawful agreement, the Egg Producer Defendants reported inflated "assessments" of egg prices to Urner Barry, a publisher that collects, analyzes, and disseminates detailed and current information to its customers in the egg, poultry, meat, seafood, plant protein, and related segments of the food industry. Urner Barry then published price quotes using the subjective information provided by its subscribers, including the Egg Producer Defendants, the suit contends. The Defendants' manipulation of the Urner Barry benchmark allowed them to sustain ever-increasing price hikes on their customers. The Defendants have repeatedly blamed higher prices during the Class Period on Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1, which led to the culling of millions of layer hens beginning in late 2021. In reality, however, the impact of HPAI does not account for the unprecedented surge in egg prices during the Class Period. Rather, the Egg Producer Defendants have used HPAI as a pretext to dramatically increase egg prices to the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class, the suit asserts. The Defendants' conspiracy has been to the detriment of Plaintiff and members of the Class and has caused them to pay supracompetitive prices for eggs during the Class Period. The Plaintiff brings this class action Complaint against Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and violations of common law. The Plaintiff purchased Conventional Eggs from one or more distributors who had directly purchased those Conventional Eggs from one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is an American fresh egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Edward B. Mulligan V, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com nmulligan@cohenmalad.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com abarnett@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com - and - David E. Kovel, Esq. Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Lauren Wands, Esq. James Isacks, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com telrod@kmllp.com lwands@kmllp.com jisacks@kmllp.com - and - Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 834-2044 E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Egg Price Fixing Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a New York-based supermarket chain, King Kullen Grocery filed a class action lawsuit against Cal-Maine Foods, Rose Acre Farms, Versova Holdings, Hillandale Farms, Daybreak Foods, Urner Barry Publications, Egg Clearinghouse and United Egg Producers. Why: King Kullen claims the egg producers and price reporting agencies conspired to fix the price of conventional eggs. Where: The egg price-fixing class action lawsuit was filed in Indiana federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims egg producers and price reporting agencies conspired to fix the price of conventional eggs and falsely blamed rising prices on the nationwide bird flu outbreak to mask their alleged scheme. King Kullen Grocery, a chain of supermarkets headquartered in New York state, claims the defendants conspired to fix the price of conventional -- or non-free-range -- eggs between Jan. 1, 2022, and March 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, egg producers publicly attributed soaring prices to supply disruptions linked to the 2021–2022 bird flu outbreak, which resulted in the loss of millions of hens. However, King Kullen argues this explanation does not match industry data. The egg price-fixing class action lawsuit names the following egg producers as defendants: -- Cal-Maine Foods -- Rose Acre Farms -- Versova Holdings -- Hillandale Farms of PA -- Hillandale-Gettysburg -- Hillandale Farms East -- Hillandale Farms -- Daybreak Foods. Price reporting agencies Urner Barry Publications, Egg Clearinghouse and United Egg Producers are also named as defendants in the complaint. The class action lawsuit alleges that egg producers supplied selective or misleading pricing information to these agencies, enabling them to coordinate elevated price benchmarks while publicly attributing the spikes to bird flu. King Kullen argues the defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix the price of conventional eggs was exposed in March 2025 when the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was investigating the egg industry for price fixing. The class action lawsuit notes that shortly after the DOJ probe became public, wholesale egg prices dropped more than 60% -- a shift the lawsuit says further undermines the bird flu justification. The plaintiff claims the defendants' alleged conspiracy led to a surge in the price of conventional eggs during the class period that cannot be attributed to an outbreak of bird flu or an increase in input costs. The egg pricing class action lawsuit highlights that feed and fuel costs actually fell during this period, and compares the U.S. to Europe, which saw an even larger bird flu–related supply loss but only modest price increases, to illustrate how the flu alone does not explain the dramatic U.S. spike. "Defendants' manipulation of the Urner Barry benchmark allowed them to sustain ever-increasing price hikes on their customers," the egg price-fixing class action lawsuit says. Lawsuit: Egg producers and price reporting agencies conspired to fix conventional egg prices The egg price-fixing class action lawsuit argues the defendants were able to implement price increases and collectively raise prices because the egg industry is "structurally susceptible to collusion." Without a regulated public exchange for egg prices, the industry allegedly relied on publications such as Urner Barry and the Egg Clearinghouse to coordinate expectations and validate elevated pricing -- all while publicly citing bird flu as the rationale, according to the class action lawsuit. King Kullen argues the defendants' alleged conspiracy caused members of the proposed class to pay "supracompetitive" prices for conventional eggs during the class period. The plaintiff claims the defendants are guilty of violating federal antitrust laws and common law. King Kullen demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, treble and/or punitive damages for itself and all class members. Meanwhile, Black Sheep Egg Company announced a recall of its Free Range Large Grade A Brown Eggs, sold in 12- and 18-count cartons, due to potential Salmonella contamination affecting eggs with Best By dates from Aug. 22 through Oct. 31, 2025. The plaintiff is represented by Irwin B. Levin, Scott D. Gilchrist and Edward B. Mulligan V of CohenMalad LLP; Gregory S. Asciolla, Alexander E. Barnett and Jonathan S. Crevier of DiCello Levitt LLP; David E. Kovel, Thomas W. Elrod, Lauren Wands, James Isacks and Robert J. Gralewski Jr. of Kirby McInerney LLP; and Heidi M. Silton, Jessica N. Servais and Joseph C. Bourne of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. The egg price-fixing class action lawsuit is King Kullen Grocery Co. Inc. v. Cal-Maine Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02274-JMS-MJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. [GN] CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES: Securities Suit Ongoing in MA Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that a putative securities class action filed on May 19, 2023 against the company and a number of its current/former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is currently ongoing. On August 31, 2023, the court appointed the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on November 14, 2023 that, among other things, included only James Foster, the Chief Executive Officer and David R. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer as defendants along with the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company securities from May 5, 2020 through February 21, 2023, alleging that certain of the company's disclosures about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human primates made during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. On July 1, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint, denied the plaintiff's informal request for leave to amend, and entered judgment for defendants. On July 30, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Oral arguments took place on May 5, 2025. On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed in part the district court's dismissal on the pleadings of the securities fraud claims. The case returned to U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 16, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff, due to lack of statutory standing, and substitute Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. Charles River Laboratories is a full service, non-clinical global drug development partner in the business of providing the research models required in the research and development of new drugs, devices and therapies. CHEMOURS COMPANY: Continues to Defend Customers' Suit in Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend a putative class action filed by customers of Rome, Georgia. In Georgia, a putative class action was filed in 2019 on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department against the City of Dalton, Georgia, numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, Chemours and EID, alleging negligence, nuisance and other claims related to the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to their water sources ("Rome ratepayer matter"). In November 2022, EID and Chemours were added as defendants in a purported class action filed on behalf of residents of Summerville, Georgia and Chattooga County, Georgia in Federal Court ("Summerville ratepayer matter"). Plaintiffs seek various statutory violations as well as negligence and nuisance and seek remedies, injunctive relief, personal injury and property damages, as well as punitive damages. These matters are pending in court. Floyd County, City of Rome and Summerville filed to opt out of the Public Water System Class Action Settlement. In September 2025, the Court denied class certification as to future damages, but granted class certification as to past damages for alleged PFAS contamination of drinking water. In December 2024, the court in the Rome ratepayer matter ruled that the putative class did not have standing to seek injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for Defendants on that count. The court has stayed rulings on the pending motions in this matter to allow the parties to mediate the remaining claims for alleged damages related to rate increases during the first half of 2025. A mediation took place in June 2025; no resolution was reached. CHEVRON CORPORATION: Coleman Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Tatiana Coleman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Chevron Corporation, Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV29213 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10740 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Chevron Corporation -- https://www.chevron.com/ -- is an American multinational energy corporation predominantly specializing in oil and gas.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Lovrien, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 243-2361 Fax: (213) 243-2539 Email: cjlovrien@jonesday.com CHUNG LLC: Awarded $10K in Costs Following Jury Trial Victory ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jasmine H. Yoon of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's bill of costs and awarded costs in the amount of $10,575.27 following a jury verdict in favor of the Defendant. Calculated as the requested amount ($14,323.82) minus the disallowed amounts for witness service fees, daily trial transcripts, costs already awarded through the motion for deposition expenses, and interpreter travel expenses ($318.70, $1,546.60, $660.25, and $1,223.00, respectively) The Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 23, 2024, alleging that the Defendant violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, Va. Code Ann. Section 40.1-28.8 et seq., and the 2020 amendments to the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The court held a jury trial on August 18-20, 2025. On August 22, 2025, the court entered a judgment order consistent with the jury verdict in favor of the Defendant. On September 1, 2025, the Defendant filed a bill of costs requesting $318.70 in fees for service of summons and subpoena, $4,733.35 in fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case, and $9,271.77 for compensation of interpreters and costs of special interpretation services under 28 U.S.C. Section 1828. The Defendant's requested costs totaled $14,323.82. The Plaintiff filed objections to the Defendant's bill of costs on September 22, 2025. The Plaintiff argued first that the FLSA statute does not provide for costs to a prevailing defendant, and that an employer cannot recover costs in a FLSA action unless they can show that the plaintiff litigated in bad faith. In the alternative, the Plaintiff asserted that under the factors delineated in Ellis v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 434 F. App'x 232, 235 (4th Cir. 2011), the court should exercise its discretion to deny any award of costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). FLSA Does Not Preclude Cost Award to Prevailing Defendant The court found that prevailing FLSA defendants are not precluded from receiving a Rule 54(d)(1) cost award. The court noted that because the FLSA is silent as to a prevailing defendant's cost award, the statute does not preclude such an award. The court cited Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 380-81 (2013), which stated that silence in a federal statute does not displace the background rule that a court has discretion to award costs under Rule 54(d). Although the Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, other federal courts of appeal have expressly held that a prevailing FLSA defendant may recover costs under Rule 54(d). The court concluded that the FLSA statute does not prevent the Defendant from recovering a cost award pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1). The court found that while the Plaintiff acted in good faith in bringing the FLSA and other state claims against the Defendant, the Plaintiff failed to rebut the Rule 54(d)(1) presumption that costs should be awarded to the prevailing party. The court evaluated the five Ellis factors: (1) misconduct by the prevailing party; (2) the unsuccessful party's inability to pay the costs; (3) the excessiveness of the costs in a particular case; (4) the limited value of the prevailing party's victory; or (5) the closeness and difficulty of the issues decided. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not act in good faith. However, the court found that the Defendant did not present adequate evidence of the Plaintiff's bad faith; the fact that both Li and Xiong's lengthy and detailed testimony about their long work schedules contradicted the Defendant's witness testimony at trial did not suffice to negate the Plaintiff's good faith in bringing suit against the Defendant. The Plaintiff argued inability to pay costs. The Plaintiff described Xiong's inability to work at Chung's Barbershop or find alternative employment between April and June of 2025. The Plaintiff also argued that due to Xiong's inability to find work in Virginia and threats of arrest, detention, and deportation, the Plaintiffs were obliged to move back to New York, which in turn forced Li to leave his employment at KS Hair Studio. The Plaintiff stated that they had $10,111.72 combined cash on hand as of May 14, 2025. The court noted that courts have found an inability to pay costs when the prevailing party's requested costs exceed or are nearly equal to the losing party's yearly income. However, in this case, the Plaintiff did not provide their yearly income and instead compared their total cash on hand at a random time several months before the objections filing to the total costs requested by the Defendant. The court found that the Plaintiff provided little support for their claim of low or no income and their inability to pay. The court agreed that some costs should be excluded but did not find the overall bill of costs request to be excessive. First, the Defendant inadvertently failed to include any attachments to the bill of costs supporting the claimed $318.70 in witness service fees. Although the Defendant claimed that they uploaded the receipts of the witness service fees, the receipts did not appear anywhere on the CM/ECF docket. Therefore, $318.70 was excluded from the cost award. As for the transcripts, the Plaintiff argued that trial transcript costs should not be recoverable because neither Defense counsel nor the jury relied on the trial transcript. The cost of daily copies of trial transcripts is recoverable if the daily transcript is indispensable, rather than merely for the convenience of the attorneys. The court did not conclude that daily trial transcripts were indispensable in this case. Thus, $1,546.60 was excluded from the cost award. The Plaintiff also contested the fees associated with the abandoned deposition of Li. Since the court already addressed and awarded $660.25 in court reporter and transcription costs and $780 in interpreter costs to the Defendant for the May 21 deposition, these costs were excluded from the bill of costs award. As for the interpreter travel costs, the Plaintiff objected to the travel expenses of $775.00 and mileage of $448.00 for the abandoned deposition. The court decided that given the Defendant's lack of justification for interpreter travel costs, these expenses would not be awarded. The Defendant offered justification in their reply brief, emphasizing that the Plaintiff requested that depositions be taken remotely. However, the Defendant offered no clear evidence of the Plaintiff's agreement to or awareness of the non-local interpreters and their travel for remote depositions. The court granted the Plaintiff's objection and excluded $1,223.00 from the total $9,271.77 in interpreter compensation expenses. The court did not find that the Defendant's requested costs rose to the excessive level. The excluded daily trial transcript, witness service, and travel costs made up less than 22 percent of the total requested amount. The court agreed with the Defendant that their victory was not of limited value, as they prevailed on all claims that the Plaintiff brought against them. Although jury deliberation lasted only less than two hours, the trial's factual and legal issues were nevertheless relatively complex, as the case involved a federal statute and two Virginia statutes with different applicable recovery periods for respective Plaintiffs. The issues surrounding these claims were hotly contested. However, even if this factor weighed in favor of the Plaintiff, it was not enough to justify denying costs. A copy of the Court's decision dated 13th November is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6eB28M from PacerMonitor.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kennedy Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN KENNEDY and JARED POLI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17233 (D.N.J., November 5, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants, which held in their possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. On January 13, 2025, Defendant Conduent discovered a cyber incident that impacted a limited portion of its network. According to the complaint, the Defendants owe Plaintiffs and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this private information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendants utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. The data breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendants' failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect their systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have been harmed because they are at immediate risk of having their personal information used against them, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, allege claims of (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) breach of implied contract; and (4) unjust enrichment. Conduent Business Services, LLC is a company that provides business process outsourcing and digital business solutions to commercial and government clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Larson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC LARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A MUTUAL LEGAL RESERVE CORPORATION d/b/a BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17242-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., November 6, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. On January 13, 2025, Defendant Conduent learned that it was the victim of a cyber incident. In response, Defendant Conduent launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On October 24, 2025, 10 months after becoming aware of the data breach -- Defendant Conduent issued a notice of public disclosure about the data breach. The Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duties by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendants inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained, and their failure to provide timely and adequate notice to affected patients and policyholders, including Plaintiff and Class Members, of the Data Breach and the types of information unlawfully accessed. Conduent a provider of digital business solutions and services to clients across the commercial, government, transportation and healthcare sectors, including Defendant BCBSM, and maintains its principal place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey. BCBSM is a Montana-based health insurer, providing a variety of health insurance plans and administrative services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Catherine B. Derenze, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad St., Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cderenze@litedepalma.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Moody Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIA MOODY and IVAN BEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17227 (D.N.J., November 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. On October 24, 2025, Conduent announced that it had experienced a hack and exfiltration of customer data between approximately October 21, 2024 and January 13, 2025. While Conduent has not publicly reported what sensitive personal information (SPI) was included, notices sent to Plaintiffs disclose that these include names, Social Security numbers, address, date of birth, treatment and diagnosis information, treatment cost information, treatment date information, other medical information, health insurance number, and provider information. The Plaintiffs' and Class members' SPI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the SPI of Plaintiffs and Class members, alleges the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose SPI was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' SPI, (ii) adequately warn Plaintiffs and Class Members of its inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. Conduent Business Services, LLC is a third-party vendor for various health care insurers including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com CONSOLIDATED EDISON: $725k Settlement in Moses Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RA VEN MOSES, ST ARAISHA MORRIS, DWAYNE DALE, ISMAIYL JONES, AYANNA BEACHAM, ANDRE MURRAY, VICTOR BALLAST, and LUIS SIMONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, LLC, GRIFFIN SECURITY SERVICES, MICHAEL SMITH, WINSTON SMITH, ANDREW MUNIZ, and AARON MUNIZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-01200-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Wang entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. -- The Settlement agreement creates a fund of $725,000 to settle the class action. Consolidated provides energy-related products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QBy0lP at no extra charge.[CC] CONSUMERS ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Paint Markings of Private Trees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Outside Legal Counsel PLC and Gronda PLC have filed a sweeping class action lawsuit in Saginaw County against Consumers Energy Company and its vegetation-management contractor, ArborMetrics Solutions, after homeowners across the county began discovering unexplained blue paint markings on healthy trees located well within their private yards and woodlots. The suit, brought on behalf of plaintiff Scott William Kuchar and all similarly situated residents, alleges a pattern of unauthorized entries and unpermitted alterations to private property under the guise of routine line maintenance. The dispute began when property owners found bright blue dots and slash marks onto the bark of tree that have stood for years without ever touching or threatening Consumers Energy's overhead lines. The homeowners later learned that contractors acting for Consumers Energy had crossed onto private land and begun identifying trees for trimming or removal under a blanket "clearance" program that demands up to fifteen feet of space on each side of certain lines. The lawsuit alleges that this program disregards settled Michigan property law. Easements, where they exist at all, are limited grants -- not blank checks -- and require strict proof of scope. Consumers Energy, the suit argues, has neither produced nor justified any easement that would authorize its agents to walk onto private land and mark non-interfering trees with permanent paint. Nor, according to the complaint, can the utility enlarge the scope of any easement simply by asserting a countywide vegetation-removal regime untethered from actual line conditions. "This case is about a basic property rights," said attorney Philip L. Ellison, lead co-counsel. "Providing power does not give a utility the right to ignore legal rights that every property owner enjoys. No company gets to invade private land, mark irreplaceable trees, and threaten their destruction without proving the legal basis for doing so." For countless homeowners, the issue is much more than aesthetic. Mature trees provide shade, environmental protection, storm buffering, ornamentation, and real property value. They are part of Michigan's landscape and identity. The complaint points out that once a healthy mature tree is cut or aggressively "crowned," the damage is permanent. No monetary payment can restore the decades of growth, structure, and presence that make these trees unique. The lawsuit therefore seeks not only damages and exemplary damages, but also a declaration that utilities must prove the existence and limits of any easement before marking or altering trees. The class action seeks to represent all Saginaw County property owners who received unauthorized blue markings on healthy, non-interfering trees or who were threatened with excessive trimming under the disputed program. The complaint alleges trespass, threatened trespass, wrongful interference with property rights, and statutory trespass to trees under MCL 600.2919, which allows treble damages for unauthorized injury to trees. It paints a picture of a wide spread practice -- one in which families, retirees, and long-time homeowners awoke to find contractors on their land defacing their trees without explanation or legal authority. To help residents understand their rights and follow the case, Outside Legal Counsel has launched SaginawTrees.com, a public information hub providing photographs, updates, and resources for affected homeowners. "People deserve clarity," "Your land is your land. Your trees are your trees. And the law still draws that line," Ellison said. The case, Kuchar v. Consumers Energy Co, was filed November 17, 2025, in the 10th Judicial Circuit Court for Saginaw County. The full class action complaint is available at www.SaginawTrees.com. [GN] CORODATA CORPORATION: Manrique Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CORODATA CORPORATION, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Manrique, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORODATA CORPORATION, CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE, INC., CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT, INC., CORODATA SHREDDING, INC., AEROTEK, INC., Case No. 25CV479923 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." Corodata -- https://corodata.com/ -- is the largest independent records management company in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly DeSario, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com CRIMSON WINE: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a consumer class action lawsuit filed in a California court. On December 23, 2024, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment, and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the matter, and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. It is at least reasonably possible that the estimate could change in the future and the effect of the change could also be material. CRONOS GROUP: Appeal in Israeli Class Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that an appeal in the purported class action lawsuit filed in an Israeli court remains pending. On April 17, 2023, a group of plaintiffs led by the Green Leaf (Ale Yarok) political party filed a Statement of Claim and Request for Approval of a Class Action on behalf of a purported class of Israeli cannabis consumers in the District Court of Tel Aviv, Israel, against 26 cannabis-related parties, including three Cronos Israel entities. The Statement of Claim alleges that the defendants violated certain laws relating to the marketing of medical cannabis products, including marketing to unlicensed cannabis consumers. The lawsuit seeks a total of ILS 420 million. The Cronos Israel defendants moved to dismiss the action on August 13, 2023. The court granted the motion (and similar motions filed by other defendants) on May 16, 2024, dismissing the plaintiffs' petition for class certification without prejudice and their individual claims with prejudice, and ordering the plaintiffs to pay ILS 10 thousand to each of the defendants for costs. On July 14, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel seeking to overturn both the dismissal of plaintiffs' individual claims and the award of costs. The appeal is pending. CRONOS GROUP: Awaits Prelim OK of Settlement in NY Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting preliminary court approval of a settlement in the putative class action complaints filed in a New York court. On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer. The court consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenue and internal controls were incorrect based on the Company's disclosures relating to the Audit Committee of the Board's review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a damage request. The defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021. On November 17, 2023, the court entered an order granting the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On December 1, 2023, the shareholder plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal, requesting that the court instead dismiss the action without prejudice and permit the plaintiffs to seek leave to further amend the complaint. On December 3, 2024, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and on January 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint. The defendants are moving to dismiss the second amended class action complaint. On May 30, 2025, the parties jointly informed the court that they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action. At the parties' request, the Court has stayed all deadlines in the action pending submission of the proposed settlement to the Court. The proposed settlement remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the court and certain other conditions not within the Company's control. CRONOS GROUP: Continues to Defend Ontario Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed in an Ontario court. On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim, as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified amount. The Amended Statement of Claim named (i) the Company, (ii) its Chief Executive Officer, (iii) former Chief Financial Officer, (iv) former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, and (v) current and former members of the Board as defendants and alleged breaches of the Ontario Securities Act, oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation. The Amended Statement of Claim generally alleged that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenue and internal controls were misrepresentations based on the Company's March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company's subsequent restatement. The Amended Statement of Claim did not quantify a damage request. On June 28, 2021, the Court dismissed motions brought by the plaintiff for leave to commence a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and for certification of the action as a class action. The plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal of the motions only with respect to the Company, the Chief Executive Officer, and the now former Chief Financial Officer; the remaining defendants were dismissed from the matter with prejudice and the Company and all individual defendants agreed not to seek costs from plaintiff in connection with the dismissal of the motions. On September 26, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the Superior Court's dismissal of the leave and certification motions, granted the plaintiff leave to proceed to bring a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, and remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court. On April 11, 2023, the plaintiff filed a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, which reflected the dismissal of the defendants for which an appeal was not sought, the removal of the claims for oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation, as well as shortening the proposed class period. On October 10, 2023, the Superior Court certified the action on behalf of a class of persons or entities who acquired shares in the secondary market, including on the TSX and Nasdaq, during the period from May 9, 2019 to March 30, 2020, other than certain excluded persons. CURALEAF INC: Doe Sues Over Exploited Health Information -------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CURALEAF, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-25202-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2025), is brought on behalf of all individuals who have purchased medical cannabis on www.curaleaf.com and whose protected health information has been exploited. The Defendant is involved in an illicit scheme whereby it has surreptitiously integrated code into its website that discloses protected health information to third-party marketers and data brokers—which, in turn, use that protected information to assist Defendant with marketing campaigns to its customers. Specifically, Defendant aids, employs, agrees with, and conspires with Google, Inc., SD Technologies, Inc., ("Sweed"), InRadio, Inc., ("AdPredictive"), and StackAdapt Inc., to eavesdrop on and disclose electronic communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class members, including communications that contain sensitive, protected, and confidential information relating to marijuana usage and consumption. By assisting third parties with intercepting sensitive and confidential communications, Defendant violated state and federal anti-wiretapping laws--along with HIPAA and other state laws prohibiting a marijuana treatment center from disclosing such information. Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illicit actions. This illegal scheme which exploits customers' protected health information to boost marketing effectiveness and enhance medical marijuana sales—must be put to an end, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited curaleaf.com and purchased medicinal marijuana. Curaleaf, Inc. owns and operates www.curaleaf.com, one of the largest online pharmacies for medical marijuana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYERS LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 400-4260 Email: creilly@mnrpfirm.com mpineiro@mrpfirm.com - and - Arun Ravindran, Esq. RAVINDRAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 300 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 677-8713 Email: arun@ravindranlaw.com CYTOKINETICS INC: Faces Securities Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- Cytokinetics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2025, that on September 17, 2025, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the company and its chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This was purportedly filed on behalf of a class consisting of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between December 27, 2023 and May 6, 2025. It generally alleges that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the timeline for the new drug application (NDA) regulatory approval process for "aficamten" and seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, and costs. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company publicly represented that it expected approval from the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) for its NDA for aficamten in the second half of 2025 and failed to disclose material risks related to the timing of that approval related to the company's decision to omit a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for aficamten in the NDA. The deadline for potential lead plaintiff applicants to file a motion for lead plaintiff was November 17, 2025. Cytokinetics is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of small molecule therapeutics that modulate muscle function for the potential treatment of serious diseases and medical conditions. D.M. BURR FACILITIES: Packer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Tiffany Packer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D.M. BURR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-13555-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime rate calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she was eligible for and received bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. However, Defendant failed to take the various routine and non-discretionary remuneration into consideration when calculating their hourly employees' regular rate of pay and resulting overtime premium rate. As a result, Defendants did not pay the proper overtime rate under the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 2025 to April 2025 as a Custodian. The Defendant is a business corporation organized under the State of Michigan with its principal office located in Flint, 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 DATANYZE LLC: Continues to Defend Telemarketing Fraud Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company it acquired, Datanyze LLC, continues to defend itself from the Telemarketing Fraud Act class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Similarly, on June 26, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Datanyze LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that Datanyze LLC violated the State of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act, on substantially the same grounds as the action filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC referred to above. The suit seeks statutory damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Datanyze LLC intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Datanyze is the leader in technographics -- real-time insights based on a company's technology choices and buying signals. DAVITA INC: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Victor Sanchez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DaVita, Inc., Martha Tashjian, an individual; Shelly Martinez, an individual; DOES 1-100, Inclusive; Case No. 25STCV29466 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10742 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. DaVita, Inc. -- https://davita.com/ -- is a healthcare provider that offers dialysis and integrated health care management services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Joshua E. Anderson, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 203-4000 Fax: (310) 229-1285 Email: josh.anderson@faegredrinker.com DECKERS OUTDOOR: Discloses Private Info to 3rd Parties, Ortiz Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ORTIZ; and LAURA WILLIS ALBRIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DECKERS OUTDOOR CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09631 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, when consumers visit the Defendant's ecommerce websites including, www.hoka.com, the "Hoka Website"; www.teva.com, the "Teva Website"; www.sanuk.com, the "Sanuk Website"; www.ugg.com, the "Ugg Website"; and www.koolaburra.com, the "Koolaburra Website1; referred to collectively as the "Websites", the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner, which is identical on each of the Websites. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Websites use cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant's Websites offer consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. But Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to disable or reject all cookies, including all categories of Targeted Advertising, Personalization, and Analytics cookies (except those cookies "Essential" for the Websites to function), as well as opt out of the sale and sharing of user personal information, Defendant surreptitiously causes several third parties -- including Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), Google LLC (DoubleClick, Google Analytics, and YouTube), Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft Bing), Snap Inc. (SnapChat), and Tealium, Inc. (the "Third Parties") -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Websites, says the suit. Deckers Outdoor Corp. designs and markets footwear and accessories. The Company offers footwear for men, women and children. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Myers Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jackie Myers and Anthony Marquez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV023075 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03241-JAM-CKD. The Complaint asserts the following claims on behalf of Plaintiffs and putative classes of United States and California residents arising from DSG's alleged use of trackers and cookies to collect identifying information of visitors to DSG's website at www.dickssportinggoods.com and to intercept information about the interactions of website visitors with the website: violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code ("CIPA"); violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code; invasion of privacy, California Constitution; and violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the "Wiretap Act").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Rana Salem, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Phone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com rsalem@sheppardmullin.com DOLLAR TREE INC: Murphy Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marilena Murphy, individually and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individuals v. DOLLAR TREE, INC., Case No. 25CV006137-100 was removed from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, County of Buncombe, State of North Carolina, to the United States District Court for Western District of North Carolina on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00397. The Plaintiff alleges a single violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). The Plaintiff alleges that she has "experienced injury, including without limitation violation of statutory rights under the FACTA violation of legally protected interests, invasion of privacy, lost opportunity costs, loss related to the benefit of the bargain, loss of time addressing Defendant's acts or omissions in relation to her personal financial information, loss pertaining to privacy protection expectations, loss of the ability to utilize Defendant's exchange policy, diminution of the value of the goods purchased, and exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David C. Wright, III, Esq. Adam K. Doerr, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, 600 South Tryon Street, Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: 704.377.2536 Facsimile: 704.378.4000 Email: dwright@rbh.com adoerr@rbh.com - and - Joel Griswold, Esq. Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. Katharine Walton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Phone: 312.416.6200 Facsimile: 312.416.6201 Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com kwalton@bakerlaw.com DUPONT CO: Judge Grants Preliminary OK in Contamination Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan J. Lyons of Times Union reports that a federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed against DuPont Co. on behalf of Hoosick Falls residents who were allegedly harmed by contamination of their community's water supplies. The approval by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino, who said the agreement appears to be "procedurally fair, reasonable, and adequate," will add $27 million to the more than $65 million that has been recovered from the class-action litigation. One of the next steps in the process requires current and former Hoosick Falls residents to file claims or to opt out of the settlement. Stephen G. Schwarz, a Rochester attorney who is a co-lead counsel in the case, said that notices will be distributed to residents via regular mail and email in early December, and the claim forms will be available soon on the website: https://www.hoosickfallspfoasettlement.com/. For those who participated in the 2021 settlement, they will be able to file short-form claims. For those who are filing for the first time, they will be required to file longer claim forms. There is a public meeting scheduled at the Hoosick Falls Central Schools auditorium on Jan. 21, where attorneys in the case will explain the settlement and answer questions. On Jan. 22, a workshop is scheduled at the Hoosick Falls Armory; the attorneys will be there to help anyone needing assistance in completing claim forms. The federal lawsuit was filed nearly a decade ago on behalf of residents in and around the village of Hoosick Falls, where the drinking water had been contaminated for decades by factories that used manufacturing chemicals produced by the company. The settlement funds will be distributed among current and former residents of the community who had been exposed to perfluorinated chemicals through contaminated drinking water. It also includes an additional $6 million for ongoing medical monitoring of residents who enrolled in that program. When that 10-year program is over, any money left over will be distributed to the participants who took part in the monitoring. The agreement with DuPont will bring the total distributions to residents for loss of property value due to the contamination to approximately $35,000,000. James Bilsborrow of Weitz & Luxenberg in New York City, a co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, previously said that amount is very close to the maximum loss calculated by Dr. Jeffrey Zabel, a real estate economist from Tuft's University. The tentative agreement was finalized in July as a multi-week trial in the case had been scheduled to begin in U.S. District Court in Albany, pitting a small community against one of the world's largest corporations. DuPont had declined to be part of an earlier $65 million settlement involving three other companies in the case: Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International -- which had both operated a manufacturing plant in the village -- as well as 3M. As the case against DuPont wended toward trial, there had been a protracted legal battle over the admission of evidence and the expected testimony of expert witnesses. They included filings that described how the company had known about the potential health dangers of the chemicals but allegedly failed to tell its customers -- including the operators of the manufacturing facilities that had spewed the chemicals from their smokestacks in the small eastern Rensselaer County community dating to the 1960s. DuPont, in its trial brief, asserted that it was one of many companies providing those chemicals to the manufacturers, and that it did not control their factories or have a duty under law to warn them about any potential danger from the products. The brief also asserted that the manufacturing companies handled the products "shoddily" and were responsible for the groundwater pollution. Four companies are alleged to have had varying roles in the decades-long pollution of the community's water supplies, which were contaminated with the perfluorinated chemicals used at the various factories in the village through the years. The earlier settlement with three of those companies had secured cash payments and long-term medical monitoring for thousands of property owners and residents, including those who were found to have elevated levels of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, in their bloodstreams. The plaintiffs' attorneys had intended at trial to cite evidence they said showed that by the 1970s, DuPont had conducted blood tests on its own workforce and determined that employees working with Teflon products had retained PFOA in their blood, and that it took years to dissipate after any exposure ended. DuPont began using ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or C-8, in the early 1950s. It's a synthetic chemical that was invented and produced by 3M to help manufacture fluoropolymer products, which are resistant to heat and water. One of the products sold by DuPont carried the brand name of Teflon, which was sold in liquid, powder and granular form. Many of the small factories in and around Hoosick Falls used those products -- or other forms of them -- in their manufacturing processes. Often, the chemicals were dumped on the ground or settled onto the ground of the surrounding area after being emitted from smokestacks. The litigation has sought to compensate residents in that area for the potential health consequences of their exposure to the chemicals, as well as the potential loss of property value, and to provide a system of early detection for any related health issues they may suffer in the years ahead. More than 2,500 claims were submitted by residents who received compensation as well as access to medical monitoring in the first settlement. The manufacturing plant that Saint-Gobain has operated on McCaffrey Street in Hoosick Falls since the 1990s had been a central focus of pollution concerns. The plant is adjacent to the village's water treatment plant, which pulled water from underground wells that have been polluted with PFOA. Honeywell's predecessor corporation, Allied Signal, operated the facility from 1986 to 1996, one of five companies that ran the plant since 1956. [GN] EATON CORP: Must Cease Communication with Class Members, Ct. Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW SMITH, JASON THOMAS, PACIFIC MANAGEMENT, LLC, GORDON KIRK, TAUNI DOSTER, STEVE WATKINS, and WILLIAM DOHERTY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EATON CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00157-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Richard Story entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiff Smith is ordered to respond to Eaton's Aug. 18, 2025, interrogatories and requests for production within 14 days from the entry of this order or be subject to appropriate sanctions, including dismissal of Smith's claims for failure to prosecute. -- The Plaintiffs shall preserve all Eaton Breakers and appliances/electronic devices purportedly damaged by an Eaton Breaker; and -- If a Plaintiff needs to repair or replace any Eaton Breakers or any wiring, panels, or subpanels, they must (i) provide Eaton with written notice thereof; (ii) give Eaton a reasonable period of time to inspect the property before the repair or replacement; (iii) allow Eaton to observe and photograph/video the repair or replacement; and (iv) preserve Eaton's request that the Court compel Plaintiffs to answer the above-mentioned interrogatories is denied. Eaton is ordered to cease further communication with putative class members. Eaton is an American-Irish multinational power management company/ A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SdAbG8 at no extra charge.[CC] EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Court Limits for Class Certification Briefs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Philip Bailey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EdFinancial Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00144-WMR-JHR, United States Magistrate Judge John H. Rains IV granted the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Page Limits for Class Certification Briefs and ordered that: Plaintiff may file a Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Class Certification not to exceed thirty-five (35) pages, exclusive of the Table of Contents and Table of Authorities. Defendant may file a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of up to thirty-five (35) pages, exclusive of the Table of Contents and Table of Authorities. Plaintiff may file a Reply Brief in Support of his Motion for Class Certification not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, exclusive of the Table of Contents and Table of Authorities. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M38DOQ from PacerMonitor.com EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Court Narrows Claims in Patel Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on October 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of Edwards filed a putative securities class action complaint against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Patel v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al.," No. 24-cv-02221. On September 17, 2025, said court held a hearing on the company's Motion to Dismiss, and on September 19, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The complaint alleges violations of various securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements regarding its business prospects. The complaint seeks damages, interest, costs and other fees. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation is into structural heart innovation encompassing both surgical and transcatheter therapies with a portfolio of repair and replacement technologies for both mitral and tricuspid heart valves provides a broad set of treatment options. ELITE FACILITY: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Laureano Castillo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. ELITE FACILITY PROFESSIONALS, INC., an Illinois corporation, JENNIFER M. OGRODNY, an individual, and LESTER OGRODNY, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-13677 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff regularly worked between 54 and 66 hours or more in individual workweeks from April, 2023 through May, 2024. The Defendants occasionally compensated Plaintiff at one and one-half times his hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40, but typically failed to pay him an overtime premium for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 in individual workweeks. The Defendants paid a substantial portion of Plaintiff's overtime compensable hours at his straight-time hourly rate of pay, or no payment at all. In violation of the statutes and implementing regulations of the FLSA and IMWL, the Defendants failed to create, maintain, and preserve complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a landscaper and manual laborer for Defendants from late April, 2023 through May, 2024. Elite Facility Professionals, Inc. is engaged in selling and providing facilities management, maintenance, construction and landscaping services to commercial customers nationwide including throughout Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com - and - Alvar Ayala, Esq. THE FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 77 W. Washington Street, Ste. 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (224) 522-3178 Email: aayala@flapillinois.org EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Bid to Amend Class Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicole A. Williams v. Euromarket Designs, Inc. et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-02932-MWC-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint and continue class certification deadline, and -- striking the Plaintiff's class allegations. The Nov. 14, 2025, hearing is vacated. The Plaintiff has not shown good cause to amend the scheduling order. First, the Plaintiff offers no explanation as to what actions she took between cancellation of the May 7, 2025 mediation and the August 2025 discussion with Defendant regarding a stipulation to continue the class certification deadline. As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff did nothing to advance the case for three months. Such inaction is an indication that Plaintiff was not diligent. Second, Plaintiff bases much of her argument on the presence of a stipulation that the Court never approved. Though Plaintiff would have had to first show that good cause existed under Rule 16 to alter the scheduling order and extend the deadline to amend the pleadings, Plaintiff has also failed to meet the Rule 15 standard to amend her pleadings. Specifically, for the same reasons that the Court finds that Plaintiff was not diligent, the Court finds undue delay. Because the Plaintiff will be unable to file a motion for class certification, her class allegations are no longer relevant to the case. Accordingly, the Court strikes the class allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint. This case centers on allegations that Defendant violated California employment law. Euromarket provides household consumer products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RJ57zW at no extra charge.[CC] EVERGY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in Maryland -------------------------------------------- Evergy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a nuclear antitrust class action in a Maryland court. In July 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act in establishing wages for employees at nuclear facilities since 2003. The complaint names 28 defendants, including all 26 owner operators of nuclear facilities in the United States, or affiliated entities, including Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which owns and operates Wolf Creek, a nuclear facility in Kansas. Evergy indirectly owns 94% of Wolf Creek, with Evergy Kansas Central and Evergy Metro each owning 47% of the nuclear facility. This case is at a preliminary stage and the Evergy Companies are unable to assess the outcome or reasonably estimate any possible damages with respect to the claims. FALLS SHOPPING CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. THE FALLS SHOPPING CENTER ASSOCIATES LLC; BULLA THE FALLS LLC; and LOS RANCHOS OF THE FALLS INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-25177-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. THE FALLS SHOPPING CENTER ASSOCIATES LLC, owned and operated a commercial property located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFFON GILLYARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01666-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order that the Class Certification Motion Schedule be set as follows: The Plaintiff's motion: Aug. 3, 2026 The Defendant's response: Oct. 5, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply: Nov. 2, 2026 Federal is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RdPaWE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq. Gregory A Wolk, Esq. Erika Lane, Esq. REKHI & WOLK, P.S. 529 Warren Ave N., Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 388-5887 Facsimile: (206) 577-3924 E-mail: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com greg@rekhiwolk.com elane@rekhiwolk.com - and - Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com The Defendant is represented by: Gabriella Wagner, Esq. WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON 1000 Second Ave, Suite 2050, Seattle, WA 98104-3629, Telephone: (206) 623-4100 E-mail: Wagner@wscd.com - and - Mitchell S. Bober, Esq. 1000 FedEx Drive Moon Township, PA 15108 Telephone: (412) 859-2120 E-mail: Mitchell.bober@fedex.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Parties Seeks Class Cert. Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFFON GILLYARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01666-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulated motion to set class certification briefing schedule. On Oct. 30, 2025, the Parties attended mediation but were unable to resolve this matter. Therefore, the Parties submit this status report and propose the Court set a schedule for briefing class certification as set forth below: The Plaintiff's motion: Aug. 3, 2026 The Defendant's response: Oct. 5, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply: Nov. 2, 2026 Federal Express is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mDQK1Y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq. Gregory A Wolk, Esq. Erika Lane, Esq. REKHI & WOLK, P.S. 529 Warren Ave N., Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 388-5887 Facsimile: (206) 577-3924 E-mail: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com greg@rekhiwolk.com elane@rekhiwolk.com - and - Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com The Defendant is represented by: Gabriella Wagner, Esq. WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON 1000 Second Ave, Suite 2050, Seattle, WA 98104-3629, Telephone: (206) 623-4100 E-mail: Wagner@wscd.com - and - Mitchell S. Bober, Esq. 1000 FedEx Drive Moon Township, PA 15108 Telephone: (412) 859-2120 E-mail: Mitchell.bober@fedex.com FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Kessler Urges Investors to Join Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Firefly Aerospace Inc. ("Firefly") (NASDAQ: FLY) on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Firefly: (1) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with the company's IPO conducted on or about August 7, 2025; and/or (2) securities between August 7, 2025 and September 29, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lead plaintiff deadline is January 12, 2026. CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP: If you suffered Firefly losses, you may CLICK HERE or copy and paste the following link into your browser: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/firefly-aerospace-inc?utm_source=Globe&mktm=PR You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com. DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT: The complaint alleges that, in the Offering Documents and throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Firefly had overstated the demand and growth prospects for its Spacecraft Solutions offerings; (2) the Alpha rocket program fell short of its purported operational readiness and commercial viability; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: Firefly investors may, no later than January 12, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Firefly investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE OR GO TO: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/firefly-aerospace-inc?utm_source=Globe&mktm=PR ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 270-1453 info@ktmc.com [GN] FLAGSTAR FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $31.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dood Frank Update reports that Flagstar Financial, Inc., agreed to pay $31.5 million to consumers who filed a class action lawsuit, claiming the bank failed to protect their personally identifying information (PII) in a pair of data breaches, which occurred in consecutive years. More than 2.1 million consumers were represented in an unopposed motion urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to order the bank to redress customers harmed by either or both of the breaches it experienced in 2021 and 2022. The settlement fund requested by the plaintiffs would provide reimbursement for documented monetary losses of up to $25,000, three years of credit monitoring services, California statutory payments of up to $100 and residual cash payments of up to $599. In December 2024, Flagstar agreed to a $3.55 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for making what the agency described as "materially misleading statements" regarding a cybersecurity attack on Flagstar's network in late 2021, also known as the "Citrix Breach." "During December 2021, the Citrix Breach intermittently disrupted Flagstar's mortgage business, including impacting the bank's ability to originate, service, and close loans," the SEC consent order stated. "As a result of the Citrix Breach, Flagstar shut down its network for several hours, rebuilt or restored hundreds of its servers that supported bank-wide business operations, and reset passwords for thousands of Flagstar employees and contractors throughout December 2021. The Citrix Breach also intermittently impacted access to Flagstar's website, certain mobile applications and Flagstar's customer call center in December 2021." The breach occurred when "international cyber criminals" discovered and exploited a critical vulnerability in an online gateway, maintained by Citrix NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway, to gain intermittent access to its internal network between Oct. 13, 2018, and Mar. 8, 2019. The attackers targeted several accounts, trying weak or common passwords until they gained access to the network. From there, the intruders exfiltrated business documents and a drive tied to a web-based consulting tool. For more Dodd Frank Update coverage of matters related to data privacy and the CFPB's efforts to implement Sec. 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, visit the "Data Privacy Vault" -- a resource library holding all of our coverage of every volley in the ping-pong match between the finance industry and regulators over how to be protect consumers' sensitive data in the rapidly evolving virtual financial marketplace. [GN] FUJIFILM DIOSNYTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- GRANT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUJIFILM DIOSNYTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01022 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 7, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to the Defendant, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's negligence and breach of duties, Plaintiff and Class Members are in danger of imminent harm in that their Private Information, which is still in the possession of third parties, will be used for fraudulent purposes, the suit added. FUJIFILM DIOSNYTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES U.S.A., INC. operates as a biotechnology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4903 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 Email: Jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com FUNKO INC: "Lynch" Remains Pending in Delaware ---------------------------------------------- Funko, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action lawsuit captioned Lynch vs. Mariotti, et al., remains pending in a Delaware court. On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to the Company's corporate "Up-C" structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary duties against certain current and former officers and directors, seeking declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. In response to defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims at issue, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss on August 12, 2022. On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and also moved for attorneys' fees. On December 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs' application for an interim fee. On March 13, 2024, the representative plaintiff moved to withdraw as a plaintiff in the action, and another purported stockholder moved to intervene as representative plaintiff. As a result, the litigation is now captioned Lynch vs. Mariotti, et al. On October 28, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to withdraw and granted the new representative plaintiff's motion to intervene. The Company filed its Answer to the Verified Class Action Complaint in Intervention on December 10, 2024. FUNKO INC: Awaits Final Court OK of Settlement in Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Funko, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in the putative class action seeking to represent all non-exempt workers of the Company California. On April 12, 2024, a former employee of the Company filed a putative class action in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to represent all non-exempt workers of the Company in the State of California. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime) and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. On May 20, 2025, the parties participated in mediation and reached an immaterial monetary settlement in exchange for a release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the complaint for the period from April 12, 2020 through July 19, 2025. Final court approval and payment of the settlement are expected in early 2026. FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- Funko, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a putative shareholder class action lawsuit pending in a Washington court. On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed two lead plaintiffs, and, those lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2023. The amendment adds additional allegations by including accounts from purported former employees and contractors. Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023. On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs notified the Court of their decision to not amend their complaint, and the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on July 8, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 6, 2024, under the amended caption Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs' opening brief was filed on October 21, 2024, and briefing was completed on February 10, 2025. Oral argument was held on May 23, 2025. The parties are awaiting a decision on the appeal. FUTURHEALTH INC: Faces Hickey Suit Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA HICKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURHEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03051-H-DDL (S.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2025) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in surreptitious use of tracking technologies on its website that capture and disclose users' personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third-party advertising platforms and data analytics companies such as Facebook and Google. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and the Class, the Private Information has been harvested by Futurhealth and intentionally provided to technology companies and data brokers for a litany of commercial purposes, says the suit. Futurehealth Corporation provides healthcare service. The Company owns and operates the website www.fh.co as a telehealth platform that provides virtual weight loss consultations and prescription services for weight management medications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com GAMBALE INSURANCE: Collins Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gambale Insurance Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Deborah Ann Collins, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Gambale Insurance Group, Inc., Direct Consent LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00705 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gambale Insurance Group -- https://gambaleinsurancegroup.com/ -- offers personal lines insurance for home, auto, boat, umbrella, and recreational vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com GEICO: Undervalues Total Loss Vehicles, Abdullah Says ----------------------------------------------------- JAMIL ABDULLAH, GRANT HOCKMAN, CONSTEANTIN LUPAN, and LACRECIA MARTIN, Plaintiffs vs. GEICO Secure Ins. Co., GEICO Advantage Ins. Co., GEICO Casualty Ins. Co. and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02339-CEF (N.D. Ohio, October 30, 2025) is a class action complaint that seeks a determination of the coverage, the scope and interpretation of the Plaintiffs' automobile insurance policies, and a declaration that Geico improperly calculated "actual cash value" in breach of the policies. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs purchased automobile insurance policies for Ohio garaged vehicles from a Geico operating unit, as follows: HOCKMAN – Geico Advantage Ins. Co.; ABDULLAH - Geico Casualty Ins. Co.; LUPAN – Geico Secure Ins. Co.; and MARTIN – Government Employees Ins. Co. All Geico operating units doing business in Ohio have the same centralized claim adjustment operation, using the same claims adjusters, forms, valuation vendor, policies and procedures, including the policies and procedures challenged in this lawsuit. All Geico operating units have the same management personnel and employees. All Geico operating units have the same telephone number, operate from the same address, the same domicile state, and have the same website (https://www.geico.com/about/corporate/corporate-ownership/) where Geico admits that the operating "companies market collectively under the trademark GEICO(R)." Geico's insurance policies provide Plaintiffs coverage for damage to a covered auto. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members made first party insurance claims when they suffered damage to their vehicles, and Geico's centralized adjusting operation declared their vehicles a total loss, requiring Geico to pay the actual cash value ("ACV") of those vehicles. Instead of paying ACV, as required by the insurance policies and Ohio law, Geico, through its valuation vendor CCC Intelligent Solutions, Inc. ("CCC"), reduced the payment amount by deducting an arbitrary "condition adjustment" from the actual cost of comparable vehicles used to determine the ACV, even though neither Geico nor CCC ever inspected the comparable vehicles so had no factual basis for making that deduction. Because of this practice Geico failed to pay ACV to each Plaintiff and all of the putative class members, breached the policy contract with Plaintiffs and the Class Members, and violated Ohio law. Plaintiffs Abdullah, Hockman, Lupan and Martin are all residing in Northeast Ohio. The subject insurance policies were issued for vehicles garaged in Ohio, owned by Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, and the proposed Class members, each suffered damage to their auto while insured by Geico. The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class members made a first party claim for payment for damage to their vehicles, and Geico declared their vehicles to be a total loss. Geico through its affiliates operates one of the largest property and casualty insurance companies in the United States. All of the Geico affiliate defendants regularly transact business in Ohio, and all are registered with the Ohio Department of Insurance to sell property and casualty insurance in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Frank A. Bartela, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -and - James A. DeRoche, Esq. GARSON JOHNSON LLC 2900 Detroit Avenue Van Roy Building 2nd Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-9330 Facsimile: (216) 696-8558 E-mail: jderoche@garson.com -and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 110 West Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: 800-614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law GEN MANHATTAN: Cantu Sues Over Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Artemio Cantu and Refugio Cantu, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GEN MANHATTAN NYU, L.P., d/b/a GEN KOREAN BBQ, and GEN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09323 (S.D.N.Y., Novv. 7, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid the minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiffs were paid New York's "food service" minimum wage, which is lower than the full minimum wage. The Defendants inappropriately applied the tip credit to his minimum wage, they also paid him the incorrect overtime wages. The Defendants illegally required Plaintiffs to share tips with an individual named Oswaldo, who did not provide more than de minimis customer service to patrons. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with Notice and Acknowledgement forms in their native language, Spanish, as required under N.Y. Lab. Law. Nor did Plaintiffs' wage statements include any information about them being paid pursuant to a tip credit. The Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs' with notice of the tip credit in Spanish made Defendants' use of the tip credit illegal. Thus, Defendants' violation of N.Y. Lab. Law caused Plaintiffs to be underpaid. If Plaintiffs had known that Defendants were paying him less than the full minimum wage, they would have raised these concerns with Defendants well before the instant lawsuit, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Gen Korean BBQ as food runners. The Defendants owns and manages close to 50 Gen Korean BBQ restaurants throughout the world, including, through its subsidiary Gen Manhattan NYU, L.P., Gen Korean BBQ in Union Square, Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 GEV IO LLC: Miesbauer Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gev IO LLC. The case is styled as Jessye Miesbauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gev IO LLC doing business as: Nomad Internet, Case No. 5:25-cv-01445 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gev IO LLC doing business as Nomad Internet -- https://nomadinternet.com/ -- offers unlimited, high-speed wireless internet built for rural homes, RVs, remote workers & travelers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by Jan. 16, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 1:12-md-02358-JDW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Joshua Wolson entered an order as follows: 1. On or before Nov. 14, 2025, the Parties shall confer and advise my Chambers via email which documents or materials they wish to have placed on the public docket, with any motion to filed by that date; 2. The Parties shall complete all discovery no later than Nov. 14, 2025; 3. On or before Jan. 16, 2026, the Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification. Dr. Shafiq's rebuttal declaration is not expert analysis; it is either speculation or fact testimony for which he lacks a foundation. I therefore do not credit it. In any event, it is unclear why it took Plaintiffs a year in discovery to make these requests to Google. I have issued several scheduling orders in the case indicating that discovery was ending, and Plaintiffs have known since before discovery began that ascertainability was a principal concern in the case. On June 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to compel seeking production of data field information and underlying data for logs preserved in this case. The Plaintiffs requested descriptions of all preserved logs and their fields, as well as the same information for logs that were not preserved. Google is an American search engine company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iW1SWn at no extra charge.[CC] GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES: $725K Settlement in "Moses" Wins Prelim OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Raven Moses, Starisha Morris, Dwayne Dale, Ismaiyl Jones, Ayanna Beacham, Andre Murray, Victor Ballast, and Luis Simone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Griffin Industries LLC, Griffin Security Services, Michael Smith, Winston Smith, Andrew Muniz, and Aaron Muniz, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-01200-ALC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ona T. Wang of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval of the class settlement. The Court observed that the parties engaged in extensive discovery, enabling an accurate assessment of their respective positions. The settlement amount was set at $725,000, with an additional provision of up to $30,000 for publication costs of notice. The Court found that the settlement amount represented a reasonable percentage of the claimed damages, considering the defenses raised by Griffin Industries and the risks of continued litigation, including the Court’s prior ruling on motions for partial summary judgment. The settlement creates a settlement fund to be allocated among class members, after deducting attorneys' fees, costs, service awards, and administrative expenses. The Court approved the method of locating class members and distributing settlement funds, emphasizing the effort to ensure fair distribution. The Court also addressed the certification of the class, granting plaintiff Keeva Rossow and another individual Serah Thompson the status of class representatives. The Court found that the class was ascertainable, with more than 1,000 women listed on the Central Registry for violations of the regulation concerning prenatal THC use, satisfying the numerosity requirement. The Court confirmed common questions of fact and law, including whether enforcement of the regulation unconstitutionally infringed on basic rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. The Court found that allegations involved common issues such as whether the enforcement burdened public access rights and whether the Department acted with discriminatory intent. The injuries of the class members stemmed from the enforcement actions of the Department, which the Court viewed as sufficiently typical and adequate in representation. The Court concluded that the class members sought primarily injunctive and declaratory relief, justifying class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The Court further appointed counsel for the class, noting their substantial prior work and experience in wage and compliance actions. The Court approved notice procedures, including mailing and publication, which were deemed adequate to inform class members of their rights, the proposed settlement, and the fairness hearing scheduled for March 10, 2026. The Court also considered the obligations to notify federal and state regulators under the Class Action Fairness Act, approving the notices as compliant with statutory requirements. In addition, the Court retained jurisdiction over all proceedings related to the settlement to ensure proper implementation and adjudication of any disputes. Finally, the Court denied the motion to seal certain documents, requiring redactions for personal information, and authorized unsealing of parts of the record among the actions. In conclusion, the Court approved the preliminary settlement as fair and sound and certified the class for purposes of settlement. The case remains subject to final approval after the fairness hearing and completion of procedural notices. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHiJcO from PacerMonitor.com HELIA HEALTHCARE: High Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Amanda High, individually and for others similarly situated v. HELIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-13716 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant deducts 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiff's and its other Hourly Employees' recorded hours for so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break (the Defendant's "auto-deduct policy"). Thus, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for that time. But the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and its other Hourly Employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts, and the Defendant regularly subjects them to work interruptions during unpaid "meal breaks." Additionally, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's auto-deduct policy and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA and IMWL by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for overtime hours worked. the Defendant's auto-deduct policy violates the IWPCA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages, at their agreed hourly rates, for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) from October 2022 until March 2025 in Illinois. Helia Healthcare operates 14 skilled nursing facilities and four premier rehabilitation centers in Illinois and Missouri" and employs approximately 1,000 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com HELLOFRESH SE: Agrees to Settle Automatic Renewal Suit for $7.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Individuals enrolled in a HelloFresh automatic renewal product subscription in California between Jan. 1, 2019, and Aug. 18, 2025, and whom the company charged for their first shipment without their knowledge or consent may qualify to claim a full refund from a class action settlement. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., doing business as HelloFresh, agreed to pay $7.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to properly disclose and obtain consent for automatically renewing subscriptions, resulting in unauthorized charges to California customers. Who is eligible to file a claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- HelloFresh enrolled them in an automatic renewal product subscription in California at any time from Jan. 1, 2019, and Aug. 18, 2025. -- HelloFresh charged them for the first shipment without their knowledge or consent. -- They canceled their automatic renewal product subscription after the first shipment. -- They never received a refund for the charge(s) related to the first shipment. How much is the HelloFresh payout? Eligible class members can receive a full refund of all amounts they paid to HelloFresh for the first shipment the company charged them for without their knowledge or consent. If the total value of valid claims exceeds the available settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce each claimant's payment proportionally (pro rata) so the total distributed equals the fund amount. How to claim a class action Class members can file the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Dec. 17, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. Restitution Program, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 Required information To file an online claim, class members must provide the class member ID from their settlement notice. Payout options The settlement administrator will mail paper checks to eligible claimants (checks will expire 90 days after the date printed on the check). $7.5 million settlement fund breakdown The settlement website does not provide a detailed breakdown of attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs or other expenses. Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Dec. 17, 2025 When is the HelloFresh payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it reviews and approves all claims. Why did this class action settlement happen? This lawsuit alleged that Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., doing business as HelloFresh, failed to properly disclose and obtain consent for automatically renewing product subscriptions on its website. The company denied any wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement to resolve the dispute and implement changes to its business practices. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Full refund Deadline: December 17, 2025 [GN] HERBALIFE LTD: Faces DeSimone Labor Suit ---------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that on October 31, 2024, the company and certain of its executive officers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, titled "Sarah DeSimone v. Herbalife Ltd. et al." The complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code, including misclassification of distributors as independent contractors. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 21, 2025 to assert claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Herbalife Ltd. (formerly Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.) is a global nutrition company that sells weight management, targeted nutrition, energy, sports, and fitness and outer nutrition products to and through a network of independent retailers. HIGH HOOK: Morgan Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sylviarose Morgan, and Breena Miller, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. High Hook, LLC, d/b/a Buoys on the Boulevard, and Stephanie Boothe, individually, and Charles Weldon Boyd, individually, Case No. 4:24-cv-07525-JD (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for: -- certification of the collective action under 9 U.S.C. section 203(m)(2)(B) and CFR 531.52, 531.54. and -- class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for claims that the Defendants violated the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA"), as well as authorize notice to be sent to putative class members. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, move for the Court to certify a collective action pursuant to section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C section 216, and an order sending notices to the putative class members. The class being those individuals who were or are servers and/or bartenders who were subject to the unlawful wage payment actions in violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act and/or the Fair Labor Standards Act at any time within three years prior to joining this lawsuit until the final judgment of this matter. Buoys is an oceanfront restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2WTf7e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Poe Davis, Esq. KELAHER, CONNELL & CONNOR, PC. Surfside Beach, SC 29587-4597 E-mail: ldavis@classactlaw.com - and - William J. Luse, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. LUSE, INC. Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: (843) 839-4815 Facsimile: (843) 839-4815 E-mail: bill@getlusenow.com HIMS & HERS: Continues to Defend Sookdeo Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hims & Hers Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from Sookdeo securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 25, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives, captioned Sookdeo v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-05315. The Securities Action alleges violations of securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, and in particular, with respect to the business relationship between the Company and Novo Nordisk. The Securities Action seeks an unspecified amount of damages as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company does not currently consider a loss on this lawsuit to be probable. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a company that operates a telehealth platform, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] HIMS & HERS: Continues to Defend Yaghsizian Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hims & Hers Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from Yaghsizian securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 25, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives, captioned Yaghsizian v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-05321. The Securities Action alleges violations of securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, and in particular, with respect to the business relationship between the Company and Novo Nordisk. The Securities Action seeks an unspecified amount of damages as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company does not currently consider a loss on this lawsuit to be probable. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a company that operates a telehealth platform, with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. [BN] HORMEL FOODS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Hormel Foods Corporation (NYSE: HRL) resulting from allegations that Hormel may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Hormel 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=47180:https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=40454 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 October 29, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Hormel Cuts Forecast on Price Pressure, Consumer Backdrop; Parts Ways With CFO." The article stated that Hormel "warned earnings in the latest quarter were squeezed by price pressures, bird flu and a fire that damaged its Arkansas peanut butter production facility. The company also said it was parting ways with its top finance executive[.]" On this news, Hormel Foods stock fell 9.1% on October 29, 2025. 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 the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 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] HOSPITAL SISTERS: Judge Preserves Genetic Privacy Class Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Holland, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge in Springfield has turned back another attempt by Hospital Sisters Health System to dismiss a class action complaint alleging violation of a state genetic information privacy law through pre-employment screenings for people seeking to work at hospitals and clinics in central and southern Illinois. U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough filed an opinion Nov. 7 preserving litigation from prospective employee Mary Million, whose December 2024 lawsuit accused HSHS of violating the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act in the way it sought information on family medical history. She seeks at least $5 million in damages and class certification. Million is represented by attorneys William J. Edelman, Gary M. Klinger and Michael A. Acciavatti, of the firm of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, of Chicago and New York; and Zachary Arbitman and George Donnelly, of the firm of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig, of Philadelphia. HSHS moved to dismiss the complaint in February for failure to state a claim, but Myerscough denied that request in May. In March, federal Magistrate Judge Eric Long endorse the parties' joint proposed discovery schedule, and at the end of April he entered several orders: agreed confidentiality, qualified protective and electronically stored and hard copy records. HSHS' original lawyers withdrew in August. In seeking to end the complaint this time, HSHS argued Million couldn't show, by a preponderance of evidence, that the federal court has jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. The organization claimed Million's assertion of at least 100 possible class members "is not actually supported by any documents," Myerscough wrote, while also being unable to show at least one such class member lives outside Illinois. HSHS is wrong, Myerscough said, pointing to its own website claiming to employ "more than 11,000 colleagues," while industry research shows turnover rates during Million's proposed class period "ranged from 18 to 26% nationwide." Other evidence includes an HSHS Medical Group YouTube video stating the practice of asking patients for family histories; the company's pre-employment policies; its Code of Conduct "indicating that they collect information about family history, as well as a commonly-used ‘Adult History & Physical Examination Form' that included a section on family history;" and a document specifically about relatives of applicants with problematic immune systems. Further, Million asserted HSHS knows it employs Missouri residents. Evidence includes LinkedIn profiles, Indeed.com job postings and an HSHS human resources document detailing a health plan network service area if they live in 31 Illinois counties or five in Missouri. Myerscough denied HSHS' motion to sanction Million, first because it improperly filed that motion in the same filing as its motion to dismiss, rather than on its own, and second, because the request was on the same grounds as the jurisdictional challenge, whereas Myerscough had already determined Million "demonstrated that her factual contentions regarding CAFA subject-matter jurisdiction have evidentiary support. Moreover, much of the information (Million) presented in support of jurisdiction was available upon inquiry by her counsel prior to filing the complaint via publicly-available information on the internet and was not merely uncovered during discovery in this case." She similarly said an HSHS request to stay discovery is moot because it was premised on the likelihood of prevailing on the motions for dismissal and sanctions, but then granted Million's motion to compel discovery requests, finding them proper under the schedules and orders Judge Long approved and issued earlier in the year. "Defendants' objection -- which is based upon the fact that the class has not yet been certified -- is not well-taken," Myerscough wrote, noting one deadline set on Nov. 30 and others extending into March, with the certification deadline by May 15. She said Million's requests were not overly broad under that timeline and rejected concerns about third-party privacy rights given the "entry of agreed-upon confidentiality and qualified protective orders. If defendants believe those agreed orders entered by the magistrate judge are now insufficient, defendants may formally raise this issue with the magistrate after conferring with plaintiff's counsel in an attempt to agree upon a proposed revised order." Myerscough also granted Million's motion to compel HSHS to produce details about search terms for electronically stored information, again noting Judge Long's earlier orders pursuant to joint agreements. She called HSHS' arguments against this request "baseless" and chastised HSHS for failing to participate in an early August conference before trying to stay discovery altogether. "With respect to defendants' argument that the ESI Order did not require the search of ESI to be conducted in any particular manner and only required defendants to disclose search terms if any were actually used, the ESI Order plainly directed that the parties meet and confer if the party requesting production has a ‘good faith (belief that) additional search terms are likely to yield additional unique, relevant information.' Defendants may not simply assert that they did not use any search terms when identifying and producing responsive documents and then opt out of all future discussions of relevant search terms proposed in good faith." Myerscough gave Million seven days to set forth reasonable expenses and legal fees then referred the complaint back to Judge Long for further case management. HSHS is represented by attorneys Joseph Mulherin, Christopher A. Braham, Jean Edmonds and Alivia Combe-DuQuet, of the firm of McDermott Will & Schulte, of Chicago. [GN] HOVE MEDIA: Ludlow Sues Over Losses From Bovada Gambling Platform ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS LUDLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOVE MEDIA LTD.; HARP MEDIA B.V.; BAMBOO MEDIA LTD.; and CARAVAN MEDIA, B.V., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01016-HCN (D. Utah, November 5, 2025) seeks redress from Defendants' alleged widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. The Defendants collectively own and operate the "Bovada" brand of online casinos, available at www.bovada.com and www.bovada.lv, where they offer web-based games including, inter alia, slot machines, table games, poker games, and sportsbooks, to anyone interested in wagering money to play them (the "Bovada Gambling Platform"). During the applicable three-year period preceding this action, the Defendants have systematically accepted wagers from Utah residents -- many of whom, including Plaintiff, have lost significant sums of their hard-earned money playing the games offered on the Bovada Gambling Platform -- and have allegedly reaped enormous profits from the losses sustained by these people. The Utah's Gambling Act prohibits persons from operating or receiving revenue from "fringe gaming devices," "video gaming devices," or "gambling devices or records." The games offered on the Bovada Gambling Platform constitute all three of these things, and Defendants have amassed significant revenue from Plaintiff and numerous others in Utah who have played them, alleges the suit. Hove Media Ltd. is a company incorporated in Union of Comoros which operates Bovada' brand of online casinos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com HP HOOD: Faces Labrusciano-Carris Suit Over Mislabeled Oat Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- THEO LABRUSCIANO-CARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP HOOD LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09637-JCS (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of its mislabeled Planet Oat Original oat milk in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant claims to sell oat milk products that purport to offer consumers 4 micrograms ("mcg") of vitamin D per 240 mL serving (one cup, a "Serving") or 20% of a consumer's daily value ("DV"). However, independent testing conducted by an ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited and FDA recognized laboratory found that, contrary to Defendant's 4 mcg of vitamin D per Serving representation (the "Vitamin D Representation"), the Products contain zero micrograms of vitamin D per Serving; 100% less vitamin D than is represented on the Products' label. The Plaintiff and members of the putative classes would not have purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had they known the truth about the vitamin D content, the suit says. HP Hood LLC provides dairy products. The Company offers milk, ice cream, cottage cheese, sour cream, and eggnog. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com HP INC: Crosby Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CROSBY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09286 (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive websites, including www.store.hp.com, www.support.hp.com, and www.hpshopping.hp.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. On September 5, September 6, and October 3, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access www.hp.com and its affiliated platforms using NVDA screen reader software. His intent was to evaluate laptop configurations, register a previously purchased HP device, and explore warranty and support options related to HP's ProBook and OmniBook product lines. Despite multiple attempts, the Plaintiff was unable to independently complete his objectives due to persistent access barriers. These included missing alternative text, empty buttons, broken skip links, unlabeled form fields, and broken ARIA references that rendered key information unreadable by screen reader software, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its websites become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired users. HP Inc. owns and operates www.hp.com and affiliated platforms that offer nationwide access to consumer electronics, warranty services, technical support, and product registration tools, including to residents of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com INVACARE CORPORATION: El-Homsi Sues Over Failure to Secure PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather El-Homsi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INVACARE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-02425 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 8, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII or "Private Information) and that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Defendant experienced the Data Breach on November 5, 2025. The ransomware group, Rhysida, claims to have exfiltrated Private Information from Defendant's system. The Defendant has yet to formally notify impacted individuals about the nature of the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security, upon information and belief, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant develops and sells mobility and healthcare solutions across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com JACK'S FAMILY: Jordan Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA JORDAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP and BJH HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09279 (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2025) seeks to redress Defendants' unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of likely thousands of individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendants' network in violation of its legal obligations. On July 24, 2025, an unknown actor gained access to Defendants' inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, potentially thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their personal identifiable information exposed. The Plaintiff and members of the class are current or former employees of Defendants. In order to obtain employment, Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class Members to provide their PII. The Defendants betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such valuable and sensitive information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and other remedies this Court deems proper. Jack's Family Restaurants is a limited partnership with its headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com JADE INDUSTRIES: Henry Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JADE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13407 (N.D. Ill., November 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://jadeyoga.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Jade Industries, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law JEFFREY PARKER: Hardy Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Hardy, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. JEFFREY PARKER, Case No. 2025-CV-31538 was removed from the Judicial District Court for El Paso County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03584. In his Complaint, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the potential class members, asserted claims for relief under various Colorado wage laws, including the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and their implementing regulations ("COMPS Orders") and Colorado's Civil Theft laws.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. Hillary R. Ross, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 Email: mdawson@fisherphillips.com hross@fisherphillips.com JELD-WEN HOLDING: Canadian Antitrust Suit Settlement Has Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a settlement agreement in the Canadian antitrust litigation has obtained final court approva. On May 15, 2020, Developpement Emeraude Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and Masonite in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Canada, which was served on us on September 18, 2020 (the "Quebec Action"). The putative class consists of any person in Canada who, since October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors from the Company or Masonite. The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between the Company and Masonite to agree on prices, the distribution of market shares and/or the production levels of interior molded doors and that the plaintiffs suffered damages in that they were charged and paid higher prices for interior molded doors than they would have had to pay but for the alleged anti-competitive conduct. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 9, 2020, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action against the Company and Masonite in the Federal Court of Canada, which was served on us on September 29, 2020 (the "Federal Court Action"). The Federal Court Action makes substantially similar allegations to the Quebec Action, and the putative class is represented by the same counsel. In February 2021, the plaintiff in the Federal Court Action issued a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that replaced the named plaintiff, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, with David Regan. The plaintiff has sought a stay of the Quebec Action while the Federal Court Action proceeds. On July 14, 2023, the Company entered into an agreement in principle with class counsel to resolve both actions for an immaterial amount, which the Company recorded in the second quarter of 2023. A formal settlement agreement was executed as of March 27, 2024. In June 2025, the settlement was approved by the courts in both the Federal Court Action and the Quebec Action, thereby concluding the matters. KEEN INC: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keen, Inc. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keen, Inc., Case No. CACE25017222 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Claim for Relief." Born Primitive -- https://bornprimitive.com/ -- offers an extensive collection of patriot inspired workout clothing for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com KISS VENTURES: Gonzalez Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. KISS VENTURES, INC. and 1644 HOLDING CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-25174-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. KISS VENTURES, INC., owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com KOHLS INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile Application ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kohls, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-04260 (D. Minn., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Mobile Application (www.kohls.com) (the "Mobile Application" or "Defendant's Mobile Application") 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 Mobile Application and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Mobile Application's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Mobile Application, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Mobile Application has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Mobile Application content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Mobile Application users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Mobile Application 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 Mobile Application fail to ensure its Mobile Application 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 Mobile Application 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 clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, activewear, jackets, shoes, jewelry, handbags, bedding, bath supplies, 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 KURA SUSHI: Continues to Defend Employee Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Kura Sushi Usa, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in a California court. On December 9, 2024, a former employee filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Company alleging certain violations of California labor laws. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position in this matter. The Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding. LANTHEUS HOLDINGS: Disseminates False Info, Indiana Public Says --------------------------------------------------------------- INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANTHEUS HOLDINGS, INC., BRIAN MARKISON, PAUL M. BLANCHFIELD, ROBERT J. MARSHALL, JR., and AMANDA MORGAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09234 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2025) is a securities fraud class action complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all purchasers of Lantheus common stock between November 6, 2024 and August 6, 2025, inclusive, against Lantheus and certain of its senior executives for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, Lantheus presents itself as a sophisticated medical technology company driving innovation in radiopharmaceuticals. Its flagship product, Pylarify, a prostate-specific membrane antigen PET imaging agent, is the Company's dominant source of revenue and earnings. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants portrayed Lantheus as a diversified, data driven company with multiple growth drivers, long-term contracts, and deep understanding of market dynamics. In reality, Lantheus' success was almost entirely dependent on Pylarify, which generated the vast majority of revenue. Internally, the Defendants knew that the Company's "diversification" narrative was false, that its forecasting processes were unreliable, and that management had materially underestimated the pricing and reimbursement risks created by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule shifting hospital reimbursement for Pylarify from Average Sales Price to Mean Unit Cost rates, reducing hospital payments by roughly 45%, says the suit. The Investors began learning the truth in May 2025, when Lantheus disclosed disappointing results and downplayed the problem as "temporal competitive disruption." The Defendants' misconduct deceived investors about the Company's dependence on Pylarify, the reliability of its internal forecasts, and the true state of its pricing and competitive position. The market's recognition of this vulnerability, and of management's misleading assurances of reimbursement stability, caused a sharp decline in Lantheus' stock price when the truth emerged, inflicting substantial damages on investors, the suit alleges. Lantheus Holdings, Inc. develops, manufactures, and commercializes diagnostic and therapeutic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Johnson, Esq. Noam Mandel, Esq. Desiree Cummings, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 432-5100 E-mail: chadj@rgrdlaw.com noam@rgrdlaw.com dcummings@rgrdlaw.com jzweig@rgrdlaw.com LATINOS RESTAURANTE: Campos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Ana Bell Campos, and other similarly situated individuals v. Latinos Restaurante Corp, Wilson Aguilar, and Mariluz Rodriguez, individually, Case No. 0:25-cv-62257-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2025), is brought for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and retaliatory damages under United States laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA or the "Act"). The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after November 2022, (the "material time") without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff worked a minimum of 69 and 78 hours weekly, and she was paid for all her hours, but she was not paid for overtime hours. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants controlled his schedule and activities. Defendants were aware of the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff primarily performed as a cook and kitchen worker. Latinos Restaurant is a Latin restaurant located in Deerfield Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LAWNSTARTER INC: Smith Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lawnstarter, Inc. The case is styled as Lavinalaquesha Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lawnstarter, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01787 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LawnStarter -- https://www.lawnstarter.com/ -- is a marketplace for outdoor home services and offer the simplest and most effective solution for ordering and managing outdoor home services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com LEIDOS INC: Faces Walker Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEIDOS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00905-REP (E.D. Va., October 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Leidos Employee Health and Welfare Benefits Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the Plan, says the suit. Leidos, Inc. is a multinational science and technology company based in Reston, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Williams, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: cwilliams@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com LEND-A-LOAN LLC: Datres Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lend-A-Loan LLC. The case is styled as Roger J. Datres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lend-A-Loan LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02421-JJH (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lend-A-Loan LLC -- https://lendaloanmortgage.com/ -- are mortgage experts that provide specialized home-buying and refinancing services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com kcox@thelyonfirm.com - and - Matthew Ryan Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-6000 Fax: (614) 224-6066 Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Refrigerators ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Mark Kurant filed a class action lawsuit against LG Electronics USA Inc. Why: Kurant alleges LG sold refrigerators with defective linear compressors that can suddenly stop cooling, causing food spoilage, costly repairs and significant financial losses. Where: The LG class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims LG sold refrigerators equipped with defective linear compressors that can fail suddenly, leaving consumers with appliances that no longer cool, spoiled food and costly repair or replacement expenses. LG sells its refrigerators to businesses and consumers nationwide through its website and through popular home goods retailers, including Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe's, and Costco. Plaintiff Mark Kurant filed the LG refrigerator class action lawsuit on Nov. 3 in New York federal court, claiming LG designed, manufactured and sold refrigerator model LRFS28XBS with linear compressors that are prone to sudden and permanent failure. Despite allegedly being aware of the defect, LG continued to market and sell the refrigerators without warning consumers, the complaint states. According to the LG refrigerator class action lawsuit, the defective compressors can cause the refrigerators to stop cooling without warning, allowing internal temperatures to rise to room temperature. This abrupt loss of cooling can make the appliance entirely inoperable and may lead to a range of problems for consumers, including: -- Spoiled food and beverages that must be thrown out -- Loss of temperature-sensitive medicines -- Potential risks of food-borne illness -- Weeks of disruption, requiring families to rely on coolers and bags of ice -- Repeated, unsuccessful repair attempts -- Thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs for repairs, replacements and lost groceries Kurant says he experienced these issues firsthand. He claims he purchased an LG refrigerator for approximately $2,000 in November 2023, and by August 2025, it had stopped working entirely. He says he was forced to discard spoiled food and live out of coolers for several weeks while waiting for repairs. After multiple unsuccessful repair attempts, Kurant ultimately purchased a new refrigerator from another manufacturer, resulting in additional expenses. LG failed to disclose defect, class action alleges Kurant claims LG has long touted its linear compressor technology as energy-efficient and reliable, even issuing press releases highlighting the sale of millions of units worldwide. However, he says the truth is that the compressors are fundamentally defective, causing the refrigerators to become inoperable relatively soon after purchase. The class action lawsuit alleges LG had a duty to disclose the defect but chose to conceal it, continuing to sell the refrigerators without warning consumers of the risk of failure. Kurant claims LG has been aware of the compressor issues through direct communications with customers, retailers and repair personnel who have been inundated with complaints and repair requests for years. He is looking to represent anyone in New York who bought an LG refrigerator with the model number LRFS28XBS. He is suing for violations of state consumer laws and breach of warranty and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In May, LG faced a class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating California law by starting product warranties on the date of purchase rather than the date of delivery. The plaintiff is represented by David J. Harris, Jr. of Harris LLP. The LG class action lawsuit is Kurant v. LG Electronics USA Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-1549, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. [GN] LIBERTY FIRST LENDING: Vitello Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty First Lending, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Vitello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty First Lending, LLC doing business as: Payless USA, Case No. 8:25-cv-02502 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Liberty First Lending -- https://www.lib1st.com/ -- is a financial services company that offers debt consolidation loans with personalized options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com LOEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Portillo Class Suit in Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- Loews Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Portillo class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On February 20, 2024, Jeanette Portillo and other plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. It asserts antitrust claims against defendants under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Portillo on June 24, 2024. On August 29, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in Portillo, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 3, 2025, plaintiffs in Portillo filed an amended class action complaint alleging violations of the Sherman Act by Loews Hotels & Co and others. Defendants' deadline to respond to the amended complaint in Portillo is November 3, 2025. Loews Corporation is a holding company primarily in fire, marine and casualty insurance. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, is into the operation of a chain of hotels. LOEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Segal Class Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ Loews Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Segal class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On March 1, 2024, Ryan Segal filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It asserts antitrust claims against defendants under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Segal on June 24, 2024. On March 31, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in Segal, and granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. On April 28, 2025, Segal filed a third amended complaint alleging that Loews Hotels & Co and other defendants violated the Sherman Act. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in Segal on June 12, 2025. The court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in Segal. Loews Corporation is a holding company primarily in fire, marine and casualty insurance. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, is into the operation of a chain of hotels. LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Cash Sweep Programs Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LPL Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the cash sweep programs class suit in the federal district court. In July 2024, putative class action lawsuits were filed against LPL Financial in federal district court alleging certain violations of law in connection with its cash sweep programs. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuits. LPL Financial Holdings, Inc. offers technology, brokerage, and investment advisory services through business relationships with all types of financial advisors. The Company, through proprietary technology, custody, and clearing platforms, offers access to financial products and services that enable them to provide financial advice and brokerage services to retail investors. [BN] LULULEMON USA INC: Done Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emily A. Done, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LULULEMON USA INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2504689 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10720. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads the following eight causes of action: failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide legally compliant lactation breaks, failure to pay wages for paid sick days at the regular rate of pay, failure to pay final wages at the separation of employment, and unfair business practices in violations of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Katharine J. Liao, Esq. Eric W. Witt, Esq. Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 624 2500 Facsimile: +1 213 623 4581 Email: katharine.liao@squirepb.com eric.witt@squirepb.com MEDICAL CENTER: Claim Forms in Breach Suit Settlement Due Jan. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current or former patients or employees of Medical Center Barbour whose personal information the October 2023 data breach may have been exposed could qualify to submit a claim for up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. There are an estimated 61,014 class members. Medical Center Barbour, along with Blue Management Services LLC (doing business as Alliant Management Services) and The Health Care Authority of the City of Eufaula, agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they failed to adequately protect sensitive personal and health information, leading to a data breach in October 2023. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- The Medical Center Barbour data incident that occurred on or around Oct. 29, 2023, potentially accessed their personally identifiable information and/or private health information. -- They received a notice from Medical Center Barbour regarding the data incident in or around August 2024. -- They are a current or former patient or employee of Medical Center Barbour. How much will the class action settlement payment be? Class members can claim one or more of the following benefits: -- Expense reimbursement: Class members can claim up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses and expenses traceable to the data incident. This includes costs such as credit report fees, the cost of freezing or unfreezing credit, card replacement fees, late fees, credit monitoring purchased due to the breach and other expenses or losses directly related to the incident. -- Class members submitting for this benefit can also claim up to three hours of lost time at $25 per hour, a maximum $75, for time spent dealing with the data breach. -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not submit an expense reimbursement claim can submit a claim to receive a pro rata $50 cash payment. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of valid claims. -- Credit monitoring services: All class members can elect to receive two years of free credit monitoring. How to claim a data breach class action rebate To receive a settlement benefit, Class members must submit a claim form by Jan. 2, 2026. They can submit claims in two ways: Settlement administrator's address: MCBH Settlement Administrator, c/o CPT Group, Inc., PO Box 19504, Irvine, CA 92623. Required claim information and proof -- To submit an online claim, class members must provide the CPT ID and passcode from their settlement notice. -- To submit an expense reimbursement claim, class members must provide supporting documentation, such as invoices for services or fees, bank or credit card statements showing late fees, over-limit fees or fraudulent charges and other proof showing monetary losses due to identity theft or fraud. -- To submit a lost time claim, class members must provide a description of actions taken while dealing with the data breach. Payout options -- Electronic payment (only available for claims submitted online) -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown A settlement fund of $300,000 will include the following: -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by the number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement fund (up to $300,000) The defendant will also be responsible for the following costs and fees: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $65,000 -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $300,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $1,500 each for three representatives ($4,500 total) Important dates -- Deadline to opt out of the settlement: Jan. 2, 2026 -- Deadline to submit a claim form: Jan. 2, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: April 9, 2026 When is the Medical Center Barbour data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and credit monitoring activation codes to approved claimants approximately 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement or 30 days it approves the claim, whichever is later. Why did this class action settlement happen? This class action lawsuit alleged a data security incident at Medical Center Barbour in October 2023 allowed cybercriminals to access sensitive information of patients and employees. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy. The defendants denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainties of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $50-$5,000 Deadline: January 2, 2026 [GN] MIB GROUP: $2.4MM Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Feb. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that MIB Group, Inc. has agreed to a $2,425,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the data- and digital-solutions company unlawfully failed to fully identify the sources of the information it maintained in its consumer files upon request by the subjects of those files. The MIB class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on October 6, 2025 and covers all United States residents who, at any time from January 29, 2022 through May 14, 2025, received a consumer file disclosure letter from MIB that specifically included a record referencing medical information from a "service provider." Per court documents, approximately 10,866 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the MIB Group class action settlement can be found at https://MIBFCRAClassAction.com/. MIB settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive reimbursement from the deal. Instead, eligible class members will automatically be sent a one-time cash payment of approximately $140 in the form of a check to the address MIB already has on file, the settlement website says. According to the settlement agreement, checks must be cashed within 60 days of issuance before expiration. Class members who wish to change or update their mailing address, or who would prefer to receive their settlement payout via electronic payment, can head to this page and log in by entering the class member ID listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe that they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Per the settlement website, the deadline to submit an exclusion request or to opt out of the class action settlement is December 20, 2025. To do so, class members must submit a statement to the settlement administrator with their full name, address, email address, telephone number, the unique class member ID provided on their notice, and a written statement confirming that they want to be excluded from the settlement. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the MIB settlement at a hearing on February 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The MIB class action lawsuit alleged that the company, which provides data and digital solutions to the life and health insurance industries, failed to properly disclose the sources of information on consumer-requested medical reports used to determine health insurance rates and policies. The plaintiff alleged that MIB Group, in violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, simply stated that the consumer's information came from a "service provider," without identifying the service provider by name. As a result of the defendant's alleged conduct, consumers were unable to dispute or correct errors and had a more challenging time ascertaining fair insurance eligibility figures, the case claimed. [GN] MID AMERICA PET: Claim Forms in $5.5MM Suit Settlement Due Feb. 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Mitchell, writing for PIX II, reports that a pet food company has agreed to pay $5.5 million to resolve claims its products were contaminated with Salmonella. The class action lawsuit benefits pet owners who purchased Mid America Pet Food products and suffered loss from a pet illness or death. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that Mid America Pet Food either knew or should have known about the contamination and failed to warn consumers. The full list of covered products included in the settlement can be found at https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.midamericapetfoodsettlement.com/docs/Exhibit+D+Product+List.pdf. Class members with valid documented pet injury claims can receive up to $100,000. Documented claims include receipts, invoices, veterinarian records, and other evidence. Class members who have undocumented claims can receive up to $50 for pets that became ill but did not die, and $100 for pets that died. Class members who purchased pet food are eligible for compensation. Documented food purchase claims will be paid at 100% of the approved submitted losses, while undocumented food purchase claims are capped at $40. The company has not admitted any wrongdoing. To receive benefits, valid claim forms must be submitted by Feb. 5, 2026. [GN] MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL: Breached Fiduciary Duty, Lagafuaina Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA LAGAFUAINA,KAILYN ROBERTSON, KHANH NGUYEN, MACHELLA GRAHAM, RABIA RAZAQ individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL. INC., MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03018-DMS-DDL (S.D. Cal., November 6, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Mitchell International, Inc. Savings Plan's fiduciaries, which include the Defendants and its members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by selecting and/or maintaining a certain guaranteed investment fund with lower crediting rates when compared to available similar or identical investments with higher crediting rates. The crediting rate is the guaranteed rate of return for the investment fund. Specifically, the Defendants allowed substantial assets in the Plan to be invested in a Guaranteed Income Fund. The Prudential GIF carried significantly more risk and provided a significantly lower rate of return than other comparable stable value funds that Defendants could have made available to Plan participants. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count II) and violation of ERISA's prohibited transactions (Count III). Mitchell International, Inc. is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal place of business in San Diego, California. It delivers smart technology solutions and services to the auto insurance, collision repair, disability and workers' compensation markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dorian L. Jackson, Esq. THE DLJ LAW FIRM, P.C. 3655 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 Telephone: (310) 359-9203 Facsimile: (310) 359-9202 E-mail: djackson@dljlawfirm.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com MONISON PALLETS: Romero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Claudio Romero, and other similarly situated individuals v. MONISON PALLETS, INC., and VICTOR CARRASCAL, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-25206-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid federal minimum wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or the "Act"). The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week, including at least 7.5 overtime hours per week, and sometimes more. The Defendants, however, only paid Plaintiff his piece-rate compensation and failed to pay any additional overtime premium for hours worked over forty (40) per week. Plaintiff received no time-and-one-half or half-time premium pay for overtime hours. Thus, Plaintiff regularly worked overtime hours for which he was not paid the additional overtime compensation required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Plaza Hotel Fort Lauderdale as a non exempt, full-time front desk employee from June 15, 2025, to September 05, 2025. Monison Pallets is engaged in the pallet business, including repairing, handling, and/or selling pallets, and regularly purchases equipment, materials, tools, and supplies that originate from outside the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MURPHY REHABILITATION: Class Cert Bid Response Due Nov. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fleming v. Murphy Rehabilitation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00206 (W.N.D.C., Filed Aug. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply: -- Motion to certify class conditionally as a collective action responses due by Nov. 26, 2025. -- The deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action is extended through and including Nov. 26, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Murphy provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services, therapy and social services.[CC] NANOGAMES LLC: Jones Sues Over Illegal Nano Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------------- JERRIS JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NANOGAMES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00177-DAO (D. Utah, November 5, 2025) seeks redress for Defendant's alleged widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. The Defendant owns, operates, and receives revenue from the online casino available at www.nanogames.io, where it offers casino-style slots and table games to anyone interested in wagering money to play them (the "Nano Gambling Platform"). According to the complaint, during the applicable three-year period preceding this action, the Defendant has systematically accepted wagers from Utah residents -- many of whom, including Plaintiff, have lost significant sums of their hard-earned money playing the games offered on the Nano Gambling Platform -- and have reaped enormous profits from the losses sustained by these people. Utah's Gambling Act prohibits persons from operating or receiving revenue from "fringe gaming devices," "video gaming devices," or "gambling devices or records." The games offered on the Nano Gambling Platform constitute all three of these things, and Defendant has amassed significant revenue from Plaintiff and numerous others in Utah who have played them, says the suit. Nanogames, LLC is a private company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com NAPCO SECURITY: Continues to Defend Zornberg Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ NAPCO Security Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Zornberg securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York On August 29, 2023, a purported class action, brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded NAPCO securities between November 7, 2022 and August 18, 2023, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer (who is currently the President and Chief Operating Officer). The action, captioned Zornberg v. NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. et al., asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements made in the Company's quarterly reports and earnings releases during the period of November 7, 2022 through May 8, 2023. A lead plaintiff was appointed in November 2023 and lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 16, 2024. The Amended Complaint added claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the secondary public offering in February 2023. These additional claims were brought against the defendants named in the initial complaint, as well as the directors who allegedly signed the offering materials (prospectuses and a registration statement in connection with the offering), and the underwriters for the offering. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 26, 2024. On April 11, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Section 11 and Section 12 claims brought against the individual defendants were dismissed; the remaining claims survived the motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2025, Defendants filed Answers to the Amended Complaint. On September 29, 2025, the plaintiffs moved for class certification of both the Exchange Act and remaining Securities Act claims. On October 17, 2025, pursuant to a joint letter and stipulation filed by all the parties, the Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with prejudice and certified a class with respect to the Exchange Act claims. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the Action. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of high-tech electronic security devices, cellular communication services for intrusion and fire alarm systems as well as a leading provider of school safety solutions. NATIONAL TENANT: Class Certification Bids in Rogers Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGERS v. NATIONAL TENANT NETWORK, INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00585 (D.N.J., Filed Jan. 16, 2025), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order that the deadlines for expert discovery and class certification motions are stayed pending the status conference scheduled for Jan. 14, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Defendant provides resident screening services.[CC] NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a securities suit pending in a Georgia court. On January 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and two of the Company's officers (the "Securities Class Action"). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, for materially false and misleading statements made between May 2021 and May 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as equitable relief. On March 28, 2023, the original plaintiff, City of Southfield General Employees Retirement System, and a new plaintiff, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, filed a lead plaintiff motion, seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On April 3, 2023, the Company along with its named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 19, 2023, the court granted the lead plaintiff motion. On June 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act and extended the alleged class period to February 28, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to this motion on October 5, 2023. On March 30, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On April 29, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to dismiss. The Company and named officers filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on May 13, 2024, and the plaintiffs then filed a reply in support of their motion on May 28, 2024. The court entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration on March 24, 2025, and no appeal was filed by the plaintiff. NIDEC CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Nidec Corporation (OTC: NJDCY) resulting from allegations that Nidec Corporation may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Nidec Corporation 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=47559 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 September 3, 2025, after market close, CNBC published an article entitled "Nidec shares plunge 22% as China unit probe finds accounting issues tied to management." The article further stated that shares of Nidec fell "after the company announced a probe into allegations of improper accounting in its group. This marks the largest one-day drop in the Japanese electronics components manufacturer's shares." On this news, Nidec American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell 22.7% on September 4, 2025. 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 has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time 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] OLYMPIA-LAYTON LLC: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------- Darrin Malsack, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OLYMPIA-LAYTON, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01740-WED (E.D. Wis., Nov. 6, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property more than ten times as a customer, and advocate for the disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Oakland Gyros, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. OLYMPIA-LAYTON, LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that Oakland Gyros.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend Hubacek Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Semiconductor Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 3, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hubacek securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On December 13, 2023, a putative class action captioned Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), was filed by an alleged stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers. This action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in March of 2024. The initial complaint asserted claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The initial complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company's SiC business. An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024. The amended complaint again asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 30, 2024. Upon reviewing the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, plaintiff deemed it necessary to further amend their complaint. On September 6, 2024, the plaintiff filed their second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint on October 10, 2024. Full briefing for this motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was completed on December 20, 2024. Oral arguments for this motion to dismiss were heard by the court on June 27, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice. On August 11, 2025, the plaintiff filed their third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this third amended complaint on September 25, 2025. Full briefing on this motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is expected to be completed by December 10, 2025. The Company believes that it has strong legal defenses to the claims asserted and will vigorously defend itself. ON Semiconductor Corporation provide intelligent power and sensing solutions with a primary focus towards automotive and industrial markets. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that the parties in a class action against the company in Imperial County, California attended a mediation in April 2025 and have reached a settlement for an immaterial amount. A hearing for the court to approve the settlement is scheduled to take place in January 2026. On July 29, 2024, a former employee filed the case seeking to act in a representative capacity for other Ormat employees in California alleging violations of the California Labor Code's wage and hour regulations. The complaint was amended on September 12, 2024 to add companion Private Attorneys General Act claims. The complaint sought recovery of various damages as well as equitable relief. Ormat Technologies, Inc.is a vertically integrated company that is primarily engaged in the geothermal energy power business based in Nevada. PAPAYA GAMING: Agrees to Settle Mobile Gaming Class Suit for $15MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets, writing for ClaimDepot, reports that individuals who had a Papaya Gaming account in the United States or its territories and made a deposit in one or more Papaya games, such as Bingo Cash, Bubble Cash or Solitaire Cash between Jan. 1, 2019, and Sept. 5, 2024, may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment or in-game credit from a class action settlement. Papaya Gaming Ltd. and Papaya Gaming Inc. agreed to pay $15 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging the company misled users into believing its games were based on skill when in fact the use of bots may have influenced contest outcomes. Who is eligible for a Papaya Games class action payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States or United States territories and have or had a Papaya Gaming account. -- They made a deposit in one or more Papaya games, such as Bing Cash, Bubble Cash, 21 Cash or Solitaire Cash, between Jan. 1, 2019, and Sept. 5, 2024. -- Papaya Games did not block them during the class period due to fraudulent activity. How much is the false advertising settlement payment? Class members can chose from the following benefit options: -- Pro rata in-game cash distribution: Class members can claim an in-game cash distribution. The settlement administrator will determine the individual amount by the total number of approved claims. -- Class members with an active Papaya account who do not submit a claim form will automatically receive an in-game cash distribution. -- Pro rata cash payment: Class members with or without an active Papaya account can submit a claim to receive a cash payment. The settlement administrator will determine the payment amount by the total number of approved claims. How to claim a class action rebate Class members with an active Papaya account do not need to submit a claim form to receive in-game cash. Class members who wish to receive a cash payment must submit a claim form by the Jan. 30, 2026, deadline. Eligible class members can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form.pdf) to mail or email to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Papaya Gaming Settlement, Attn: Claim Forms, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Settlement administrator's email address: info@MobileGamingSettlement.com Required claim information -- To submit an online claim, class members must provide their notice ID and confirmation code. -- Class members submitting a claim for in-game cash must provide the phone number associated with their Papaya account and select which game will receive the payment. Payout options Class members submitting for a cash payment can select from multiple payment options: -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card $15 million class action settlement fund The $15,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated $389,886 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $4,999,500 -- Service awards to class representatives: $1,500 each ($3,000 total) -- Cash payments and in-game cash distributions to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Jan. 30, 2026 -- Exclusion deadline: Jan. 30, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: March 2, 2026 When is the Papaya Gaming settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue cash payments and in-game cash to eligible class members approximately 90 days after the settlement receives final approval. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged Papaya Gaming misled users into believing its games were skill-based yet used bots in contests. Papaya Gaming denies all allegations and any wrongdoing. The parties agreed to settle to avoid the risks and expense of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $96-$192 Deadline: January 30, 2026 [GN] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Armas Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peloton Interactive, Inc. The case is styled as Alicia Armas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., Case No. CACE25017154 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 7, 2025). Peloton Interactive, Inc. -- https://www.onepeloton.com/ -- is an American exercise equipment and media company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peloton Interactive, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the putative securities class action filed by Sam Solomon. On May 11, 2023, in collaboration with the CPSC, the Company announced a voluntary recall of the original Peloton Bike (not Bike+) sold in the U.S. from January 2018 to May 2023 related to its seat post, and the Company is offering a free replacement seat post as the approved repair. On June 9, 2023, Sam Solomon filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:23-cv-04279-MKB-JRC (the "2023 Securities Litigation"). Jia Tian and David Feigelman were appointed as co-lead plaintiffs. On November 6, 2023, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between May 6, 2021 and August 22, 2023, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the seat post recall in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On February 2, 2024, defendants served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the 2023 Securities Litigation was completed on May 17, 2024. On February 14, 2025, the court issued a memorandum and order granting defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint. On April 11, 2025, co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, purportedly on behalf of the same proposed class. On May 21, 2025, defendants served a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the 2023 Securities Litigation was completed on July 28, 2025. PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Continues to Defend SDNY Suit -------------------------------------------------- Peloton Interactive, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative securities class action lawsuits filed in a New York court. On May 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated two putative securities class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of the Company's officers under the caption City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-CV-09582-ALC-OTW and appointed Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV - Robeco Global Consumer Trends as lead plaintiff in the class action (the "SDNY Class Action"). Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on June 25, 2022, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements about demand for the Company's products and the reasons for the Company's inventory growth, and engaged in improper trading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act. On March 30, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2023, purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 5, 2021 and January 19, 2022, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 16, 2023. On September 30, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice (the "Order"). On October 21, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") and filed their brief in support of their appeal on December 10, 2024. Defendants filed their responsive brief on January 28, 2025. The Second Circuit heard argument on the appeal on April 11, 2025. On August 27, 2025, the Second Circuit affirmed the Order in part, vacated the Order in part, and remanded the action to the district court for further proceedings, including to consider whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged other elements of their claims. The mandate to the district court was issued on September 18, 2025. Consistent with the Second Circuit's decision, the district court dismissed three defendants from the case on September 10, 2025. The remaining defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in full on October 15, 2025. PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned French v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-09596, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Perrigo Company plc ("Perrigo" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRGO) securities between February 27, 2023 and November 4, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR PERRIGO INVESTMENTS, visit link https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/Perrigo-Company-plc-2/ TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? In November 2022, Perrigo acquired Nestle's Gateway infant formula plant in Wisconsin, along with the U.S. and Canadian rights to Nestle's Good Start® infant formula brand, for $170 million. On February 27, 2024, before the market opened, the Company reported fiscal year 2023 earnings, revealing significant acquisition and integration-related charges had to be taken, including an additional $35 million to $45 million for remediations to address production and facility issues in the infant formula business. Perrigo also disclosed a 50% decline in earnings per share compared to the prior year due to infant formula remediation actions. Nonetheless, the Company assured investors it anticipated the infant formula business stabilizing and returning to growth in the second half of the fiscal year. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.87 or 15.14%, to close at $27.30 on February 27, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on May 7, 2024, before the market opened, the Company released earnings for the first quarter ended March 30, 2024, revealing the significant negative impact of Perrigo's costly actions to augment and strengthen the infant formula business, including that "net sales of $91 million decreased 34.5%" and the "gross margin of 36.5% declined 90 basis points." Nonetheless, the Company assured investors "any planned large-scale manufacturing plant resets have been completed" and the cash costs in 2024 to achieve the remediation plan would stay flat at $35 to $45 million. On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.28 or 9.8%, to close at $30.15 on May 7, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on August 6, 2025, before the market opened, Perrigo announced earnings for the second quarter ended June 28, 2025, revealing "production issue led to scrapping of approximately $11 million of inventory." Nevertheless, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Eduardo Bezerra assured investors that "[r]ecovery in our infant formula business is progressing." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.01 or 11.31%, to close at $23.61 on August 6, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on November 5, 2025, before the market opened, Perrigo disclosed it "is initiating a strategic review of its infant formula business" and "reassessing the Company's previously announced investment … of $240 million." On the same day, the Company announced that "due primarily to infant formula industry dynamics," Perrigo had slashed its fiscal year 2025 outlook. The Company cut its reported net sales growth guidance to -2.5% to -3%, a negative turn from the previously expected 0% to 3%. Further, the Company cut its expected adjusted diluted earnings per share to a range of $2.70 to $2.80, equating to a growth of 5% to 9%; a significant cut from the previously expected range of $2.90 to $3.10, equating to growth of 13% to 21%. On this news, Perrigo's stock price fell $5.09, or 25.2%, to close at $15.10 per share on November 5, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the infant formula business acquired from Nestle suffered from significant underinvestment in maintenance, operational improvements, and repairs; (2) that Perrigo needed to make substantial capital and operational expenditures above the Company's outwardly stated cost estimates to remediate the infant formula business; (3) that there were significant manufacturing deficiencies in the facility for the Company's infant formula business; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results, including earnings and cash flow, were overstated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Perrigo securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Website: www.glancylaw.com [GN] PINNACLE WEST: Continues to Defend Nuclear Wage Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle West Capital Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the nuclear wage class suit in the United States District Court for the District Court in Maryland. On July 11, 2025, APS, together with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, was named in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges the country's nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation. The class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003 until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The Company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Pinnacle West is an American utility holding company that owns Arizona Public Service. PRIMO BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against beverage company Primo Brands Corporation (NYSE: PRMB) in the wake of its troubled merger with BlueTriton Brands. The suit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Primo Water between June 17, 2024 and November 8, 2024. The suit also seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Primo Brands between November 11, 2024 and November 6, 2025. Prominent shareholder rights law firm Hagens Berman is actively investigating the alleged legal claims against Primo Brands and certain of its executives. The firm urges investors who suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages persons with knowledge who may be able to assist in the investigation to contact its attorneys. Class Period: June 17, 2024 - Nov. 6, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 12, 2026 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/prmb Contact the Firm Now: PRMB@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Primo Brands Corporation (PRMB) Securities Class Action The litigation is focused on the propriety of Primo's statements assuring investors that the merger would accelerate growth, generate transformative operational efficiencies, achieve meaningful synergies, and deliver strong financial results. The focus also includes Primo's assurances that the post-merger integration was proceeding "flawlessly." The complaint alleges that these assurances were false and misleading because, unknown to investors, the integration was going poorly and would severely hamper Primo's performance. The suit further alleges that, contrary to Primo's assurances, the integration was far more "complicated and more complex," leading to significant problems, including technology and customer service issues that adversely impacted the company's ability to supply its customers, and require the company to slash its net sales forecast. According to the complaint, investors began to glimpse the truth on August 7, 2025, when Primo announced its Q2 2025 financial results. That day, then-CEO Robbert Rietbroek conceded during the earnings call that "[t]he speed by which we closed facilities and reduced headcount led to disruptions in product supply, delivery, and service." But he also appeared to downplay these problems, assuring investors that "we are now on the right trajectory as we enter the second half of the year" and "[w]e will continue to execute against our strategy and must-win priorities while resolving our service issues." These revelations sent the price of Primo shares down $2.41 (-9%) that day. Then, on November 6, 2025, Primo shocked investors when it announced that Rietbroek had in effect been forced out of his position and left the Board. Company director Eric Foss assumed the roles of Executive Chairman and CEO. Primo also announced its Q3 2025 financial results that day. During the earnings call, Foss revealed that "the company probably moved too far too fast on some of the various integration streams" and that "[t]here is no doubt speed impacted our ability to get through a lot of the warehouse closures and route realignment without disruption." He also revealed "customer service issues" and "integration issues related to the technology move over." As to customer issues, he said "there is more work to do on this front to completely get the issue solved and corrected." Of critical importance to investors, in connection with the admittedly flawed merger integration, Primo was forced to slash its 2025 revenue forecast to a low single-digit decline, after previously cutting its outlook from expected positive 3% - 5% growth to roughly flat to positive 1% growth. The market's reaction was swift and sent the price of Primo shares crashing $8.20 (-36%) the next day. "We're investigating the extent to which company leadership was aware of the apparent integration problems that seem to have undercut assurances that the process was flawlessly underway," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Primo should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email PRMB@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] PRIORITY TECHNOLOGY: $19.5MM Deal in Wholesale Suit Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Priority Technology Holdings, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the court has granted final approval of the settlement in the class action against, among others, The Credit Wholesale Company, Inc. The Company is a party in a case filed on October 11, 2023 in the United States District Court of Northern District of California (the "Complaint"). The Complaint is a putative class action against The Credit Wholesale Company, Inc. ("Wholesale"), Priority Technology Holdings, Inc., Priority Payment Systems ("PPS"), LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"). The Complaint alleges that Wholesale as an agent of Priority, PPS and Wells Fargo made non-consensual recordation of telephonic communications with California businesses in violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act (the "Act"). The Complaint seeks to certify a class of affected businesses and an award of $5,000 per violation of the Act. During the quarter ended June 30, 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement wherein the defendants agree to pay $19.5 million to settle this litigation on a class basis. There was no contribution from the Company towards this settlement agreement. PRUVIT VENTURES: Carrera Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Carrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRUVIT VENTURES INC.; BRIAN UNDERWOOD; CHRISTOPHER HARDING; TERRY LACORE; JENIFER GRACE; BLAKE MALLEN; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. C25-00451 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Nov. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09629. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action and PAGA Complaint (hereinafter "First Amended Complaint" or "FAC") on April 18, 2025. The FAC, styled as a class action, asserts claims for: Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Failure To Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Unfair Competition, and Penalties pursuant to California Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alison L. Tsao, Esq. Timothy M. Freudenberger, Esq. Marianne C. Koepf, Esq. Arthur S. Gaus, Esq. Candace DesBaillets, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 981-3233 Email: atsao@cdflaborlaw.com tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com mkoepf@cdflaborlaw.com agaus@cdflaborlaw.com cdesbaillets@cdflaborlaw.com REGENCY FURNITURE: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Youngren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Regency Furniture, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-13627 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 6, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.regencyfurniture.com (hereinafter "Regencyfurniture.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Regencyfurniture.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Regency Furniture provides to the public a website known as Regencyfurniture.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of sofas, loveseats, chairs, tables, desks, beds, home décor items, outdoor furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law REPLIMUNE GROUP: Faces "Jboor" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------- Replimune Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a securities class action styled Jboor v. Replimune Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12085-JEK. On July 24, 2025 a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed against the Company and its directors and certain officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the District of Massachusetts. The complaint, captioned Jboor v. Replimune Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12085-JEK, was filed shortly after the Company announced it received a complete response letter from the FDA for its RP1 BLA for the treatment of advanced melanoma on July 22, 2025 and the subsequent decline in the trading price of the Company's common stock. The Court is in the process of appointing a lead plaintiff. The Company and the other defendants deny any wrongdoing and will vigorously defend this action. RICK CASE: Mismanages Retirement Fund, Hebert Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ROMEO HEBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons on behalf of the RICK CASE ENTERPRISES, INC. 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v. RICK CASE ENTERPRISES, INC.; RICK CASE ENTERPRISES, INC. 401(K) PLAN; RITA M. CASE; DARREN W. STOKES; JOHN DOE DIRECTORS 1-10; and JOHN DOE COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-62255-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed to discharge their fiduciary obligations solely in the interest of Plan participants and beneficiaries, and instead caused or permitted the plan to: (a) pay excessive recordkeeping, administrative, and investment-management fees; (b) retain underperforming or imprudent investment options when superior, lower-cost alternatives were available; (c) fail to adequately monitor and remove imprudent fiduciaries who continued such practices to the detriment of participants; and (d) fail to conduct a prudent and independent review of the administrative services agreement to identify, negotiate, and eliminate any excessive, unreasonable, or avoidable plan administrative fees. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' fiduciary breaches, the Plan and its participants suffered substantial losses, including loss of principal during the 2022-2023 transition, lost investment earnings and diminished account balances, says the suit. Rick Case Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1986. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 328-3100 (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (434) 328-3101 (954) 763-8607 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com - and - Walter J. Mathews, Esq. WALTER J. MATHEWS, P.A. 219 Davie Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32215 Telephone: (954) 463-1929 Email: wjm@mathewsllp.com RM ACQUISITION: Wyatt Sues Over Failure to Provide Map Updates -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Wyatt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RM ACQUISITION, LLC, d/b/a RAND McNALLY, Case No. 1:25-cv-13647 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 6, 2025), is brought stemming from the Defendant's failure to deliver what it promised to American truckers which is to provide annual base map updates, who need a reliable Global Positioning System ("GPS") that provides safe, correct, and efficient routes to their pickup and delivery destinations, and accurately directs them toward relevant points-of interest along the way, including truck-stops, scales, bridges, and rest areas. Through product-labeling, packaging, and other means, Rand repeatedly and consistently represented to truckers that its TND 740 Intelliroute GPS truck navigation devices provided "updated maps on an annual basis" to truckers. Despite significant ($500) price-tags for the TND 740 Intelliroute GPS truck navigation devices, the company uniformly failed to provide such annual base map updates to Plaintiff and the Class, as warranted. Rather, the devices were consistently out-of date, providing the wrong directions, recognizing incorrect or nonexistent addresses or Points of Interest ("POI") locations, and routinely failing to locate addresses or even entire streets, among other problems. In 2019 and 2021 and ever since March 2022, Rand failed to provide annual base map updates. Even the March 2022 update was markedly deficient, saddled with bad and unsafe information, wrong directions, and nonexistent or incorrect street addresses. When Plaintiff and other Class members complained about outdated or inaccurate maps, misinformation about points-of-interest, and poor or unsafe routing, e.g., being directed to the wrong destination or drop off address, to residential roads, to low bridges, to steep grades, or to nonexistent travel centers, Rand promised "updates in the next few months," only to push back the promised updates indefinitely or cancel them altogether. Rand failed to release annual base map updates in 2019, 2021 and after March 2022, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased new TND 740 Intelliroute GPS truck navigation devices manufactured by Rand. Rand became a leading United States publisher of travel books and electronic media for the travel industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Allen McDonald, Esq. LACY, PRICE & WAGNER, P.C. 249 North Peters Road, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37923 Phone: 865.246.0800 Fax: 865.690.8199 Email: amcdonald@lpwpc.com - and - Mark R. Miller, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 200 W Madison St #3400 Chicago, IL, 60606 Phone: (312) 629-4407 mrm@wallacemiller.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Awaits Court OK of Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court approval of the settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit. Beginning in December 2020, multiple putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against RHM, Robinhood Financial LLC ("RHF"), and RHS. Five cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in May 2021, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and various state law causes of action based on claims that we violated the duty of best execution and misled putative class members by publishing misleading statements and omissions in customer communications relating to the execution of trades and revenue sources (including PFOF). Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, restitution, disgorgement, and other relief. In February 2022, the court granted Robinhood's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice. In March 2022, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, alleging only violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, which Robinhood moved to dismiss. In October 2022, the court granted Robinhood's motion in part and denied it in part. In November 2022, Robinhood filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the court denied in January 2023. In March 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Robinhood opposed. In October 2024, the court denied class certification without prejudice. In June 2025, Robinhood agreed to a settlement in principle with plaintiffs, which will be subject to approval by the court. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Continues to Defend "Dey" -------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit styled Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al. In October 2024, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff asserts breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, breach of implied covenant of good faith and dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law based on allegations that defendants failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest to non-Robinhood Gold brokerage account holders on cash balances swept to program bank deposit programs. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. In January 2025, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Robinhood's motion to dismiss. In May 2025, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Deeney v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which also made allegations related to Robinhood's cash sweep program. The complaint sought, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and restitution. The parties in Dey and Deeney have agreed to consolidate the matters and Plaintiffs have filed an amended consolidated complaint. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Robinhood has moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Continues to Defend "Golubowski" --------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the putative class action lawsuit filed by Philip Golubowski. In December 2021, Philip Golubowski filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against RHM, the officers and directors who signed Robinhood's initial public offering ("IPO") offering documents, and Robinhood's IPO underwriters. Plaintiff's claims are based on alleged false or misleading statements in Robinhood's IPO offering documents allegedly in violation of Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of shareholders' share purchases, and an award for attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2022, certain alleged Robinhood stockholders submitted applications seeking appointment by the court to be the lead plaintiff to represent the putative class in this matter, and in March 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs. In June 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2022, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In February 2023, the court granted Robinhood's motion without prejudice. In March 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In January 2024, the court granted Robinhood's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend. In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. On August 29, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the district court. Robinhood's petition for rehearing en banc was denied. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Pay Transparency Suit Proceeding in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the pay transparency litigation is proceeding in discovery. In July 2024, RHM, Robinhood Money, LLC, and RHC were sued in a putative class action captioned John Milito v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., alleging that Robinhood violated Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, because some of the Company's job postings allegedly failed to include a wage scale or salary range. The complaint seeks unspecified total statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The case was stayed in the Superior Court in King County in Washington pending a certified question to the Washington Supreme Court. In September 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the certified question and held that a job applicant for a job posting that failed to include a wage scale or salary range does not need to prove they are a "bona fide" or "good faith" applicant to obtain remedies under the applicable statute. The stay has been lifted and the case is proceeding in discovery. ROKIT DRINKS IMPORTS: Roldan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ROKiT Drinks Imports, Inc. The case is styled as Antonio Josue Roldan, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved and similarly situated v. ROKiT Drinks Imports, Inc., Case No. 25STCV32633 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ROKiT Drinks Imports -- https://rokitdrinks.com/ -- is a premium alcohol beverage distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Wong, Esq. LYFE LAW, LLP 864 S Robertson Blvd., 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone: 888-203-1422 Email: gregw@lyfe.com RXSIGHT INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------------- RxSight, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that it is currently facing a consolidated securities action "In re RxSight Securities Litigation," No. 8:25-cv-01596-FWS-KES in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company and certain of its officers, captioned "Makaveev v. RxSight, Inc., et al.," No. 8:25-cv-01596. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding demand for the company's products and financial guidance. On October 6, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating this with another action, appointing a lead plaintiff and approving selection of lead counsel, and re-captioning the case as "In re RxSight Securities Litigation," No. 8:25-cv-01596-FWS-KES. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. RxSight(R), Inc. is engaged in the research and development, manufacture and sale of light adjustable intraocular lenses used in cataract surgery along with capital equipment used with the lenses. SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sana Biotechnology, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting ruling of its motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint in a Washington court. "On March 21, 2025, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company and its current and former executives, Steven D. Harr, M.D., and Nathan Hardy, now captioned In re Sana Biotechnology, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 2:25-cv-00512-BJR, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, operations, and prospects (the Action). On June 2, 2025, the court appointed Shane Honey and Jonatan Koskinen as co-lead plaintiffs (Lead Plaintiffs) and their respective choices of lead counsel as co-lead counsel in the Action. On August 15, 2025, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to serve as the operative complaint in the Action (the Complaint), which asserts claims against all defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims against the individual defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading public statements and omissions regarding the development of SC291, our HIP-modified CD19-directed allogeneic CAR T cell product candidate, for the treatment of B-cell cancers, as well as our finances, operations, and business prospects. The Complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 9, 2024 and November 4, 2024 and seeks unspecified damages. "The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on October 14, 2025. Per stipulation and order, the Lead Plaintiffs must file their opposition to the motion to dismiss by December 15, 2025, and the defendants must file their reply in support of the motion to dismiss by January 29, 2026. The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the Action. However, there can be no assurances as to the outcome," the Company stated. SAPP BROS: Faces Loebach Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD LOEBACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAPP BROS., INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00646-RFR-MDN (D. Neb., November 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber incident on September 23, 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. 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. Sapp Bros., Inc. operates full-service travel centers and sells and distributes petroleum across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SCANLAN THEODORE: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website --------------------------------------------------------- Arantza Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCANLAN THEODORE BH LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A SCANLAN THEODORE, Case No. 1:25-cv-25144-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant's Website, https://www.scanlantheodore.com/, contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a gift card on Defendant's website. However, the Plaintiff was not able to freely and fully use Defendant's website because it contains access barriers that make it inaccessible to persons with disabilities, and for which there is no reasonable accommodation for the Plaintiff. The Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. SCANLAN THEODORE, is a company that sells clothing, crepe knit, dresses, denim, gift cards, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com SCOTTS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Forever Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Miracle-Gro's organic fertilizer and soil products are not organic as advertised, given that they contain health-hazardous PFAS "forever chemicals." The 22-page lawsuit states that laboratory testing detected perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in all of Miracle-Gro's organic soil and fertilizer products, regardless of batch or location where they were sold. The case alleges defendant Scotts uses the term "organic" to induce consumers into believing its products contain only natural, non-synthetic ingredients, and are thus superior to those offered by competitors. According to the filing, PFAS chemicals are "highly resistant synthetic chemicals" that have seen widespread use in consumer and industrial products in the U.S. since the 1940s. Forever chemicals do not break down in natural environments, as they instead bioaccumulate through the food chain, the case states. If the human body is exposed to PFAS, including through contaminated food, the chemicals will build up in the body over time and, even at incredibly low concentrations, can lead to severe negative health effects, the complaint relays. Additionally, due to their negative effects on human health and the environment, the two most common types of PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), have been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as dangerous substances, the filing reports. Because PFAS are synthetic chemicals and therefore inorganic by definition, their presence in the products at issue renders Miracle-Gro's "organic" claim false, given that an organic product should not contain any inorganic components, the lawsuit alleges. In support of this stance, the suit cites the California Food & Agriculture Code, which states that a "natural organic fertilizer" can contain only "materials derived from either plant or animal products," and "shall not be mixed with synthetic materials." Further, per the complaint, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines "organic matter" as the "remains, residues or waste products of any organism," and the agency defines "organic fraud" as the "deceptive representation, sale or labeling of nonorganic agricultural products or ingredients as 100 percent organic, organic or made with organic [ingredients]." The filing also notes, importantly, that there are no PFAS identified as "allowed" on the USDA's National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic production, which tracks with the list's general policy of allowing nonsynthetic substances and prohibiting the use of synthetic substances in organic products. While the USDA does not specifically regulate non-food products such as soil and fertilizer, the lawsuit argues that the average consumer's understanding of an "organic" product label generally adheres to the USDA's definitions of organic matter and organic fraud, as well as the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The complaint contends that PFAS do not fall under any definition or understanding of "organic," and that no reasonable customer would expect them to be present in organic soil or fertilizer. The filing claims that customers seeking organic soil and fertilizer have been deceived by Miracle-Gro's false advertising into buying an inorganic product that contains known harmful and health-hazardous chemicals. The Miracle-Gro class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who purchased, in California, any of the following Miracle-Gro organic soil or fertilizer products for personal use within the applicable statute of limitations period: -- Miracle-Gro Organic Raised Bed & Gardening Soil, Outdoor Potting Mix, Indoor Potting Mix, Garden Soil, Potting Mix and Raised Bed Soil; -- Miracle-Gro Performance Organics All Purpose Container Mix, In-Ground Soil and Raised Bed Mix; and -- Miracle-Gro Organic Choice Potting Mix, Garden Soil and Raised Bed & In Ground Soil with Compost. [GN] SCYNEXIS INC: Shareholder Suit over Antifungal Drug Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- SCYNEXIS, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2025, that the United States District Court, District of New Jersey granted the company's motion to dismiss a securities class action filed by Brian Feldman against the company and certain executives. On November 7, 2023, said action was filed by Brian Feldman against the company and certain executives, alleging that, during the period from March 31, 2023 to September 22, 2023, the company made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the its business, operations and prospects, alleging specifically that it failed to disclose to investors that the equipment used to manufacture the drug "ibrexafungerp" was also used to manufacture a non-antibacterial beta-lactam drug substance, presenting a risk of cross-contamination, that the company did not have effective internal controls and procedures, as well as adequate internal oversight policies to ensure that its vendor complied with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP), that, due to the substantial risk of cross-contamination, the company was reasonably likely to recall its ibrexafungerp tablets and halt its clinical studies and as a result of the foregoing, the company's statements about its operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased and/or acquired shares of its common stock between March 31, 2023 to September 22, 2023. SCYNEXIS, Inc. is a biotechnology company, headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, that is developing its proprietary class of enfumafungin-derived antifungal compounds as broad-spectrum, systemic antifungal agents for multiple fungal indications. SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Pork Price-Fixing Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 27, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the pork price-fixing antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "Minnesota District Court") against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC ("Seaboard Foods") and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed in the Minnesota District Court, and additional actions by standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all three classes. Additional standalone "direct action" plaintiffs filed similar actions in federal courts throughout the country, several of which named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant. Those actions filed in courts other than the District of Minnesota have been conditionally transferred to Minnesota for pretrial proceedings pursuant to an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The states of New Mexico and Alaska filed civil cases in state court against substantially the same defendants, including Seaboard Foods and Seaboard Corporation, based on substantially similar allegations. On June 12, 2023, Seaboard Foods entered into a settlement agreement with the putative direct purchaser plaintiff class (the "DPP Class"). The settlement with the DPP Class does not cover the claims of (a) "direct action" plaintiffs ("DPPs") that opted-out of Seaboard's settlement with the DPP Class and are continuing direct actions; (b) other direct purchasers that opted-out of the settlement ("Other Opt-Outs") and may in the future file actions against Seaboard; (c) the Commercial and Industrial Indirect Purchaser Class (the "CIIP Class"); or (d) the End User Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (the "EUCP Class"). Subsequent to the settlement with the DPP Class, Seaboard settled with some of the DPPs and Other Opt-Outs. Seaboard continues to litigate against the DPPs it has not settled with, but Seaboard will consider additional reasonable settlements where they are available. On June 18, 2024 and June 20, 2024, Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the CIIP Class and the EUCP Class. The settlement with the EUCP Class remains subject to court approval. Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the state of Alaska on August 7, 2024, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on January 2, 2025 and the State of New Mexico on September 26, 2025. Seaboard believes that these settlements were in the best interests of Seaboard and its stakeholders in order to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. On March 31, 2025, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Absent reconsideration or another change in circumstance, cases pending in the Minnesota District Court will proceed to trial and cases pending in other jurisdictions will be remanded to the courts in which the actions were brought. Seaboard has settled all actions originally brought in the Minnesota District Court. It is uncertain when the Minnesota District Court will remand the cases, including Seaboard's, pending in other jurisdictions or when trials of those cases will be scheduled. Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in these matters and intends to vigorously defend any matters not resolved by settlement. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties and, if unfavorable, could result in a material liability. Seaboard Corporation and its subsidiaries comprise a diversified group of companies that operate worldwide in agricultural, energy and ocean transport businesses. Seaboard is primarily engaged in hog production, pork processing and biofuel production in the United States. SEALED AIR: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Clayton Dubilier & Rice --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Sealed Air Corp. (NYSE: SEE) related to its sale to Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sealed Air shareholders will receive $42.10 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sealed-air-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SERVICE FIRST: Sutton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Service First of Northern California. The case is styled as Rebecca Sutton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Service First of Northern California, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0016618 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 6, 2025). The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Service First of Northern California --- https://servicefirstnc.org/ -- is a community-based organization that has developed programs and is driven to serve those most in need.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com SIG SAUER: Faces Class Action Over Handgun's Safety Defect ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason Sutich, writing for My Northwest, reports that a man from Bothell filed a class action lawsuit on Monday, November 17, against the gun manufacturer, Sig Sauer, alleging the company sold its P320 handgun with a safety defect that caused the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Patrick Schreiber purchased a P320 in 2021 and claims the firearm is "defectively designed," further stating that Sig Sauer did not disclose any safety concerns, according to the lawsuit. Bothell resident files class-action lawsuit against Sig Sauer over faulty firearm Schreiber intends to represent all Washington residents who have purchased a Sig Sauer P320 without a manual safety after November 2021. The complaint included more than 200 instances of accidental discharges across several law enforcement agencies from Sig Sauer's P320 handgun. Several law enforcement agencies have previously banned the use of the firearm in their respective departments for safety, including the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Chicago Police Department, among others, according to KIRO 7. The lawsuit claims that all P320s sold in WA include the same faulty internal designs, and consumers paid full price for the firearm that did not meet basic safety requirements. In 2017, Sig Sauer conducted an internal analysis for the U.S. Army, rating unintentional discharges as a "high-risk" with a possibility of causing significant injuries. Additionally, the complaint claimed that Sig Sauer did not add any external safety features or give customers notice of the potentially defective product. Dozens of instances involving personal-injury cases are also mentioned in the lawsuit, including officers who holstered their weapons and it fired unexpectedly. The lawsuit claimed that Sig Sauer violated the Consumer Protection Act as the company failed to disclose any known risks, while continuing to advertise the pistol with imagery of military editions of the firearm, though they include manual safeties not included on the P320. Schreiber is asking the court to order Sig Sauer to repair or disclose the alleged defect, compensate customers, and stop deceptive marketing campaigns. [GN] SOLARIS ENERGY: "Pirello" Remains Pending in Texas -------------------------------------------------- Solaris Energy Infrastructure, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the putative class action lawsuit styled Stephen Pirello v. Solaris Energy Infrastructure, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01455, remains pending in a Texas court. On March 28, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in a putative class action lawsuit styled Stephen Pirello v. Solaris Energy Infrastructure, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01455, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint asserts claims against the Company and certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging among other things that they made misleading statements and omissions relating to the acquisition of Mobile Energy Rentals, LLC ("MER" and such acquisition, the "MER Acquisition"). The complaint further alleges that these allegedly misleading statements and omissions were revealed in the Morpheus Research report regarding the Company issued on March 17, 2025, which the complaint alleges caused a decline in the Company's stock price. The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain, particularly because it is at its initial stages. However, the Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. SUNOCO LP: Faces Orr Suit Over Illegal Use of Data Broker Software ------------------------------------------------------------------ SALLY ORR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNOCO LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03036-S (N.D. Tex., November 6, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, Defendant Sunoco LP uses data broker software on its website https://www.sunoco.com to secretly collect data about a visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data, and correlates it with extensive external records the data broker already has about most Californians, for the purpose of learning the identity of the Website visitors, including Plaintiff. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the state law, says the suit. Sunoco LP is an energy company that distributes and refines energy from various sources including oil and natural gas around the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH 626 Wilshire Blvd Ste 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 590-3927 SUNSTAR VENDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marquez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SILVIO OMAR PEREZ MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNSTAR VENDING INC.; and DAVID LEICHUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06215 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Marquez was employed by the Defendants as a vending machine technician. Sunstar Vending Inc. operates arcade games, photo booths, and massage chairs, and is in the vending/amusement management business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TAPESTRY INC: Ransom Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Haven Ransom, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tapestry, Inc. Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02231 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 6, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10673-JFW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Tapestry, Inc. -- https://www.tapestry.com/ -- is an American multinational fashion holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren Nicole Vega, Esq. Mariela Romo, Esq. Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS INC 3333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 693-4007 Fax: (619) 350-6855 Email: lauren@ferrarovega.com mariela@ferrarovega.com nick@ferrarovega.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Laura L. Vaughn, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010 Phone: (310) 557-2900 Fax: (310) 557-2193 Email: gknopp@proskauer.com lvaughn@proskauer.com TARGET CORP: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Emerson McCormick, writing for Womble Bond Dickson, says as advised last year that plaintiffs had initiated a new wave of CIPA-like privacy litigation under Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act, A.R.S. Sec. 44-1376.01 (the "TUCSRA"). The Arizona Court of Appeals has rebuffed that wave, which should subside as a result. As previously reported, various plaintiffs had filed putative class actions in Arizona and elsewhere, alleging that marketing emails with tracking pixels violated the TUCSRA, a 2007 law governing the protection/disclosure of "communication service records, telephone records [, and] public utility records." Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that tracking pixels in marketing emails were "communication service records" because the sender would know when a recipient accessed the email, thereby creating an "access log." This was a novel theory that had arisen with the past couple of years and gave plaintiffs some new ammunition in tracking-pixel litigation similar to recent CIPA class actions. Trial courts were skeptical and largely rejected the theory, but no appellate decision had directly addressed the issue. Last week, however, in the first such decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals held in Smith v. Target Corp., No. 1 CA-CV 25-0120, --- P.3d ----, 2025 WL 3166035 (Nov. 13, 2025), that the TUCSRA simply does not apply to tracking pixels in marketing emails. And, as a result, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. In reaching that result, the Court explained that the TUCSRA emerged from two prior laws enacted in 2000 and 2006, and that all three laws were clearly intended to regulate "public utility records, telephone records, communication service records" controlled by service providers that "send or receive oral, wire or electronic communications or computer services." Agreeing with the Superior Court's reasoning, as well as two decisions from the U.S. District Court of Arizona, the Court of Appeals confirmed that an email sender is not the kind of person or entity that the TUCSRA seeks to regulate, and a tracking pixel is not a "communication service record" as that term is used in the statute. The Court further clarified that the term "access logs" must be read in its statutory context, referring only to "records of when a subscriber accesses the communication services-- 'not marketing metrics collected by retailers about email engagement.'" Mr. Smith and his counsel might petition for further review of this decision, but, unless/until the Arizona Supreme Court says otherwise, it is expected that the Smith v. Target decision will accelerate resolution of remaining Arizona pixel cases. [GN] TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Telix Pharmaceuticals Limited ("Telix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TLX). The class action concerns whether Telix and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until January 9, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Telix securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On July 22, 2025, Telix disclosed receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, "seeking various documents and information primarily relating to the Company's disclosures regarding the development of the Company's prostate cancer therapeutic candidates." On this news, Telix's American Depositary Receipt ("ADR") price fell $1.70 per ADR, or 10.44%, to close at $14.58 per ADR on July 23, 2025. Then, on August 28, 2025, Telix issued a press release "announcing that it has received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the Biologics License Application (BLA) for TLX250-CDx (Zircaix, 89Zr-DFO-girentuximab), an investigational PET agent for the diagnosis and characterization of renal masses as clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)." Telix's press release stated, in relevant part: "The CRL identifies deficiencies relating to the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) package. The FDA has requested additional data to establish comparability between the drug product used in the ZIRCON Phase 3 clinical trial and the scaled-up manufacturing process intended for commercial use. Additionally, the FDA has documented notices of deficiency (Form 483) issued to two third-party manufacturing and supply chain partners that will require remediation prior to resubmission." On this news, Telix's ADR price fell $3.45 per ADR, or 18.75%, to close at $14.95 per ADR on August 28, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. [GN] TESLA INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Racial Discrimination Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wiessner, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a California state judge has ruled that 6,000 Black workers at Tesla's flagship assembly plant cannot sue over alleged racial harassment as a class, reversing an earlier ruling in a major victory for CEO Elon Musk's electric vehicle maker. California Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon on November 14 ruled that the 2017 lawsuit could not move forward as a class action because lawyers for the plaintiffs were unable to find 200 class members willing to testify ahead of a trial scheduled for 2026. Borkon said he could not trust that the experiences of a smaller sample of workers could be applied to the entire class. A different judge had certified the class in 2024, but Borkon said that was based on the belief that a trial in the large-scale case would be manageable. Tesla and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment on November 24. The company has said that it does not tolerate workplace harassment and that it has fired employees who were engaged in racial misconduct. The named plaintiff, former assembly-line worker Marcus Vaughn, alleged that Black workers at the Fremont, California factory were subjected to a range of racist conduct including slurs, graffiti and nooses hung at their workstations. A trial had been scheduled for next April, two months before a separate trial involving similar claims against Tesla by a California state civil rights agency. Tesla is also facing race discrimination claims in federal court in California brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces federal anti-discrimination laws. The company has settled other race discrimination lawsuits involving single plaintiffs. The case is Vaughn v. Tesla, California Superior Court, Alameda County, No. RG17882082. [GN] TICKETMASTER LLC: Abbott Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shawn Abbott, Marshall Altier, Kalen Cooper, Eugene Jo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 25STCV06613 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10757 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ -- is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Brandon D. Fox, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Phone: (213) 239-5100 Fax: (213) 239-5199 Email: bfox@jenner.com TILRAY BRANDS: Kha Files Mislabeling Suit Over Protein Powder ------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Kha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tilray Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10630 (C.D. Cal., November 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant markets its "Just Hemp Protein" powders in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting the quantity and quality of the protein in violation of the California's False Advertising Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant's products are comprised of inferior protein sources that do not provide the same nutritional benefits as whey protein. The Defendant's sales are driven by consumers seeking protein supplementation. To market to these consumers, the Defendant prominently displays the total protein content of its Products through its Amazon.com storefront on the front of each listing. However, the Defendant fails to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel, which would show the adjusted amount after accounting for protein's plant-based origin. The Defendant shows the total protein amount on the front of the Products' packaging and labeling but does not show the daily value for that amount on the back. This is misleading because plant-based proteins often are less digestible, meaning the human body does not absorb the full amount of protein, the suit asserts. Tilray Brands, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical, cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com TOGETHER COMPUTER: Faces James Suit Over Copyright Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- DARIUS H. JAMES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TOGETHER COMPUTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09578 (N.D. Cal., November 6, 2025) alleges that the Defendant repeatedly copied, stored, and used, without permission, Plaintiff's the works in violation of their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. The Plaintiff and Class members are authors who own registered copyrights in certain books (the "Infringed Works") that were included in the open training dataset, RedPajama, that Together AI assembled and published for the purpose of training large language models, and ultimately driving such LLM development to its own development platform. By downloading, copying, storing, processing, reproducing, and using the RedPajama dataset containing copies of Plaintiff's Infringed Works, the Defendant has directly infringed on Plaintiff's exclusive rights in his copyrighted works, says the suit. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff has been injured by Defendant's acts of direct copyright infringement and is entitled to statutory damages, actual damages, restitution of profits, and all appropriate legal and equitable relief. Together AI is a company that contributes open-source research, models, and datasets to other AI-focused companies and sells access to a cloud platform to help other entities train, fine-tune, and deploy generative AI models.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 1089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Ex. 3 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com TRADE DESK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Calif. Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Trade Desk, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuits pending in a California court. On February 19, 2025, plaintiff United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01396), against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer and then-Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action purported to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and sought unspecified damages and other relief. On March 20, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation, ordering that defendants need not respond to the complaint, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 5, 2025, two additional related purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned Savorelli v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01915), bringing claims against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer and then-Chief Financial Officer, and New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01936), bringing claims against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer, then-Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategy Officer. Both complaints alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements, similar to the allegations contained in the United Union of Roofers action, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The actions were also purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and sought unspecified damages and other relief. On March 18, 2025, the court entered orders relating the Savorelli and New England actions to the first-filed United Union of Roofers action, No. 2:25-cv-01396 (CAS). On March 28, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulations in the Savorelli and New England matters, ordering that defendants need not respond to the complaints, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 21, 2025, several purported shareholders filed motions in the related actions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June 4, 2025, the court consolidated all three actions and recaptioned the action "In re The Trade Desk, Inc. Securities Litigation," No. 2:25-cv-01396 (the "Consolidated Action"), and appointed Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("First Amended Complaint") on August 15, 2025. The First Amended Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between November 15, 2023 and August 8, 2025. It alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The First Amended Complaint also asserts a separate claim under Section 20A alleging that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, then-Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategy Officer engaged in insider trading during the proposed class period. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action on October 14, 2025. The motion remains pending. The case is still in its early stages. Management believes these claims to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend against them. TRADE DESK: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ The Trade Desk, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the securities class action lawsuits pending in a Delaware court. On October 4, 2024, a stockholder filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware alleging claims for breach of contract against the Company and breach of fiduciary duties against the Company's directors, in connection with the Company's reincorporation from Delaware to Nevada. Gunderson v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1029 (Del. Ch.) (the "Gunderson Action"). On October 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint sought, among other things, an order declaring that the Company's conversion required approval by a supermajority of the Company's stockholders and an order enjoining the November 14, 2024 stockholder vote on the conversion. On October 28, 2024, the parties completed expedited briefing on cross motions for partial summary judgment regarding the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and the court heard oral argument on the motions on October 30, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that the conversion did not require supermajority approval of the Company's stockholders, and that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties by disclosing that the conversion required a vote of a simple majority of the Company's stockholders. The plaintiff chose not to appeal. The case is now proceeding as to the plaintiff's remaining claims that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties because the reincorporation to Nevada was substantively and procedurally unfair, and that the transaction is not subject to the business judgment rule because it was not subject to approval by a special committee of the board or by a majority of the disinterested stockholders. The defendants have moved to dismiss, but no briefing schedule has been set. On April 28, 2025, the plaintiff in the Scarantino Action (as defined below) moved to intervene and stay the Gunderson Action. On May 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion to intervene and stayed the Gunderson Action pending completion of the books and records inspection in the Scarantino Action. On November 15, 2024, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of the Company's corporate books and records relating to the Nevada conversion, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. City of Roseville Employees Retirement System v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1173 (Del. Ch.). On November 27, 2024, the parties agreed to stay the proceeding in exchange for the production of certain documents to the plaintiff; the court granted the stay the same day. On April 18, 2025, the stockholder voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On April 24, 2025, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of the Company's corporate books and records relating to the Nevada conversion and the Company's dual class capital structure, among other things, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Richard Scarantino v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No 2025-0442 (Del. Ch.) (the "Scarantino Action"). The case was referred to a Magistrate in Chancery for trial, and a trial was held on July 16, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Magistrate in Chancery issued a final report, in which she found that the stockholder plaintiff could receive certain limited requested board materials. The stockholder plaintiff filed exceptions to the Magistrate's final report, and briefing on plaintiff's exceptions was completed on September 26, 2025. The parties are awaiting a decision. TREACE MEDICAL: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "McCluney" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Treace Medical Concepts, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss the class action complaint styled McCluney v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. et al. Case No. 3:25-cv-00390-WWB-PDB. "On April 11, 2025, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (captioned McCluney v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. et al. Case No. 3:25-cv-00390-WWB-PDB) against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock between May 8, 2023 and May 7, 2024 alleging that the Company and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. "On July 1, 2025, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2025, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on September 5, 2025. The action is in the preliminary stage. "The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend against this complaint vigorously. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this action, the outcome remains uncertain, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential impact, if any, on our business or financial statements at this time. The Company is insured for Directors and Officers liability for amounts in excess of the retention and up to the policy limits," the Company stated. TTI OUTDOOR: Faces Hicks Suit Over Defective Pressure Washers ------------------------------------------------------------- DARYL HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TTI OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13308-DCN (D.S.C., November 6, 2025) is a consumer class action arising out of the Defendant's manufacture and sale of about 764,000 units of the Ryobi Pressure Washer products that were made subject to an August 28, 2025 recall. On August 28, 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued Recall Notice 25-452 which advised the Recall of three Ryobi Pressure Washer Models suffering from a design defect, in which its capacitors could overheat causing explosions and resulting in numerous, and in some instances, serious injuries. According to the complaint, the capacitor on product models is prone to overheating. There have been 135 reports of overheating which includes 41 reports of explosions resulting in 32 injuries. The products were advertised, sold, and installed across the United States without adequate warnings or safeguards related to the defect. The Defendant provided no warning of the defect, and Plaintiff would not have purchased said item if they had known of the defect, says the suit. TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc. is a Hong Kong-based multinational company that designs, produces, and markets power tools, outdoor power equipment, hand tools, and floor care appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Drip Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Who: Plaintiff Christopher Barnett filed a class action lawsuit against U-Haul International Inc. Why: Barnett alleges U-Haul adds hidden fees to its advertised prices in violation of California's Honest Pricing Law. Where: The U-Haul class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit alleges U-Haul International adds hidden fees to its advertised prices in violation of California's Honest Pricing Law. Plaintiff Christopher Barnett filed the class action complaint against U-Haul in California state court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. Barnett claims U-Haul charges consumers hidden fees in violation of California's Honest Pricing Law, which requires businesses to include all fees in advertised prices. The plaintiff alleges U-Haul uses "drip pricing" by displaying low prices for truck rentals but adding an "environmental fee" of $1 at the end of the transaction. Barnett says the fee is only revealed after consumers go through multiple pages to finalize their rental, making it difficult for them to compare prices or back out of the transaction. Plaintiff claims hidden fees charged twice Barnett claims he was charged the hidden fee twice for truck rentals advertised at $29.95, with the fee only appearing at checkout. He argues U-Haul's practice misleads consumers into believing they are getting a better deal than they actually are. The plaintiff alleges U-Haul's conduct frustrates competition and causes consumers to pay more than they intended. He claims U-Haul had ample time to comply with the law, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, but chose not to. Barnett seeks to represent a class of California consumers who were charged fees not included in U-Haul's advertised prices since July 1, 2024. He is suing for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law as well as for negligent misrepresentation, fraud and quasi-contract. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks an order forcing U-Haul to include all fees in advertised prices, as well as restitution, damages and attorney fees. In other hidden fees, a homebuyer recently filed a class action against Zillow accusing the company of deceiving consumers into using its agents and charging undisclosed fees that inflated home prices. The plaintiff is represented by Paul K. Haines of Haines Law Group APC and Jack Day and Calvin Bryne of Day Bryne & McIntosh. The U-Haul class action lawsuit is Barnett v. U-Haul International Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-09893, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] UNITED STATES: Sued Over Reservists' Denied Differential Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ AFGE News reports that tens of thousands of federal civilian employees serve as military reservists. When these dedicated public servants are called to active duty during a national emergency, they have often been paid less than they would earn in their civilian jobs. To address this, Congress passed the Reservist Pay Security Act to ensure that federal employees can serve as reservists without sacrificing their financial stability. The law is explicit: if a reservist is called to active duty during a national emergency, the federal government must match what the reservist would have earned as a civilian. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court's decision in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation made clear that reservists are entitled to this differential pay without needing to prove that their service has a substantive connection to a national emergency. Despite this ruling, many federal agencies continue to deny differential pay to reservists what they are owed. A class action lawsuit has been filed seeking to represent potentially tens of thousands of federal workers who were denied meaningful earnings in differential pay -- in violation of federal law. The case is about ensuring basic fairness for those who serve our country. No one should lose income for serving their country in a time of heightened need -- especially not dedicated public servants and veterans who are stepping up to serve again. The lawsuit is seeking restitution for years of underpayment and to hold federal agencies accountable for following the law. The American Federation of Government Employees filed a brief in support of the reservists' lawsuit against the government and encourages affected reservists to join the class action lawsuit so they can get the pay they are owed. "This lawsuit is about making sure the federal government keeps its promise to the federal employees who serve their country as military reservists. No one who wears the uniform should be worried about paying their bills or caring for their family while on active duty, yet unfortunately some reservists have not received what they are owed," AFGE National President Everett Kelley said. It doesn't cost anything to join this class action. Reservists can learn more about this case and opt into it at militarydiffpay.com. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Kim Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERISTY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06320-MKC (E.D. Pa., Nov. 7, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' ("Class Members") personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite the Defendant's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's information systems and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about October 31, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the suit. The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Eq. 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Lundy Balks at Unsecured Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ REBECCA LUNDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06330 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 7, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' ("Class Members") personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite the Defendant's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's information systems and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about October 31, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the suit. The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com UPLEAD LLC: Miller Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UpLead, LLC. The case is styled as Randall Miller, Shawn Schmidt, Randall Cunningham Isabel Sippo-Stockman, Robby Cvejanovich, John Soots, Johnny Hale, James Hurd, individually and as representatives of classes of similarly-situated persons v. UpLead, LLC, Case No. 2025LA001435 (Ill. Dist. Ct., DuPage Cty., Nov. 7, 2025). UpLead -- https://www.uplead.com/ -- is a B2B data provider and technology company helping businesses grow with real-time verified B2B contact data.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Email: psolberg@andersonwanca.com UPONOR INC: Fitzpatrick Sues Over PEX Pipes' Oxidation Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN FITZPATRICK; DIANE FITZPATRICK; and JOHN MCKENZIE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UPONOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04268 (D. Minn., Nov. 7, 2025) alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant claim that its PEX Pipe will last 50 to 100 years -- leading customers to expect that their piping systems will last the equivalent of a lifetime -- the Defendant PEX Pipe is inherently defective and will fail, crack, and leak well before the end of its useful life. The design and manufacture process used by the Defendant results in catastrophic oxidation of the Class Pipe, leading the Class Pipe to leak within the walls of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' homes. The Defendant has long been aware of the process of oxidation and its root causes but intentionally failed to disclose the defects to consumers, including the Plaintiffs and Class Members, distributors, contractors, installers, or building officials. This oxidation defect has caused the PEX Pipe to fail nationwide, on a widespread basis, with devastating effects on homeowners. And because the defect is inherent, continuing, progressive, and cannot be reversed or corrected, such failures will continue to occur at different parts of the home at different times until the pipes are completely replaced, says the suit. Uponor, Inc. provides plumbing, indoor climate, and infrastructure systems. The Company offers residential radiant floor heating, commercial heating. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq. Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com UWM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Escue" ----------------------------------------- UWM Holdings Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action filed by Therisa D. Escue, et al. On April 2, 2024, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against UWM, the Company, SFS Corp., and Mat Ishbia, individually (collectively, the "UWM Defendants") by Therisa D. Escue, et al. (collectively, the "Escue Plaintiffs"). The Escue Plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, attorneys' fees and equitable and injunctive relief. The Escue Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that for mortgage loans originated through UWM, UWM improperly influenced mortgage brokers in its network to steer prospective borrowers to obtain their mortgage loans from UWM at pricing and subject to fees substantially in excess of that charged by competitors, and that such mortgage brokers did not act independently but instead were captive to UWM. On June 21, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On August 30, 2024, the Escue Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint in the case. On September 17, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion for sanctions. On October 15, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint and a motion to strike class allegations in the case. On December 13, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion for sanctions based on the new allegations contained in the first amended class action complaint. The Court entered an opinion and order on September 30, 2025 (the "Order") granting the UWM Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint as to nearly all claims and dismissing the Company, SFS Corp., and Mat Ishbia from the case. The Order denied the motion for sanctions filed by the UWM Defendants and denied the motion to strike class allegations in the case without prejudice allowing UWM to file a renewed motion limited to the surviving claims. UWM filed its renewed motion to strike class allegations and answer to the first amended class action complaint on October 28, 2025. UWM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Website Tracking Suit ------------------------------------------------------- UWM Holdings Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action alleging certain damages associated with the tracking technologies on the Company's website. On June 26, 2025, a complaint was filed by Ethan Allison and Mark Caloca, et al. ("Website Plaintiffs") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against UWM alleging certain damages associated with the tracking technologies on UWM's website (the "Website Complaint"). Pursuant to the Website Complaint, the Website Plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, equitable relief and declaratory relief. On August 22, 2025, UWM filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. On September 12, 2025, the Website Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint in the case. On September 26, 2025, UWM filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint which remains pending. VITAMIN SHOPPE: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website --------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE VITAMIN SHOPPE, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A THE VITAMIN SHOPPE, Case No. 1:25-cv-25137-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.vitaminshoppe.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. THE VITAMIN SHOPPE, is a company that sells vitamins, supplements, protein, food, drinks, herbs, natural remedies, and beauty supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com WAGAMAMA USA: Odonnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- William Odonnell, and all others similarly situated v. WAGAMAMA USA LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-13307 (D. Mass., Nov. 6, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, www.wagamama.us (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant fails to communicate effectively with Plaintiff because its digital properties are not properly formatted to allow legally blind users such as content. Accordingly, legally blind customers such as Plaintiff are Plaintiff to access its digital deprived from accessing information about Defendant's products and using its online services, all of which are readily available to sighted customers. Because Defendant's website is not and has never been fully accessible, and because upon information and belief Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its website to become and remain accessible, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. The Defendant specializes in restaurant services, offering patrons the ability to explore a menu of Asian-inspired dishes and beverages, with options to order online for takeout, delivery, and catering, or make reservations to dine in.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law WELLS FARGO: $33MM Trial Scams Suit Settlement Gets Court Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Wells Fargo & Company is set to pay $33 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the bank knowingly aided in the operation of purported "risk-free" trial scams whereby consumers were duped into paying for full-price monthly subscriptions without consent. he Wells Fargo class action settlement agreement received preliminary approval from the court on November 4, 2025 and covers all individuals who were enrolled in recurring billing by any of the Tarr Entities, Triangle Entities and/or Apex Entities from 2009 to present. According to the preliminary approval order, the settlement administrator will send out class action settlement notices and establish a settlement website by December 4, 2025. Per court documents, Wells Fargo settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have several options for reimbursement. Class members who previously received payment from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in connection with past FTC lawsuits against Triangle and Apex do not need to submit a claim form, as they are already filed within the company's systems. However, class members who did not receive a past payment from the FTC or were enrolled with a Tarr entity must submit a claim form to receive settlement benefits, court documents state. Court documents add that settlement class members who submit documented proof of out-of-pocket expenses with a valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment based on the amount of documented losses. Under this reimbursement option, proof of covered expenses includes credit card statements, bank statements, receipts and other documents with relevant information. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, court documents continue, class members enrolled in monthly billing and who submit a valid claim form with no proof are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $20. The amount each eligible class member may receive will depend on the total number of valid claims submitted and the total costs associated with settlement administration, attorney's fees and service awards, the settlement agreement explains. Class members will be able to file a Wells Fargo free trial settlement claim form by mail or online through the court-authorized settlement website once it is established. The preliminary approval order states that the deadline for claim forms to be submitted is tentatively March 4, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Wells Fargo settlement at a hearing on March 26, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to eligible consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Wells Fargo & Company class action lawsuit alleged that the bank forged a "symbiotic relationship" with the aforementioned personal wellness and dietary supplement entities due to a high-pressure sales culture that drove bankers to open accounts regardless of risks or validity. As a result, the companies behind the free-trial scams—which promoted that consumers 'only pay for shipping' for various personal care, electronic cigarette, dietary, hair growth and other products before quickly charging the full product price—could deposit the fraudulent funds into "shell companies" with no real ownership behind them to obtain continued access to credit card accounts. "Wells Fargo bankers were aware of the Enterprises' risk-free trial schemes, understood the people listed as 'owners' of the Wells Fargo accounts did not actually own or control them, and knew the Enterprises were engaged in credit card laundering," one lawsuit filed by a court-appointed receiver alleged. "Despite this knowledge, Wells Fargo gladly opened more than 150 bank accounts for the shell companies and straw owners, sometimes opening as many as 6 bank accounts in one day." From there, the plaintiffs alleged, Wells Fargo allowed millions to be deposited into the accounts, with the knowledge that the funds were "unlawfully obtained in the risk-free trial schemes," before later allowing the enterprise defendants to transfer the money from shell accounts to third-party bank accounts. According to court documents, the Tarr, Apex and Triangle entities include: -Tarr Entities: Tarr Inc., Ad Kings LLC, Apex Advertising LLC, Brand Development Corp., Coastal Ads LLC, Delux Advertising LLC, Diamond Ads LLC, Digital Nutra LLC, Exclusive Advertising LLC, Iron Ads, LLC, LeadKing Advertising LLC, Lead Seeker LLC, Mints Marketing LLC, Onyx Ads, LLC, Product Center, LLC, Rebem, LLC, Supertiser LLC, Verticality Advertising, LLC, White Dog Marketing, LLC, and their successors, assigns, affiliates and subsidiaries; -Apex Entities: Apex Capital Group, LLC, Capstone Capital Solutions Limited, Clik Trix Limited, Empire Partners Limited, Interzoom Capital Limited, Lead Blast Limited, Mountain Venture Solutions Limited, Nutra Global Limited, Omni Group Limited, Rendezvous IT Limited, Sky Blue Media Limited, and Tactic Solutions Limited, and each of their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns; and -Triangle Entities: Triangle Media Corporation also doing business as Triangle CRM, Phenom Health, Beauty and Truth, and E-Cigs; Jasper Rain Marketing LLC also doing business as Cranium Power and Phenom Health; Hardwire Interactive Inc. also doing business as Phenom Health, Beauty and Truth, and E-Cigs, and each of their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns. [GN] WESTCHESTER POINT: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WESTCHESTER POINT PLAZA, LLC and, CLARK & PETER SERVICES CORP. D/B/A KUBA8, Case No. 1:25-cv-25169-PCH (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WESTCHESTER POINT PLAZA, LLC, as Landlords own, operate and/or oversee the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com WEX INC: Yamashita Sues Over Unlawful and Deceptive Junk Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Yamashita, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WEX, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02073-SI (D. Ore., Nov. 6, 2025), is brought concerning the unlawful, unfair and deceptive assessment of a uniform $20.00 junk fee that WEX charges to individuals whose pay for their Health Care Benefits through WEX's online payment portal. The Defendant is a third-party administrator that allows companies to outsource their benefits administration for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act ("COBRA") coverage, Flexible Spending Accounts ("FSA(s)") and Health Savings Accounts ("HSA(s)"). ("COBRA," "FSA" and "HSA" benefits are referred collectively herein as "Health Care Benefit(s)"). COBRA is a federal law that allows workers and their family members to temporarily continue their group health coverage for a limited period of time after losing their health coverage due to certain qualifying and often challenging life events, such as job termination, reduced hours, death of the covered employee, divorce or legal separation. FSAs and HSAs are tax-advantaged accounts that allow employees to save money for eligible medical expenses. If an individual experiences a qualifying event and is eligible for COBRA, they may also continue contributing funds to their FSA and HSA, although without the tax advantage. WEX administers FSAs and HSAs for individuals who have also enrolled in COBRA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was enrolled in COBRA, which his former employer paid for, and continued making payments on his FSA through WEX's online payment portal. WEX is a Delaware corporation that operates as a health benefits administrator and offers a platform for consumers who are enrolled in COBRA to also manage and make payments to their FSA and HSA. WEX is headquartered in Portland, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Whitney Stark, Esq. ALBIES & STARK 1500 SW First Ave., Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 308-4770 Email: whitney@albiesstark.com WINTERGREEN ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Merger With KIKA Technology --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Wintergreen Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: WTG) related to its merger with KIKA Technology Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, KIKA shareholders will be entitled to receive ordinary shares of the Wintergreen in an amount equal to (1) the valuation of KIKA divided by the SPAC per-share redemption price and rounding up to a whole share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/wintergreen-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] WM TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Ishak" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Wm Technology, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the shareholder class action captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08959. On October 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08959 (the "Securities Class Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company and certain former and current officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 25, 2021, and September 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On May 12, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 11, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of October 9, 2025, and, on October 10, 2025, the court issued an order specifying that the matter stands submitted and will be decided without oral argument. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation. ********* 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 2025. 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 ***