251127.mbx

251127.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 237 Headlines ALPHABET INC: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Feb. 4, 2026 ANGEION GROUP: Dendy Sues Over Class Admin. Services Price-fixing ARSH LANDMARK: Sanchez Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ATALCO GRAMERCY: Class Cert Filing in Bosley Due July 27, 2026 BLACKSTONE INC: KRS Pension Plan Members Suit Remains Stayed BRAEMAR HOTELS: $485 Deal in Cyber Security Suit Has Final Court OK BRAEMAR HOTELS: $850K Deal in Workers’ Suit Has Final Court OK BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Kennedy" BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Martin" BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in "Newton" BXP INC: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in New York CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend British Columbia Suit CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Ontario CEDAR REALTY: Continues to Defend "Aquino" in Maryland CONDUENT BUSINESS: Brink Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dymarsky Says CONDUENT INC: Faces Cook Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CORPORACION ELECTRICA: Settlement Discussions Deadline Adjourned CREDIT SUISSE: NY Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid DAVID SALINAS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid DELTA DEFENSE: Settlement Deal in John Gets Initial OK DONE GLOBAL: Bid for Class Certification Due March 24, 2026 DOXIMITY INC: Parties Seek to Withdraw Class Certification Bid ENOVIX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Investor Class EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bradberry Seeks Settlement Prelim Nod EVOLVE MORTGAGE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Hardy Says EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd FITON INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hoffman Due Dec. 29 FUJI HANA: Lin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GLOBALLOGIC INC: Brown Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data IFCO SYSTEMS: Must Pay Costs for Cancelled Deposition INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Parties Seek Initial OK of Settlement JEFF RUBY: Lamb Seeks Approval of FLSA Settlement KETTLE AND FIRE: Garza Balks at Mislabeled Bone Broth Products KOHLER CO: Beltran Sues for Invasion of Privacy, Wiretapping KOTN AMERICA: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website L'OREAL USA: Hernandez Class Suit Removed to D. Md. LHNH LAVISTA: Eggleston Sues for Negligence, Lack of Maintenance LINKSQUARES INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing MEDICALODGES INC: Blevins Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MERCHBAR INC: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind REGAL SECURITIES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Chapman Says RINGCENTRAL INC: Settles Reuben Data Privacy Suit SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Court Dismisses VPPA Claim in "Simon" THC – ORANGE COUNTY: Rehan Suit Removed to S.D. California UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Gade Alleges Unprotected Personal Info VESTIS CORPORATION: Class Cert. Deadlines Continued WHOLE FOODS: Albrigo Sues Over Mislabeled Organic Orange Juice WIDENER UNIV: Sparacino Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement XCEL ENERGY: Class Settlement in Arandell Suit Gets Initial Nod XCEL ENERGY: Class Settlement in Newpage Suit Gets Initial Nod XGIMI TECHNOLOGY: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Garrido" XPO LAST: Lopez Seeks to Continue Hearing on Class Cert Bid ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Armstrong Suit Over Illegal Kickback Scheme ********* ALPHABET INC: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Feb. 4, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L. et al v. Alphabet Inc. et al. (re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Eumi K. Lee entered an order extending briefing schedule related to class certification: 1. The deadline for the Defendant to file opposition to class certification motion, disclose opposing expert report(s), and file Daubert motion(s) shall be extended to Nov. 20, 2025; 2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply in support of class certification motion, opposition(s) to the Defendant's Daubert motion(s), and Daubert motion(s) as to the Defendant's experts shall be extended to Dec. 30, 2025; 3. The deadline for the Defendant to file opposition to the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions shall be extended to Jan. 6, 2026; 4. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification and related Daubert motions is unaffected by this Order and remains set for Feb. 4, 2026. Alphabet is a holding company, which engages in the business of acquisition and operation of different companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XRHjOz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com gmullens@bfalaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Evan A. Creutz, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. Louis Kessler, Esq. Alexander Y. Zeng, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com lkessler@saverilawfirm.com azeng@saverilawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowo@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. Tracey Cowan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com tcowan@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: David H. Kramer, Esq. Maura L. Rees, Esq. Paul J. Sampson, Esq. Eric P. Tuttle, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com mrees@wsgr.com psampson@wsgr.com eric.tuttle@wsgr.com ANGEION GROUP: Dendy Sues Over Class Admin. Services Price-fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Dendy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGEION GROUP LLC, EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, TREMENDOUS LLC, BLACKHAWK NETWORK HOLDINGS, INC., DIGITAL SETTLEMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a DIGITAL DISBURSEMENTS PAYMENTS, HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, and WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01936-MHH (N.D. Ala., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for engaging in a manipulative and deceptive scheme to obtain millions of dollars in undisclosed compensation for serving as the court-approved settlement administrators in mass tort and class action lawsuits across the U.S., in violation of the Sherman Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, sometime during 2021 -- when the interest rates in the United States started rising -- Administrator Defendants entered into an ongoing agreement with each other to increase the cost and price of class administration services, including by having Bank Defendants pay them the interest and investments earned on class action settlement deposits that would have otherwise been distributed to class member and used to pay down the cost of class administration services. In their bids, proposals, and agreements for providing settlement administration services, the Administrator Defendants represent the amount of compensation they expect to receive from providing such services. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Class Members and the courts, Defendants reap significant profits from so-called "revenue sharing" payments for using digital payment cards and gift cards, which they distribute to class members. In reality, these revenue sharing payments are nothing more than kickbacks received from the FinTech Defendants, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to bring an end to Defendants' clandestine practices, enjoin them from continued use of the kickbacks for their own benefit, to compensate the class members for the harm caused by Defendants' illegal conduct, and to stop the anticompetitive practices that the Defendants have carried on, which has depressed payouts substantially in class actions in the United States. Angeion Group LLC is a class action administration company that maintains its principal executive offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas A. Dellaccio, Jr., Esq. Hunter M. Phares, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-7896 E-mail: ddellaccio@corywatson.com hphares@corywatson.com - and - Darla LaShay Persall, Esq. SHAY PERSALL LAW, LLC 611 7th Street SW Cullman, AL 35055 Telephone: (256) 841-7800 Facsimile: (256) 841-7808 E-mail: shay@persalllaw.com ARSH LANDMARK: Sanchez Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL ZEPEDA SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. ARSH LANDMARK GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, CORP., GARIB TANEJA, and MUHAMMAD SABIR, Case No. 1:25-cv-00632-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) The Defendant is a civil construction company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vFbUte at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ATALCO GRAMERCY: Class Cert Filing in Bosley Due July 27, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINA BOSLEY and SHAWN COOK SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATALCO GRAMERCY LLC (f/k/a GRAMERCY HOLDINGS I, LLC) Case No. 2:24-cv-02540-JTM-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Milazzo entered an order granting the Parties’ second joint motion to extend class certification discovery and briefing deadlines as follows: Deadline Deadline for completing all fact discovery Feb. 17, 2026 on class certification issues: The Plaintiffs' deadline for disclosing Feb. 10, 2026 class-related expert(s) and CVs: The Defendant's deadline for disclosing Mar. 24, 2026 class-related expert(s) and CVs: The Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class July 27, 2026 Certification: The Defendant's deadline to file opposition Aug. 28, 2026 to motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply to Sept. 18, 2026 The Defendant's opposition to class certification: Atalco is a major alumina refinery. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7mFUvP at no extra charge.[CC] BLACKSTONE INC: KRS Pension Plan Members Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Blackstone 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 filed by pension plan members of the Kentucky Retirement System remains stayed. In December 2017, eight pension plan members of the Kentucky Retirement System ("KRS") filed a derivative lawsuit on behalf of KRS in Franklin County Circuit Court in Kentucky (the "Mayberry Action"). Plaintiffs alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of Kentucky law in connection with KRS's investment in three hedge funds of funds, including a fund managed by Blackstone Alternative Asset Management L.P. ("BLP"). The suit named more than 30 defendants, including, among others, The Blackstone Group L.P. (now Blackstone Inc.); BLP; Stephen A. Schwarzman, as Chairman and CEO of Blackstone; and J. Tomilson Hill, as then-CEO of BLP (collectively, the "Blackstone Defendants"). In July 2020, the Kentucky Supreme Court directed the Circuit Court to dismiss the action for lack of standing. In July 2020, the Kentucky Attorney General (the "AG") filed its own action asserting substantially identical claims against largely the same defendants (the "July 2020 Action"). In May 2024, the Court denied the Blackstone Defendants' and most other defendants' motions to dismiss the July 2020 Action. In April 2024, the AG amended its complaint, adding breach-of-contract claims against the fund manager defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint in June 2024. Those motions are pending. In August 2022, KRS was ordered to disclose a 2021 report it commissioned to investigate the investment activities underlying the lawsuit. The report "did not find any violations of fiduciary duty or illegal activity by [BLP]," and quotes communications by KRS staff during the period of the investment recognizing that BLP was exceeding KRS's returns benchmark, providing KRS with "far fewer negative months than any liquid market comparable," and that BLP "[h]as killed it." In January 2021, certain former plaintiffs in the Mayberry Action filed a separate action ("Taylor I") against the Blackstone Defendants and other defendants in the Mayberry Action, asserting substantially similar allegations as the AG's July 2020 action did, but styled as a direct class action. Taylor I was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and stayed pending the outcome of the AG's July 2020 action. In August 2021, a group of KRS members—including those that filed Taylor I—filed an action in Franklin County Circuit Court ("Taylor II") substantially similar to Taylor I, against the Blackstone Defendants, other defendants named in the Mayberry Action, and other KRS officials. The Court denied most defendants' motions to dismiss this action in May 2024. The Blackstone Defendants and the other fund manager defendants filed a petition for a writ of prohibition from that denial. In November 2024, the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied defendants' writ of prohibition, and defendants appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Taylor II is stayed pending review of this appeal. In April 2021, the AG filed an action (the "Declaratory Judgment Action") against BLP and the other fund manager defendants from the Mayberry Action in Franklin County Circuit Court, seeking a declaration that certain provisions in the subscription agreements with KRS violate the Kentucky Constitution. In August 2024, the Kentucky Supreme Court granted BLP's motion for discretionary review of the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment to the AG. The appeal is pending. BRAEMAR HOTELS: $485 Deal in Cyber Security Suit Has Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Braemar Hotels & Resorts 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 a $485,000 settlement entered in a class action lawsuit arising from a cyber incident has obtained final court approval. "During the quarter ended September 30, 2023, we had a cyber incident that resulted in the potential exposure of certain personal information. We have completed an investigation and have identified certain information that may have been exposed and notified potentially impacted individuals pursuant to applicable state guidelines. All systems have been restored. In February of 2024, two class action lawsuits were filed, one in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and a second in the 68th District Court for Dallas County related to the cyber incident. The lawsuit filed in the 68th District Court was subsequently dismissed and refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On March 12, 2024, the court ordered the two cases be consolidated. The consolidated case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. "The parties have reached an agreement, subject to final Court approval, to resolve the class action suit. The amount of the class settlement is approximately $485,000. Final court approval was received on September 3, 2025," the Company stated. BRAEMAR HOTELS: $850K Deal in Workers’ Suit Has Final Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Braemar Hotels & Resorts 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 a $850,000 settlement entered in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California employment laws has obtained final court approval. On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which class action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the Company. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt-out of the class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt-out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class de-certified. After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit additional briefing related to on-site breaks. A tentative settlement in the amount of $850,000 was reached on February 14, 2025. Final court approval was obtained on September 12, 2025. Braemar's portion of the settlement is 11.7%. The case is now in the settlement administration phase. As of September 30, 2025, the settlement liability amount has been accrued. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Kennedy" ---------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Financial, 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 purported class action lawsuit styled Kennedy v. Progress Software Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed October 3, 2023). "BHF has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit. The action relates to a data security incident at an alleged third-party vendor, PBI Research Services ("PBI"), and allegedly involves the MOVEit file transfer system that PBI uses in its provision of services ("MOVEit Incident"). As it relates to BHF, plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of persons whose private information was allegedly maintained by BHF and accessed or acquired in relation to the MOVEit Incident. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that BHF negligently chose to utilize PBI to store and transfer plaintiff's and purported class members' private information despite PBI's use of the MOVEit software which plaintiff contends contained security vulnerabilities. "The complaint asserts claims against BHF for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, and plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest. The court dismissed claims for injunctive relief against BHF, but denied the remainder of a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's lack of standing. "BHF intends to vigorously defend this matter," the Company stated. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Martin" --------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Financial, 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 purported class action lawsuit captioned Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed April 6, 2021). "Plaintiff filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff is the owner of a UL insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of similarly situated owners of UL insurance policies issued or administered by defendants and alleges that COI charges were based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality. Plaintiff's complaint alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2021, which was denied in February 2022. "On September 25, 2025, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying as to plaintiff's breach of contract claim based on the alleged failure to decrease COI rates, a nationwide class of owners of UL policies, with the product codes ULX or ULXP, that contains the language: "We will base these rates only on our future outlook for mortality and expenses." On October 9, 2025, plaintiff filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. "The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter," the Company stated. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in "Newton" -------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Financial, 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 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, certified a class in the case captioned Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (filed May 8, 2020). Plaintiff filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life ("UL") insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance ("COI") rates would not be increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year. Plaintiff also alleges that COI charges were based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality. Plaintiff's complaint alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages, interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part in March 2021. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. On January 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion on consent to amend the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope of the class sought to those who own or owned policies issued in Georgia. The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023. On September 5, 2025, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a class of all persons, who as of May 8, 2015, owned a UL policy issued in Georgia by Brighthouse Life Insurance Company or its predecessors-in-interest on Forms ULXP86 and ULXP88, and who were subject to at least one monthly deduction. On October 31, 2025, the court issued an amended order changing the date as to class certification for breach of contract claims to March 14, 2014 and for Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims to March 14, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. BXP INC: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- BXP, Inc., and Boston Properties Limited Partnership 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 class action wage and hour lawsuit in a New York court. The Company is a named defendant in an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of certain individuals who provided off-duty, uniformed security services at the Company's buildings in New York City pursuant to the New York Police Department's Paid Detail Program. In addition to the Company, the plaintiffs also named as defendants more than ninety (90) other entities and institutions in the city. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 24, 2025, and brought the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Freelance Isn't Free Act. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint on February 7, 2025 and on February 24, 2025. The plaintiffs have advised the defendants and the court that they intend to file a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The deadline for plaintiffs to file that motion is December 15, 2025. Each of the complaints filed to date alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that the plaintiffs did not receive certain wage payment notices and wage statements required by law. The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading as no responsive pleading is yet due, and discovery has not yet commenced. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for which losses are reasonably possible. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend against them vigorously, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend British Columbia Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth 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 a putative class action lawsuit filed by a shareholder in an British Columbia court. On June 15, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action (Asmaro v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. VLC-S-S-234351) against the Company and two of its officers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between August 6, 2021 and May 10, 2023. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's disclosures contained misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act (British Columbia), that certain officers authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages. CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth 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 a putative class action lawsuit filed by a shareholder in a New York court. On April 4, 2025, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action (Baron v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al. Case 1:25-cv-01877) against the Company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between May 30, 2024 and February 6, 2025, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. The claim alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had allegedly incurred significant costs producing Claybourne(TM) pre-rolled joints in connection with the Claybourne(TM) product launch in Canada; (ii) the foregoing costs, in addition to certain indirect costs that the Company incurred in connection with its Storz & Bickel vaporizer devices, were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company's gross margins and overall financial results; and (iii) accordingly, the Company had allegedly overstated the efficacy of its cost reduction measures and the health of its gross margins while downplaying issues with the same. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Ontario -------------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth 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 putative class action lawsuits filed by shareholders in an Ontario court. On June 27, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action (Dziedziejko v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00701769-00CP) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company, two of its officers, and the Company's auditor on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who acquired Canopy Growth's securities in the secondary market between June 1, 2021 to June 22, 2023 and held some or all of those securities until the close of trading on May 10, 2023 or June 22, 2023. The plaintiff alleges that the Company's disclosures contained misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act (Ontario), that certain officers authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, that the Company and one of its officers acted in a manner that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the proposed class members by failing to remedy alleged deficiencies in the Company's internal controls, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class. The action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, legal fees, and the costs of administering a plan of distribution of the recovery. The Company was also named in two other putative class proceedings that were commenced between May 2023 and July 2023 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging that the Company's disclosures contained misrepresentations. However, on November 10, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided a carriage motion staying those actions (Leonard v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00702281-00CP and Twidale v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00700135-00CP), and allowing Dziedziejko v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00701769-00CP to proceed to a hearing of the plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and class certification. CEDAR REALTY: Continues to Defend "Aquino" in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ Cedar Realty Trust, 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 in the putative class action lawsuit captioned Anthony Aquino, et al. v. Bruce Schanzer, et al., pending in a Maryland court. Preferred stockholders of the Company have filed a putative class action suit against the directors of the Company prior to its August 2022 merger (the "Merger") with a WHLR subsidiary (collectively, the "Former Directors") in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland captioned Anthony Aquino, et al. v. Bruce Schanzer, et al., Case No.: C-15-CV-25-000731 (the "Aquino Action"). The Aquino Action alleges that the Former Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's preferred stockholders through the Merger. The claims in the Aquino Action mirror the fiduciary duty breach claims that were a subject of the putative class action complaint entitled Kim, et al., v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al. (the "Kim Action"), which was dismissed with prejudice in 2023 by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2024. The Aquino Action alleges that the courts in the Kim Action misinterpreted Maryland law on fiduciary duties to preferred stockholders. The Former Directors have filed a motion to dismiss the Aquino Action. The court has provided the parties with an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing prior to holding a hearing on that motion. Neither the Company nor WHLR have been sued in the Aquino Action. The Company has a contractual obligation to indemnify the Former Directors, including for reasonable costs and legal fees. At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation remains uncertain. CONDUENT BUSINESS: Brink Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL BRINK and MONIQUE BRINK, 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-17317 (D.N.J., November 7, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Conduent for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. On January 13, 2025, Conduent discovered that it was a victim of a cyber incident. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. The Defendant's investigation determined that between October 21, 2024, to January 13, 2025, an unknown actor gained unauthorized access to Conduent's network systems and obtained the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members. Conduent subsequently sent Notice of Data Incident letters to affected individuals. Due to Conduent's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of millions of individuals, says the suit. Conduent Business Services, LLC is a national provider of digital business solutions and services to clients across the commercial, government, and transportation sectors, with its principal place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dymarsky Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEN DYMARSKY, 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-17319 (D.N.J., November 7, 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. Defendant Conduent's investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party had access to its IT Network from October 21, 2024, to January 13,2025, and was able to exfiltrate files on Defendant Conduent's IT Network containing Private Information of clients of Defendant's Clients. 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. The 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. Conduent is a provider of digital business solutions and services to clients across the commercial, government, transportation, and healthcare sectors with principal place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey. BCBSM is a Montana-based health insurer that provides a variety of health insurance plans and administrative services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Shauna B. Itri, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sitri@seegerweiss.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com CONDUENT INC: Faces Cook Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW COOK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT INCORPORATED AND CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17320 (D.N.J., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of millions of individuals and for failing to provide adequate and timely notice regarding the breach of this data to Plaintiff and other Class Members. The complaint alleges that the Defendants collected, used, and derived a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, yet breached their duties by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. On January 13, 2025, Conduent discovered that a cybercriminal had accessed its computer servers and network. The Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their private information had been compromised and stolen and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including medical identity theft and fraud. As a direct and proximate result of the data breach and subsequent exposure of their private information, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer damages and economic losses in the form of lost time needed to take appropriate measures to avoid unauthorized and fraudulent charges, putting alerts on their credit files, and dealing with spam phone calls, letters, and emails received as a result of the data breach, says the suit. Conduent Inc. is a national provider of digital business solutions and services to clients across the commercial, government, and transportation sectors, with its principal place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Straite, Esq. Corban S. Rhodes, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com crhodes@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com CORPORACION ELECTRICA: Settlement Discussions Deadline Adjourned ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mazzaccone v. Corporacion Electrica Nacional S.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-02681-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rearden entered an order that the deadline to engage in settlement discussions is adjourned until 14 days after resolution of Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for class certification. The parties shall propose a schedule for completing any additional expert discovery and for briefing Plaintiff's motion. The parties have previously filed four requests for extension of time. On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff sought, and this Court granted, an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint On April 16, 2025, shortly after retaining counsel in this matter, Defendant sought, and this Court granted, an extension of Defendant’s responsive pleading deadline. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rJ5K53 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Arti Fotedar, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. Jillian Marie Dreusike, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 692-1032 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com afotedar@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com jdreusike@duanemorris.com The Defendant is represented by: Marisa F. Antonelli, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 E-mail: mantonelli@velaw.com ccardozo@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com CREDIT SUISSE: NY Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In re: Credit Suisse Securities Fraud Class Actions, Case No. 23-cv-9287 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Lead Plaintiff Core Capital Partners, Ltd.'s motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The Court certified the following class: All persons and entities other than Defendants, current or former officers and directors of Credit Suisse, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest, that purchased or otherwise acquired additional tier-one bonds (ATI Bonds) of Credit Suisse in a domestic transaction in the U.S. between October 27, 2022 and March 20, 2023, inclusive (the Class Period), who seek to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Core Capital brought this securities fraud class action against Credit Suisse Group AG and the remaining Individual Defendants Axel P. Lehman, Ulrich Komer, and Dixit Joshi, asserting claims under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Core Capital alleged that Credit Suisse repeatedly misrepresented and misled investors about its financial condition while facing significant and sustained asset outflows, which precipitated its collapse and subsequent merger with UBS Group AG (UBS) in March 2023 (the Merger). When Credit Suisse disclosed the truth about its dire financial condition, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), perceiving that a Viability Event had been triggered, wrote down the nominal value of all ATI Bonds to the value of zero. Core Capital sought damages on behalf itself and all other purchasers of Credit Suisse's ATI Bonds in domestic U.S. transactions resulting from Defendants' alleged material misrepresentation and omissions concerning Credit Suisse's financial condition, risk management practices, and internal controls. The Court found that Core Capital satisfied each Rule 23(a) requirement. Regarding numerosity, the Court stated that at least 229 financial institutions held one or more of the ATI Bonds during the Class Period. The Court concluded that Core Capital satisfies the numerosity requirement. For commonality, the Court held that Core Capital's central claim is that Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding customer outflows and weaknesses in Credit Suisse's ICFR practices caused injury to all ATI bondholders by artificially inflating the bonds' prices. The Court found commonality satisfied because several common questions of law and fact exist. Regarding typicality, the Court stated that Core Capital purchased Credit Suisse's ATI Bonds in the United States during the same period of time as the putative class members purchased or held those bonds. The Court concluded that Core Capital satisfies the typicality requirement. As to adequacy, the Court found that Pomerantz LLP is qualified, experienced, and capable of serving as class counsel and that Core Capital's interests are not antagonistic to those of the proposed class. The Court concluded that Core Capital is an adequate Class Representative. The Court then addressed Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. The Court held that Core Capital satisfied the requirements for the Basic presumption of reliance under the fraud-on-the-market theory. The Court concluded that each of the five factors established in Cammer v. Bloom support a finding that Credit Suisse's ATI Bonds traded in an efficient market. The Court also found that each of the three Krogman factors provides further support that the ATI Bonds traded in an efficient market. The Court rejected Defendants' arguments that individual domesticity issues would predominate, stating that individualized domesticity issues do not predominate over the common issues in this case. The Court also rejected Defendants' judicial estoppel argument, finding it entirely hypothetical. Regarding superiority, the Court held that a single, coordinated adjudication in this forum is the most efficient and fair method of resolving Plaintiffs' claims, thereby satisfying Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement. Accordingly, the Court granted Core Capital's motion for class certification. The Court appointed Core Capital as Class Representative and Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's Order and Opinion dated November 13 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S5AUm3 from PacerMonitor.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Nov. 18, 2025 at 2:30 p.m., will move ex parte for a 60 day extension to their deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification contains more than 20 declarations, including 17 declarations of unnamed putative class members, two experts, and three purported class representatives. On Oct. 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification seeking certification of a class of all non-exempt employees who worked for Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc., C&W Facility Services, Inc., and Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. as well as 11 sub-classes. Cushman is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wgfBOE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Kristen Doyan, Esq. Britland Kenworthy, Esq. Eamon Bedford-Panori, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com jboxer@maternlawgroup.com kdoyan@maternlawgroup.com kenworthy@law-rm.com kenworthy@law-rm.com - and - Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Mary Lipscomb, Esq. Samuel Almon, Esq. Britland Kenworthy Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Telephone: (310) 312-0299 Facsimile: (310) 312-0296 E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com almon@law-rm.com lipscomb@law-rm.com clerks@law-rm.com mandt@law-rm.com The Defendants are represented by: John R. Giovannone, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S Figueroa St Suite 2520, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-6300 E-mail: giovannone@cd-lawyers.com - and - Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. David H. Danning, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 3646 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 203 Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com ddanning@gleasonfavarote.com DAVID SALINAS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER TAFT, KIRSTEN GONZALEZ, CHEYENNE HENRY, YURIDIA CERON, and VANESSA ZAPATA, v. DAVID SALINAS, an individual; et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00697-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a class certification motion from Nov. 21, 2025 to Jan. 5, 2026 or later. This will allow time for the Plaintiffs' pending motion to compel the further deposition of Yellow Store Enterprises to be heard on Dec. 3, 2025 as currently scheduled, and any further deposition taken, or for the parties to resolve their differences regarding this issue. The Plaintiffs contend that they need the information sought in the pending motion to compel in order to be able to complete their class certification motion. The information sought in the deposition of Yellow Store cannot be obtained by a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant Red Rock due to the pending bankruptcy. During the deposition of Yellow Store, Defendants took the position that any information regarding Red Rock could not be inquired into from Yellow Store due to the pending bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs do not believe this is correct and contend they need the information to file their class certification motion. Extending the deadline to file the class certification motion would allow the issues regarding the pending motion to compel the further deposition of Yellow Store to be determined so that Plaintiffs can thereafter file their class certification motion. Accordingly, the parties request the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a class certification motion be extended to January 5, 2026, or later, which is 30 days after the hearing on the pending motion to compel the further deposition of Yellow Store. On April 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs served a notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on Red Rock for a May 2, 2025 date. On June 6, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the pending discovery disputes while the stay issue was being determined, and the bankruptcy court in Utah also considered a motion filed there to extend the automatic stay to non-filing parties. On Oct. 10, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to continue both the deadline to file a motion for class certification and deadline for Defendants and Yellow Store to file an opposition in response to the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the further deposition of Yellow Store, to Nov. 21, 2025. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0OuVX1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan W. Pease, Esq. PEASE LAW 3960 West Point Loma Blvd., Suite H-2562 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 723-0369 Email: bryan@peaselaw.org The Defendants are represented by: John T. Maher, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. MAHER 105 E 122nd St. New York, NY 10035 Telephone: (646) 675-8909 E-mail: johntmaher@yahoo.com DELTA DEFENSE: Settlement Deal in John Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEEFE JOHN, TODD KNUTH, and, NORM WALKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA DEFENSE, LLC and UNITED STATES CONCEALED CARRY ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01253-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Adelman entered a preliminary approval order: 1. The Settlement Agreement, including the long-form notice, short-form notice, postcard notice, electronic claim form, and opt-out form attached to the settlement agreement as Exhibits 2-6 are preliminarily approved. 2. The Settlement Class is provisionally certified as a class of: "All persons in the United States who had an account (free or paid) with a Defendant and visited a page on a Defendant's website housing a video behind a paywall or subscription wall between Sept. 21, 2020 to June 2, 2025." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the following individuals and/or entities: (i) the Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, officers and directors, and any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; (ii) all persons who submit a timely and valid request for exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (iii) the Judge assigned to this Action as well as their immediate family and staff. 3. RG2 Claims Administration LLC is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. 4. The Plaintiffs are conditionally certified as the class representatives. Almeida Law Group LLC and Hansen Reynolds LLC are conditionally appointed as Settlement Class Counsel. 5. On March 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., this Court will hold a fairness hearing. Delta provides sales, marketing, operations and administrative support service. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G7HMZ1 at no extra charge.[CC] DONE GLOBAL: Bid for Class Certification Due March 24, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.H., individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. DONE GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-03040-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order amending class certification case schedule as follows: The Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due by Jan. 26, 2025. The Defendant's class certification expert disclosures due by Feb. 16, 2026. The Plaintiff's rebuttal expert disclosures re class certification due by Mar. 2, 2026. Close of class certification expert discovery is Mar. 13, 2026. Motion for class certification / daubert motions re class certification experts due by Mar. 24, 2026. Opposition due by Apr. 21, 2026. Reply due by May 5, 2026. 2. All other dates in the case schedule through class certification shall remain the same. The Plaintiff filed this class action on May 20, 2024. The Defendant is a telehealth provider specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NMkUTE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 E-mail: Ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan Gross, Esq. Lawrence Hecimovich, Esq. Barry Temkin, Esq. Elizabeth Zakheim, Esq. MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP 2200 Powell Street, Suite 1050 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (510) 900-9371 E-mail: jgross@moundcotton.com lhecimovich@moundcotton.com btemkin@moundcotton.com ezakheim@moundcotton.com DOXIMITY INC: Parties Seek to Withdraw Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Doximity, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order withdrawing lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendants' administrative motion for leave to file sur reply, without prejudice to refile. 1. Lead Plaintiff withdraws its motion for class certification, without prejudice to refile. 2. The Defendants withdraw their administrative motion for leave to file sur reply in further opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification, without prejudice to refile. 3. The Parties request that the Court schedule a case management conference for Jan. 13, 2026, at 9:00 am. The Parties have met and conferred and agree that it would serve the interests of efficiency and conservation of resources for the Parties to withdraw the pending motions without prejudice to refile, and for the Court to schedule a Case Management Conference. On Aug. 12, 2025, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Defendants filed an administration motion for leave to file sur-reply in further opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Doximity operates as a digital platform for medical professionals in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fKO9Ex at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. Lauren M. Cruz, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Timothy G. Fleming, Esq. Matthew Arrow, Esq. Sarah Schmidt, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com timothy.fleming@blbglaw.com matthew.arrow@blbglaw.com sarah.schmidt@blbglaw.com - and - Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Blake, Esq. Hilary Wong, Esq. Camille Victoria Bole, Esq. Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 E-mail: sblake@stblaw.com hilary.wong@stblaw.com camille.boler@stblaw.com jyoungwood@stblaw.com ENOVIX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Investor Class ------------------------------------------------------------- ENOVIX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Investor Class In the class action lawsuit captioned RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 23, 2026, shall move the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) for entry of an order: 1. Certifying a class of investors comprising: "All persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded common stock of Enovix Corporation between Aug. 11, 2021 and Oct. 2, 2023, both dates inclusive"; 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and 3. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP as class counsel. The action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Defendant Enovix Corporation and certain of its high-ranking executives, who misled investors about, inter alia, the status of Enovix's battery manufacturing capabilities. Enovix is an early-stage technology company that purports to make a new type of lithium-ion ('Li-ion') battery that is smaller and stronger than conventional Li-ion batteries." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ktZLWo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. Marc B. Kramer, Esq. Nicole T. Castiglione, Esq. Shane Kunselman, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 3401 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: lrolnick@rksllp.com mkramer@rksllp.com ncastiglione@rksllp.com skunselman@rksllp.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bradberry Seeks Settlement Prelim Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARMAYNE BRADBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04754-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement. The Plaintiff requests that the Court: (a) grant preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement; (b) certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (c) appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative and Marcus & Zelman, LLC and Francis, Mailman, Soumilas, P.C. as Class Counsel; (d) approve the form and manner of class notice; and (e) schedule a Final Approval Hearing. After extensive investigation and arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel, Plaintiff and Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC have reached a proposed settlement that provides meaningful monetary and injunctive relief to the Settlement Class and resolves all claims at issue in this litigation. The proposed settlement is the product of informed negotiations and falls well within the range of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJVm0Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19143 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq. THE OAKS FIRM 3895 Brookgreen Pt. Decatur, GA 30034 Telephone: (404) 500-7861 E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com EVOLVE MORTGAGE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Hardy Says ------------------------------------------------------------ REBEKAH HARDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01223-RWS (E.D. Tex., November 7, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. On October 27, 2025, cybercriminal group INC Ransom disclosed on its leak page that it had accessed and stolen more than 20 Terabytes of client and customer information from Defendant's system. This cybersecurity incident compromised the private information of Defendant's current and former employees, clients, and clients' customers, including but not limited to Social Security numbers, scans of client IDs, home and work addresses, personal, home and work phone numbers, and full credit history of each client. According to the complaint, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Evolve and a data breach victim. She brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Evolve provides third-party technology and compliance services to support mortgage processing tasks and transactions for banks, credit unions, mortgage bankers, originators, aggregators, servicers, and investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT: Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERLINDA FRANCISCO and JAVIER BRAVO on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION GROUP, INC., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50, and DMITRIY BEREZOVSKY a/k/a DMITRY BEREZOVSKIY, Case No. 1:24-cv-03928-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lehrburger entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) collective action as follows: 1. A collective is conditionally certified for: "All current and former non-exempt employees (including, but not limited to, laundry aides, laundry attendants, laundry housekeepers, laundry workers, ironers, steamers, and delivery persons, among others) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is three (3) years before the filing of the Complaint." The conditional collective extends to all 28 laundromat locations. 2. Within ten (10) days of this Order, the Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel in Excel format contact information – consisting of names, last known home addresses, cell phone numbers, and email addresses – for the conditionally certified FLSA collective. 3. The notice and opt-in form attached as Exhibit J to the Lee Declaration, and the proposed means of distribution of notice (mail, email, and text), are approved, subject to modification of the notices and opt-in form. 4. Within 21 days of receipt of the contact information from Defendants, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall disseminate the notice with opt-in form. Conditional certification is just that – conditional. The second certification stage after discovery may well warrant a different outcome depending on the record developed at that time. But at this preliminary, conditional stage, Plaintiffs have cleared the low bar to certification. The Plaintiffs have not identified any “rare and exceptional” aspects of the case to justify equitable tolling. They have not alleged that Defendants actively “concealed the existence of a cause of action from the [opt-in] plaintiffs." The Plaintiffs allege violations of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had a common policy and practice across their 28 laundromats of (1) not paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for time they worked before and after their shifts, and (2) for employees who worked at multiple locations, not aggregating each employee's hours across locations and thereby avoiding paying overtime. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QprShP at no extra charge.[CC] FITON INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hoffman Due Dec. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ava Hoffman et al., v. FitOn, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-09105-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order that: 1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are vacated. Any pending motion is denied as moot. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement no later than Dec. 29, 2025. The Defendant may also file a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval by the same deadline. 3. The Motion shall include appropriate evidentiary support and a thorough discussion of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the parties shall address whether the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency received notice of the settlement, and any response to such notice. 5. Failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the deadline set by the court may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order. Fiton develops mobile fitness applications. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ezPpxO at no extra charge.[CC] FUJI HANA: Lin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESHENG LIN on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FUJI HANA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Fuji Hana Kosher Japanese Restaurant d/b/a Fuji Hana, LORRAINE GINDI, ESTATE OF ISADORE GINDI, by executor RAYMOND BETESH, ISADORE NATKIN, and JACK COHEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-03832-NCM-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order: (1) certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) appointing the Plaintiff Desheng Lin to be class representative; (3) appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy, Aaron B. Schweitzer, and Tiffany Troy to be class counsel; (4) permitting the Plaintiff to circulate a notice of class action by direct mail to class members and by publication; and (5) granting such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. Fuji Hana is an authentic Japanese restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YhzFtO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com GLOBALLOGIC INC: Brown Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ Arianna M. Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GLOBALLOGIC INC. and ORACLE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01824 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 12, 2025), is brought arising from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Oracle stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about GlobalLogic's current and former employees. But such PII was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. GlobalLogic is a multinational engineering firm based in Santa Clara, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com IFCO SYSTEMS: Must Pay Costs for Cancelled Deposition ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joshua DeAnda-Zavala, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members, Plaintiff, v. IFCO Systems US, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00413-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), United States Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto granted in part Plaintiff's motion for award of attorneys' fees and costs as sanction for late canceled deposition. This action involves a wage and hour class action brought by Plaintiff against IFCO Systems US, LLC; MTNA, Inc.; PeopleReady, Inc.; and TrueBlue, Inc. Plaintiff was assigned to IFCO's Fresno service center by a staffing agency called PeopleReady, Inc., which is no longer a defendant after entering into an individual settlement with Plaintiff. On August 18, 2025, Defendant IFCO filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Plaintiff opposed on August 29, 2025. Shortly after Plaintiff filed his opposition, Defendant IFCO served a notice of deposition on Plaintiff. The parties met and conferred, and IFCO stated it needed to take Plaintiff's deposition before submitting its reply brief. Although this reason was not provided to Plaintiff, Defendant noticed this deposition as an alternative method of discovering information that it had otherwise failed to obtain over the course of several months from PeopleReady. The parties scheduled Plaintiff's deposition for Saturday, September 13, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., and Plaintiff joined a stipulation to extend Defendant's reply deadline accordingly. While the deposition notice had originally noticed the deposition to be taken in Los Angeles, Plaintiff's counsel requested that Defendant IFCO take the deposition remotely by videoconference to avoid the expense and burden of travel. Defendant IFCO refused to take the deposition remotely but offered to take it in the Eastern District of California; Plaintiff accepted on the condition that it be taken in Fresno, where Plaintiff resides. Because the deposition was to start at 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff's counsel reserved a hotel stay for the night before the deposition that was fully refundable until the day before the reservation, at which point it became nonrefundable. Plaintiff's counsel considered flying to Fresno for the deposition but ultimately concluded that driving in his personal vehicle was the less expensive option. On September 11, 2025, two days before the deposition, counsel for PeopleReady emailed counsel for Defendant IFCO requesting to attend Plaintiff's deposition remotely. Defendant IFCO's counsel responded this is an in-person deposition in Fresno. Plaintiff's counsel was copied on this exchange and understood Defendant IFCO's response as a confirmation that the deposition was going forward in person. On September 12, 2025, at 12:17 p.m., Plaintiff's counsel left his home in San Pablo to avoid traffic and arrive in Fresno by early evening to meet with Plaintiff for a final deposition preparation session. Almost exactly an hour later, at 1:16 p.m., PeopleReady produced a single page document to Defendant IFCO that Defendant IFCO determined obviated the need for Plaintiff's deposition. At 2:29 p.m., Defendant IFCO's counsel sent an email stating that based on the current working formulation of IFCO's/MTNA's reply arguments and objections to plaintiff's opposition arguments and evidence, they had decided to not proceed with the deposition. When the email was sent, Plaintiff's counsel was navigating stop-and-go traffic on California State Highway 99 between Modesto and Fresno and was unable to check his email until he arrived in Fresno at 3:56 p.m. Defendant IFCO did not attempt to reach Plaintiff's counsel by telephone. In all, Plaintiff's counsel spent 7.2 hours driving to and from Fresno, driving 358 miles, and incurred a non-refundable hotel cost of $110.99. On September 16, 2025, Plaintiff asked Defendant IFCO to pay for the hotel reservation, $250.60 in mileage at the Internal Revenue Service rate of $0.70 per mile, and $3,837.60 in attorney's fees for driving time. After that email went unanswered, Plaintiff's counsel followed up on September 19, 2025, and September 25, 2025. On October 6, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant met and conferred but were unable to resolve the dispute. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 16, 2025. The Court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(g) governs a person's failure to attend a deposition and provides that a party who, expecting a deposition to be taken, attends in person or by an attorney may recover reasonable expenses for attending, including attorney's fees, if the noticing party failed to attend and proceed with the deposition. The Court noted that a party can constructively fail to attend a deposition by providing late notice of a cancellation. The Court stated that Rule 30(g) does not require that the noticing party act in bad faith. Instead, where a party's cancellation of the deposition was not timely made, and Plaintiff incurred costs that it would not have incurred but for the cancellation, Rule 30(g) provides for the recovery of those expenses so long as they are reasonable. The Court found that Plaintiff filed documentation supporting his request for $110.99 for a nonrefundable hotel reservation and $250.60 for mileage reimbursement, and the Court found that these costs are reasonable and properly recoverable. The Court found that by the terms of the booking itself it was not refundable at the time Defendant IFCO cancelled the deposition. The Court also found that it was reasonable under the circumstances for Plaintiff's counsel to stay at the hotel rather than to drive the several hours home after already driving for four hours into the evening. Regarding the mileage reimbursement, the Court noted that Defendant IFCO cited to no authority for the proposition that a party's costs are not reasonable when they choose to drive rather than fly. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that awarding mileage is appropriate given the use of his personal vehicle to drive to the deposition and that using the General Services Administration rate is reasonable. The Court found that Plaintiff seeks recovery of attorney's fees for his counsel's time driving 7.2 hours to and from Fresno. The Court found Plaintiff's counsel's stated hours and miles driven is consistent with the travel time between San Pablo, California and Fresno, California. Therefore, the Court found that the 7.2 hours of attorney time claimed is reasonable and recoverable. Regarding attorney's fees associated with preparing the instant motion, the Court acknowledged there is conflicting authority on this point, though none is binding. Upon review, the Court found the present case partially distinguishable from cases in which courts declined to award fees associated with the preparation of a Rule 30(g) motion. The Court found that fees associated with the preparation of the instant motion are recoverable. The Court found that the requested 5.5 hours of attorney time claimed for the instant motion, reply, and associated declarations is reasonable and recoverable. The Court concluded that the prevailing rate in the Eastern District of California for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation is approximately $400 per hour. The Court therefore found that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of 12.7 hours of attorney time (7.2 hours associated with counsel's travel and 5.5 hours associated with the preparation of the instant motion and reply) at a rate of $400 per hour is reasonable and recoverable under Rule 30(g). The Court found that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery from Defendant IFCO the following reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees: (1) $110.99 for a nonrefundable hotel reservation; (2) $250.60 for mileage reimbursement; (3) $2,880 in attorney's fees for time spent traveling to and from the site of the deposition (7.2 hours at adjusted hourly rate of $400 per hour); and (4) $2,200 in attorney's fees for time spent preparing this motion (5.5 hours at adjusted hourly rate of $400). This constitutes a total recovery by Plaintiff of $5,441.59. Accordingly, the Court granted in part the motion. Defendant IFCO is ordered to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, to Plaintiff in the amount of $5,441.59. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGv1Uv from PacerMonitor.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Parties Seek Initial OK of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IB Group) 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 August 15, 2025, the parties in a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, disclosed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut that a settlement in principle had been reached. On October 31, 2025, the parties further informed that they anticipate filing a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement by December 12, 2025. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in said court. The complaint alleges that a purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. The company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's subsequent second amended complaint was denied on September 30, 2019. On July 14, 2022, after obtaining leave to amend his complaint, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The Company’s answer and counterclaim were filed on July 26, 2022. On August 25, 2023, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a class that consists of IB LLC account holders who are U.S. residents (with some exclusions) who had positions liquidated from December 18, 2013, to the date of trial at prices outside of a "pricing corridor" defined in the court's decision. On September 8, 2023, the Company filed a petition for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the company's petition on December 19, 2023. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. is a holding company that owns 26.3% of IBG LLC, which, in turn, owns operating subsidiaries. IBG, Inc. together with IBG LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries is an automated global electronic broker specializing in executing and clearing trades in stocks, options, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, precious metals, and forecast contracts on more than 160 electronic exchanges and market centers around the world and offering custody, prime brokerage, securities and margin lending services to customers. JEFF RUBY: Lamb Seeks Approval of FLSA Settlement ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNATHAN LAMB and JIM BELMONT, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. JEFF RUBY CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., THE PRECINCT, INC., CARLO & JOHNNY’S, LTD., JEFF RUBY STEAKHOUSE, LLC, JEFF RUBY’S COLUMBUS, LLC, JEFF RUBY’S STEAKHOUSE LEXINGTON, LLC, JEFF RUBY’S LOUISVILLE, LLC, and JEFF RUBY’S NASHVILLE, LLC, d/b/a JEFF RUBY CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT, Case No. 3:25-cv-00949 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- approving the collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement, -- granting Rule 23 class certification for settlement purposes, and -- preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed Rule 23 class settlement. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek an order granting the following relief: The Plaintiffs move for approval of the resolution of their FLSA claims as a fair and reasonable settlement of bona fide disputes under the FLSA, in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Second, Named Plaintiffs move for certification, for settlement purposes only, of settlement classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of two settlement classes (collectively, the "Rule 23 Classes"). The settlement classes consist of: "current and former employees of Defendants who worked in tip credit eligible positions and who earned less than the applicable federal and state minimum wage rates per hour and received customer tips at the Defendants' restaurants in Ohio and Kentucky." The Rule 23 Classes include the following individuals: "All employees in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Ohio restaurants at any time from Sept. 12, 2021, to July 11, 2025 (the "Rule 23 Ohio Class")"; and "All employees in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Kentucky restaurants at any time from Feb. 27, 2019, to July 11, 2025 (the "Rule 23 Kentucky Class")." The Plaintiffs also request that the Court: -- appoint, for settlement purposes only: (a) Named Plaintiff Lamb as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Kentucky Class and (b) Named Plaintiff Belmont as Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Ohio Class. -- appoint, for settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs' attorneys, David W. Garrison, Joshua A. Frank, and Nicole A. Chanin of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC; and Robert E. DeRose of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Classes. Jeff Ruby operates as a restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XPJwTG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com KETTLE AND FIRE: Garza Balks at Mislabeled Bone Broth Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE GARZA, individually, and on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KETTLE AND FIRE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10708 (C.D. Cal., November 7, 2025) seeks redress for Defendant's alleged unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing its bone broth products in violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant knows consumers are mindful of the number of grams of protein they consume, and thus, protein content is a material driver in the purchase of products promoting inclusion of protein. Thus, the Defendant prominently labels its bone broth products including: Reduced Sodium Classic Chicken Bone Broth, Classic Chicken Bone Broth, Mushroom Chicken Bone Broth and Turmeric Ginger Bone Broth with the specific amount of protein per serving on the Products' front labels and/or in the Nutrition Fact Panel (NFP). Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each Product will actually provide the amount and percentage daily value of protein per serving stated on the Product package. Based on Kjeldahl Nitrogen testing, it is clear that Defendant misrepresents the total protein content of its Reduced Sodium Classic Chicken Bone Broth, Classic Chicken Bone Broth, Mushroom Chicken Bone Broth and Turmeric Ginger Bone Broth products. The Plaintiff's testing of these Products shows that they contain less than 20 percent of what is reported on the products' NFPs, says the suit. Kettle and Fire Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises and sells a variety of bone broth products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com KOHLER CO: Beltran Sues for Invasion of Privacy, Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------------ MARTIN BELTRAN, as an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated v. KOHLER CO., Plaintiff, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09633 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, as well as wiretapping and use of a pen register in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when Plaintiff and other consumers visit Defendant's ecommerce websites, https://www.kohler.com, https://www.robern.com, and https://www.kallista.com, the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant's cookie banners each disclose that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant assures visitors that they can choose to "Reject All" cookies. Contrary to their express rejection of cookies and tracking technologies on the Websites, the Defendant nonetheless caused cookies, including the Third Parties' cookies, to be sent to Plaintiff's and other visitors' browsers, stored on their devices, and transmitted to the Third Parties along with user data. These third-party cookies permitted the Third Parties to track and collect data in real time regarding the behaviors and communications of visitors to the Websites, says the suit. The Defendant falsely told users of the Websites that it respected their privacy and that they could avoid tracking and data sharing when they browsed the Websites, alleges the complaint. Despite receiving notice of consumers' express declination of consent, the Defendant defied it and violated state statutes and tort duties owed to Plaintiff and those similarly situated users of the Websites. Kohler Co. manufactures and sells kitchen and bath products, engines, generators, and hospitality services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com KOTN AMERICA: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kotn America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06218 (E.D.N.Y., November 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https:/kotn.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On a number of occasions, and most recently on April 9, 2025, during Plaintiff's online search of basic clothing for men, he came across the Defendant's website. He proceeded to browse the collections and was interested in purchasing Men's Work Shorts and a Men's Linen Camp Shirt. However, due to accessibility issues encountered while navigating the website, he was unable to complete his purchase. He encountered several accessibility issues while navigating the website including the lacked of a "Skip to Content" link, making it impossible to bypass repeated blocks of content and move directly to the main section of the page, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate headings structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Kotn America's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Kotn America, Inc. operates the website that offers men's and women's clothes, including t shirts, sweatshirts, tank tops, turtlenecks, dresses, pants, and chinos, as well as home textiles such as bedding and towels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com L'OREAL USA: Hernandez Class Suit Removed to D. Md. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MARILYN HERNANDEZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., Defendant, Case No. C-08-CV-25-000940, was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Charles County to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on November 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03751-SAG to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that comprises the following: "All Maryland residents to whom Lancôme sent, within four years before the date of the filing of this complaint until the date of trial, an email with a subject line that states or implies that the recipient will receive a free gift." L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc., doing business as Skinceuticals, provides skincare products. It offers antioxidants, sunscreens, body care, anti-aging creams, facial cleansers, facial masks, skincare sets, serums, and skincare services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Curran Jr., Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1301 K Street NW, Suite 500 East Washington, D.C. 20005-3317 Telephone: 202-973-4200 E-mail: patcurran@dwt.com - and - John A. Goldmark, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: 206-622-3150 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com LHNH LAVISTA: Eggleston Sues for Negligence, Lack of Maintenance ---------------------------------------------------------------- TONYA EGGLESTON, KAITLYN HOGE, ALLIDELL JACKSON, JUDELYN EBUDA, INDIVIDUALLY, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LHNH LAVISTA LLC, LHNH LAVISTA TIC II LLC, LHNH LAVISTA TIC III LLC, SILVERPOINT MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND AVENIUM GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06417-LMM (N.D. Ga., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se; premises liability; negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention; and nuisance. The Plaintiffs seek punitive damages, and bad faith damages for Defendants' failure to take appropriate actions to remedy or reduce the danger to Plaintiffs and other tenants, and for allowing the dangerous environment on the premises to continue to exist unabated. The Defendants' failure to properly inspect, maintain, and repair the Premises created the hazardous conditions that ultimately caused the fire on November 10, 2023 and the inability of their staff and the Atlanta Fire Department to extinguish, maintain or control the fire, its spread and ultimate destruction of the premises, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges that hundreds of individuals who resided at The Reserve at LaVista Walk on November 10, 2023, have been displaced and lost substantial personal property resulting in damages related to the replacement cost of personal property, loss of use of said property, lost wages, loss of capacity to earn wages, annoyance, depression, emotional upset, and other compensatory, general and special damages. The Defendants purchased The Reserve at LaVista Walk located in Atlanta, Georgia in December 2021. Lavista Walk consists of two four-story apartment buildings with 283 total units. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth W. Brosnahan, Esq. Linda G. Carpenter, Esq. THE BROSNAHAN LAW FIRM 31 Lenox Pointe, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 853-8964 Facsimile: (678) 904-6391 E-mail: kwb@brosnahan-law.com lgc@brosnahan-law.com - and - Douglas H. Dean, Esq. DEAN THAXTON, LLC 601 E. 14th Avenue 31015 Post Office Box 5005 Cordele, GA 31010 Telephone: (229) 271-9323 Facsimile: (229) 271-9324 E-mail: doug@deanthaxton.law - and - Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq. EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC 1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200 Watkinsville, GA 30677 Telephone: (706) 508-4000 Facsimile: (706) 843-6750 E-mail: adam@ehdhlaw.com LINKSQUARES INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN CAICEDO and DANIELLE RICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LINKSQUARES INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12642-WGY (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending deadlines relating to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by one week, to Dec. 8, 2025, and setting deadlines for the Defendant's anticipated motion for decertification of the FLSA Collective on the same date. The current deadlines for the Rule 23 Class Certification Motion are Dec. 1, 2025, for the opening brief and Dec. 15, 2025, for the opposition. The intervening Thanksgiving Holiday on Nov. 27, 2025, and associated travel for attorneys and staff makes accomplishing these tasks in the allotted time more difficult. LinkSquares provides artificial intelligence solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J9rNvv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mikael Rojas, Esq. Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Emma R. Janger, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1225 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1200B Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: mrojas@outtengolden.com mstewart@outtengolden.com ejanger@outtengolden.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Barry Miller, Esq. Hillary Massey, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 E-mail: bmiller@seyfarth.com hmassey@seyfarth.com MEDICALODGES INC: Blevins Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ DEITRA BLEVINS, MELISSA DALTON, REAGAN RICKETTS, and KAYLA YOUNGER, on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. MEDICALODGES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02653-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kansas Wage Payment Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law because it utilizes a rounding policy that, in the aggregate, undercounts its hourly employees' worked time, and further, because it automatically deducts a 30-minute meal period from those same employees' pay when no such break has been taken or provided. The Named Plaintiffs were Certified Nursing Assistants of various Medicalodges facilities across Kansas, and they bring this collective and class action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees across Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, to recover the unpaid wages that Medicalodges has failed to pay them. Medicalodges owns and operates approximately 31 skilled nursing facilities across Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1600 Genessee, Suite 754 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 875-3332 E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com bthoenen@hkm.com MERCHBAR INC: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Merchbar, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13667 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against Merchbar for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.merchbar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a music compact disc on Merchbar.com. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Merchbar.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Merchbar's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Merchbar, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of music merchandise, including vinyl records, T-shirts, hoodies, CDs, posters, and accessories, featuring exclusive collections from artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com REGAL SECURITIES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Chapman Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13666 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2025) is a class action arising out of a cyberattack and data breach resulting from Regal's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information (PII). As part of its operations, the Defendant collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive PII of its former and current customers. In February 2023, the Defendant discovered suspicious activity on its network and began conducting an investigation into the suspicious activity. The investigation revealed that Plaintiff and Class Members' names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, and financial account numbers were compromised and unlawfully accessed by cybercriminals. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive PII was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. This information, while compromised and taken by unauthorized third parties, remains also in the possession of Defendant, and without additional safeguards and independent review and oversight, remains vulnerable to additional hackers and theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, nominal damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, as well as injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant’s data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funding by Defendant. Regal Securities, Inc. is a financial company that offers traditional brokerage, insurance support, and fee-based advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com RINGCENTRAL INC: Settles Reuben Data Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, 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, that the California Superior Court for San Mateo County Court entered judgment in RingCentral's favor on November 5, 2024, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2025. On July 21, 2025, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the company agreed to pay the plaintiff in exchange for the dismissal of the action and appeal, and all claims and counterclaims alleged therein, with prejudice. The company settled the claim and plaintiff abandoned the appeal on August 26, 2025. On June 16, 2020, a Meena Reuben filed a complaint against the company for a putative class action lawsuit that claims, on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021. A motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed on January 23, 2023. The California Superior Court for San Mateo County overruled the company's demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties are now engaged in discovery. The company filed a motion for summary judgment on February 16, 2024, and a hearing on the motion is set for August 2, 2024. An evidentiary hearing was held on August 2, 2024 and a hearing on a motion for summary judgment was held on October 11, 2024, whereupon, the court granted the company's motion for summary judgment. RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of software-as-a-service solutions that enables businesses to communicate, collaborate and connect. SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Court Dismisses VPPA Claim in "Simon" ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Constance Simon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Scripps Networks, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-8175 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing but granted the motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint for failure to state a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant collected and disclosed her identifying information and video-watching activity on the HGTV website to third-party Facebook. The Plaintiff asserted that the disclosure of that information to Facebook violated the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710(b)(1). The Defendant owned and operated hgtv.com, a website that hosted hundreds of videos featuring home and lifestyle content. To drive web traffic to hgtv.com, the Defendant produced several newsletters that contained links to articles and videos located on the website. The Defendant integrated the Facebook Tracking Pixel, a string of computer code created by the social-networking site Facebook, into hgtv.com. The version of the Pixel embedded in hgtv.com sent several types of information to Facebook when users viewed videos on the site, including the video's title and URL. When a visitor to hgtv.com was logged into a Facebook account, the visitor's browser transmitted a c_user cookie to Facebook, which contained the visitor's unencrypted Facebook ID. If the visitor recently logged out of their Facebook account, the Pixel sent a fr cookie to Facebook that contained the user's encrypted Facebook ID. The hgtv.com Pixel used Automatic Advanced Matching to detect other sources of information on the website, including the email addresses of users who subscribed to the Defendant's newsletters. The information collected by the Automatic Advanced Matching feature was hashed, meaning that it was converted into a computed summary of digital data that could not be reversed back into the original data. The Plaintiff had a Facebook account and claimed she had been subscribed to an HGTV newsletter since 2018. She asserted that she routinely watched videos on hgtv.com from 2018 to 2022. The Plaintiff alleged that the Pixel disclosed her Facebook ID, browser identifier, email address and information about the videos she viewed on hgtv.com to Facebook. The Defendant argued in its motion that the Plaintiff lacked Article III standing for any claims from 2022 because the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information could not have been transmitted to Facebook in 2022. In support of its motion, the Defendant submitted a declaration asserting that (1) the Defendant's last record of the Plaintiff viewing any video content on hgtv.com was from August 2021, (2) the Plaintiff unsubscribed from the HGTV newsletter in January 2022, and (3) the Defendant removed the Pixel from all hgtv.com video pages in March 2022. The Court stated that standing is analyzed on a claim-by-claim basis, not a violation-by-violation or year-by-year basis. The Court noted that the Defendant offered no support for the proposition that the Court may dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for lack of standing as to violations that occurred in 2022 while allowing that same claim to proceed as to violations from earlier time periods. The Court found that the evidence submitted by the Defendant suggested, at most, that the Plaintiff's information was not transmitted by the Pixel to Facebook after August 2021; it did not support a conclusion that her information was not disclosed at all. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's allegations that she had a Facebook account, enrolled in an HGTV newsletter, and watched videos on hgtv.com were sufficient at this stage to show that the Plaintiff incurred an injury in fact. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing was denied. The Court stated that to state a claim under the VPPA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) a video tape service provider (2) knowingly disclosed to any person (3) personally identifiable information concerning her use of the service. The VPPA defined personally identifiable information to include information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider. The Defendant argued that the Complaint should be dismissed because the Plaintiff did not adequately allege that her Facebook ID and browser identifier were personally identifiable information as that term is defined under the VPPA. Furthermore, the Defendant argued that the Complaint failed to specify how an ordinary person could use the information transmitted by the Pixel to identify any specific user and link that user to the videos he or she viewed on hgtv.com. The Court referenced the Second Circuit's decision in Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., which determined that personally identifiable information under the VPPA encompasses information that would allow an ordinary person to identify a consumer's video-watching habits, but not information that only a sophisticated technology company could use to do so. The Second Circuit found that it was implausible that an ordinary person would look at the code transmitted by the Pixel and understand it to contain a video's title or the viewer's Facebook ID. The Court noted that the Second Circuit subsequently considered another Pixel-related VPPA claim in Hughes v. National Football League and clarified that Solomon focused on whether an ordinary person would be able to understand the actual underlying code communication itself, regardless of how the code is later manipulated or used by Facebook. The Second Circuit proclaimed that Solomon effectively shut the door for Pixel-based VPPA claims. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed. Like the plaintiff in Solomon, the Plaintiff presented several screenshots showing code that was purportedly transmitted by the Pixel to Facebook. However, outside of conclusory statements, the Plaintiff's Complaint did not contain any allegations describing how an ordinary person with little or no extra effort would be able to discern that the Pixel transmission contained the Plaintiff's Facebook ID, browser identifier or the titles of the videos viewed by her. The Court found that the code transmitted by the hgtv.com Pixel was not clearly labeled such that an ordinary person could identify the personal information conveyed by that code. Nor did the Complaint allege how an ordinary person would access that code or connect the information it contains to the Plaintiff's identity. The Court noted that the Plaintiff acknowledged in her opposition brief that the Pixel transmitted complex computer code that could not be reasonably discovered by the ordinary consumer. Regarding the Plaintiff's allegations that her email address was collected and disclosed by the Automatic Advanced Matching functionality of the Pixel, the Court stated that information collected by the Automatic Advanced Matching feature was hashed, meaning it was a computed summary of digital data that could not be reversed back into the original data. There were no allegations in the Complaint that supported an inference that an ordinary person with little or no extra effort could identify and somehow convert this hashed data back into an understandable format and connect that information to the Plaintiff. The Court therefore determined that it did not plausibly allege that the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information was disclosed to Facebook by the Pixel on the Defendant's website. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed. In the concluding sentence of her opposition brief, the Plaintiff urged that should the Court grant the Defendant's Motion in any part, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to amend. The Plaintiff provided no suggestion as to how she would amend the pleading of her VPPA claim. On this basis alone, the Court denied the request. The Court noted that the Defendant had supplied the Plaintiff with a four-page single-spaced letter outlining the basis for its proposed motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff responded seeking leave to amend, which the Court granted and the Second Amended Complaint was filed. At the initial conference, the Court offered the Plaintiff the opportunity to further amend, but the Plaintiff indicated that she did not wish to do so. Having passed up the opportunity to further amend, the Court declined to grant leave at this juncture. In light of the Second Circuit's Solomon decision and its assertion in Hughes that it had effectively shut the door to this type of claim, the Court concluded that amendment of the Complaint would be futile. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. The Plaintiff's request for leave to amend was denied. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4j42hr from PacerMonitor.com THC – ORANGE COUNTY: Rehan Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sara Rehan, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. THC – ORANGE COUNTY, LLC (THC-OC"), A California limited liability company; KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC ("KHO"), a Delaware limited liability company; KINDRED HOSPITAL - SAN DIEGO ("KHSD"), an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU053682C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Nov. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03128-LL-KSC. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks recovery for the following: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay reporting time; meal period liability; rest break liability; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; failure to keep required payroll records; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to timely pay wages due at termination of employment; unlawful deductions from wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: J. Scott Carr, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 493-3988 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 Email: scarr@kcozlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Gade Alleges Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEIL GADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06343-MKC (E.D. Pa., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information, including names, dates of birth, telephone numbers, addresses, demographic information, estimated net worth, and donation history. On October 30, 2025, cybercriminals infiltrated Penn's computer systems by compromising an employee's PennKey SSO account. This unauthorized access allowed cybercriminals entry into the university's Salesforce data, VPN, Qlik analytics platform, SharePoint files, and SAP business intelligence system, resulting in widespread harm to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant breached their duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard the PII it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyber-attacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from the Defendant, says the suit. To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory relief, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII in its care. University of Pennsylvania is a private, nonprofit research university.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Ellen J. Wen, Esq. Kelly A. Aristides, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com ewen@cpmlegal.com karistides@cpmlegal.com VESTIS CORPORATION: Class Cert. Deadlines Continued --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL NO. 112, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VESTIS CORPORATION, ARAMARK, KIMBERLY SCOTT, RICK DILLON, and JOHN J. ZILLMER, Case No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Grimberg entered an order continuing class certification deadlines: The Deadlines for Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Defendants' response are continued pending the Court's entry of a scheduling order that includes deadlines for class certification proceedings. The joint preliminary report and discovery plan is due Dec. 1, 2025. Vestis provides clean and safe uniform services and workplace supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ozn7yR at no extra charge.[CC] WHOLE FOODS: Albrigo Sues Over Mislabeled Organic Orange Juice -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA ALBRIGO and ANDREA MITCHELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03045-BTM-BLM (S.D. Cal., November 7, 2025) is a class action lawsuit arising from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of its 365 Organic Orange Juice fortified with alleged Vitamin D misrepresentation in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant claims to sell juice products that purport to ofer consumers 5 micrograms of vitamin D per 240 mL serving or 25%. However, independent testing conducted by an ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited and U.S. Food and Drug Administration recognized laboratory found that, contrary to Defendant's 5 mcg of vitamin D per Serving representation, the Products contain zero mcgs of vitamin D per Serving. The Plaintiff relied on this representation and warranty in deciding to purchase the Products. These representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain in that she would not have purchased Defendant's Products or would have paid less for them had she known that the vitamin D content in the Products was less than Defendant represented. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured and lost money because of Defendant's deceptive and unfair conduct. Whole Foods Market, Inc. is an American multinational supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas, which generally sells whole food products free from hydrogenated fats and artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 WIDENER UNIV: Sparacino Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIANNA SPARACINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WIDENER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01001-MKC (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement; (2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All Widener University students whose payment obligation of tuition and/or fees was satisfied for the Spring 2020 semester, and who were enrolled in at least one in-person on-campus class during the Spring 2020 semester." Excluded from the Potential Settlement Class are all Widener students who received scholarships, grants, or credits that equaled or exceeded their total payment obligations to Widener for the Spring 2020 semester, or who were otherwise not obligated to make contributions, payments or third-party arrangements towards tuition or fees for the Spring 2020 semester. (3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Gianna Sparacino as Settlement Class Representative; (4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the Settlement; (5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure, including approving the Parties' selection of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties’ proposed schedule; and (6) Preliminarily Approving the Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the Proposed Settlement Class. Widener is a private, metropolitan university. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kovWuK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com XCEL ENERGY: Class Settlement in Arandell Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARANDELL CORPORATION, MERRICK’S, INC., SARGENTO FOODS, INC., BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION, CARTHAGE COLLEGE, LADISH CO., INC., v. XCEL ENERGY, INC, NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, DYNEGY ILLINOIS INC., DYNEGY GP, INC., DYNEGY MARKETING & TRADE, E PRIME INC., and DMT G.P. LLC, Case No. 07-cv-76-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order that: 1. The motion for class certification and preliminary approval of the class settlement is granted. 2. The court certifies the following class: "All industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas for their own use or consumption during the period from Jan. 1, 2000 until Oct. 31, 2002, and which gas was used or consumed by them in Wisconsin." Excluded from the Class are: (a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to the extent of such purchase for resale); (b) entities that purchased natural gas for generation of electricity for the purpose of sale (to the extent of such purchase for generation); (c) entities that purchased natural gas at rates approved by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (to the extent of such purchases at such approved rates); (d) defendants and their predecessors, affiliates, and subsidiaries; and (e) the federal government and its agencies. 3. The law firms of Kohner Mann & Kailas, S.C., Perkins Coie LLP, and Polsinelli PC are appointed as counsel for the settlement class. 4. The parties proposed class notices are approved. 5. No later than December 17, 2025, the parties are directed to disseminate notice to the class. The notices are to give class members 45 days to submit a claim, opt out of the class, or file an objection. 6. No later than December 17, 2025, the parties are to submit proof to the court that they complied with the notice requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 7. No later than February 25, 2026, the parties are to file a motion for final approval of the settlement agreement. The motion for final approval must address all the factors in Rule 23(e)(2), identify all class members who requested exclusion or objected to the settlement, and respond to any objections raised by class members. Also by February 25, class counsel are to submit a motion for attorney fees and expenses. 8. A settlement approval hearing will be held via video conference on Friday, March 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are commercial and industrial entities that purchased natural gas between 2000 and 2002 for consumption in Wisconsin. The Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices for natural gas, in violation of antitrust law. The litigation began nearly 20 years ago, and the class members have settled with most of the original defendants. Seven defendants remain: Dynegy Illinois Inc., DMT G.P. L.L.C., Dynegy GP Inc. and Dynegy Marketing and Trade, e prime, inc., Northern States Power Company, and Xcel Energy Inc. The Plaintiffs and the remaining defendants now jointly move for certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and for preliminary approval of a class settlement in the amount of $16 million. Xcel operates as a public utility holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jE7uDc at no extra charge.[CC] XCEL ENERGY: Class Settlement in Newpage Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM, INC., v. XCEL ENERGY INC., NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, DYNEGY ILLINOIS INC., DMT G.P. LLC, DYNEGY GP INC., DYNEGY MARKETING & TRADE, and E PRIME INC, Case No. 09-cv-240-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order that: 1. The motion for class certification and preliminary approval of the class settlement is granted. 2. The court certifies the following class: "All industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas for their own use or consumption during the period from Jan. 1, 2000 until Oct. 31, 2002, and which gas was used or consumed by them in Wisconsin." Excluded from the Class are: (a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to the extent of such purchase for resale); (b) entities that purchased natural gas for generation of electricity for the purpose of sale (to the extent of such purchase for generation); (c) entities that purchased natural gas at rates approved by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (to the extent of such purchases at such approved rates); (d) defendants and their predecessors, affiliates, and subsidiaries; and (e) the federal government and its agencies. 3. The law firms of Kohner Mann & Kailas, S.C., Perkins Coie LLP, and Polsinelli PC are appointed as counsel for the settlement class. 4. The parties proposed class notices are approved. 5. No later than December 17, 2025, the parties are directed to disseminate notice to the class. The notices are to give class members 45 days to submit a claim, opt out of the class, or file an objection. 6. No later than December 17, 2025, the parties are to submit proof to the court that they complied with the notice requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 7. No later than February 25, 2026, the parties are to file a motion for final approval of the settlement agreement. The motion for final approval must address all the factors in Rule 23(e)(2), identify all class members who requested exclusion or objected to the settlement, and respond to any objections raised by class members. Also by February 25, class counsel are to submit a motion for attorney fees and expenses. 8. A settlement approval hearing will be held via video conference on Friday, March 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are commercial and industrial entities that purchased natural gas between 2000 and 2002 for consumption in Wisconsin. The Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices for natural gas, in violation of antitrust law. The litigation began nearly 20 years ago, and the class members have settled with most of the original defendants. Seven defendants remain: Dynegy Illinois Inc., DMT G.P. L.L.C., Dynegy GP Inc. and Dynegy Marketing and Trade, e prime, inc., Northern States Power Company, and Xcel Energy Inc. The Plaintiffs and the remaining defendants now jointly move for certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and for preliminary approval of a class settlement in the amount of $16 million. Xcel operates as a public utility holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXeJik at no extra charge.[CC] XGIMI TECHNOLOGY: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Garrido" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Luiz C. Peck Garrido, Plaintiff, v. Xgimi Technology Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-04290 (RER) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss a purported class action complaint on November 12, 2025. This is a purported class action on behalf of consumers who purchased the Defendant's home projectors and other similar devices. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant advertised these products on its website and elsewhere with intentionally inflated brightness ratings to deceive consumers and induce them to purchase these products at a premium. The Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of personal jurisdiction. After carefully reviewing the record, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. In November 2022, the Plaintiff, a resident of Long Island, New York, purchased an Xgimi Horizon Pro 4K home theater projector directly from the Defendant's website for $1,275. In September 2023, Xgimi reached a settlement with its competitor Epson, requiring Xgimi to reduce the advertised brightness rating for the Horizon 4K Pro. Simultaneously with the lowered brightness rating, Xgimi switched its measurement standard from ANSI lumens to ISO lumens, which resulted in the Horizon Pro 4K's rated brightness changing from 2,200 ANSI lumens to 1,500 ISO lumens. In or about October 2023, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant's customer service to complain about the lowered brightness rating. On or about October 21, 2023, Xgimi customer service responded that despite the switch in standards, the performance of the device was unaffected. The Plaintiff responded on October 24, 2023, explaining that it was not the performance of the projector that was the issue, but rather the representation made by the Defendant that induced him to buy the projector in the first place, namely its brightness rating. The Plaintiff explained to the Defendant's customer service that 2,200 ANSI lumens should convert to 1,760 ISO lumens, and thus the new 1,500 ISO lumens rating indicates that the old 2,200 ANSI lumens rating was inflated. However, the Defendant refused to refund or replace the projector because the 30-day return window had expired. The Plaintiff retained an expert, an adjunct professor in mechanical engineering at California Polytechnic State University, to test three of the four putative class devices. The Plaintiff's expert alleges that the brightness levels of these devices were between 20 and 25 percent lower than initially advertised. However, the Plaintiff could not find the Halo model for testing as it had been discontinued. On June 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Rule 23 class action complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. He amended the complaint on November 21, 2024, adding sections on expert witness testing of three Xgimi projectors and detailing the Epson Settlement. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant purposefully deceived consumers by inflating the brightness figures of its home projectors to gain traction in the United States market, including but not limited to the (1) Horizon Pro 4k, (2) Horizon 1080P, (3) Elfin, and (4) Halo models. The Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). The Plaintiff raises eight claims against the Defendant on behalf of a nationwide class and New York subclass consisting of all persons who purchased a Xgimi Projector prior to September 18, 2023: (1) Deceit and Fraudulent Concealment, (2) Common Law Fraud via Affirmative Misrepresentation, (3) Breach of Express Warranty, (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, (6) violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq., (7) Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349, et seq., and (8) unjust enrichment. On January 9, 2025, the Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon careful examination of the fraud claims, the Court found that the Plaintiff adequately alleges fraud. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's misrepresentations of lumens ratings were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, with intent to defraud, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's and Class members' rights, to enrich the Defendant. The Plaintiff has alleged that Xgimi settled Epson's claims that it inflated its lumens ratings on the suspect products. It is entirely reasonable to infer misbehavior or at least recklessness from these facts and the others stated in the amended complaint. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied in this regard. The Court determined that the Plaintiff's New York GBL Section 349 claim is adequately pleaded. The Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the Defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and that he suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice. A reasonable jury could find that (1) Xgimi marketed their projector products with inflated lumens ratings, (2) these misrepresentations allowed Xgimi to charge a price premium for their products, and (3) the Plaintiff paid more for the products than he would have paid had Xgimi not made such misrepresentations. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied in this respect. The Court found that the Plaintiff's claims related to the Halo projector are adequately pleaded. The Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Xgimi's original lumens rating of the Halo projector was false. Relying on the Epson Settlement, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant agreed to reduce the lumens ratings of the Halo projector. The Court determined that the Plaintiff adequately pleads breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff alleges that Xgimi promised that the Horizon Pro 4K projector model he bought had a brightness rating of 2,200 ANSI lumens, which should convert to 1,760 ISO lumens, but its actual rating, as later changed by Xgimi, was 1,500 ISO lumens. The Plaintiff specifically alleges that in October 2023, before filing suit, he alerted the Defendant that his purchase was troublesome by submitting a complaint through a form on the customer service website. The breach of express warranty claim therefore survives dismissal. However, the Court found that the Plaintiff's implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose claims fail. The Plaintiff's issue was not the performance of the projector. While it is true that the Plaintiff's projector does not put out the originally advertised lumens, at no point does he allege that it did not work for its ordinary purpose of projecting images to a minimal level of quality. Accordingly, the implied warranty claims are dismissed. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of his GBL claims. The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is based on the same allegations as set forth in support of the GBL claim, and the Plaintiff has not shown that his unjust enrichment claim differs from his GBL claims nor that the alleged damages are distinct. The Court denied the Defendant's request to dismiss equitable relief as premature. The nationwide class claims shall proceed. The Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Xgimi with respect to the Plaintiff's claims. Since the Plaintiff, who resides in Long Island, alleges that the Defendant sold him the projector via its website and shipped it to him in New York, there is a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction. The Court determined that the Plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue claims for the products he did not purchase. The amended complaint clearly states that Xgimi misrepresented the lumens ratings of all four products. The Plaintiff's allegations about the four projector models involve the same lumens rating misrepresentations about substantially similar products. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. Although past injuries may provide a basis for standing to seek money damages, they do not confer standing to seek injunctive relief unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that she is likely to be harmed again in the future in a similar way. The Plaintiff notes that he now knows the truth about the lumens figures of the Defendant's projectors, and nowhere alleges that he is in the market for another projector. Therefore, the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief in the form of disclosure and remediation is dismissed. The Court noted that the Plaintiff has withdrawn his claim under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff's MMWA claims were dismissed. For the reasons set forth above, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff maintains his fraud claims and breach of express warranty claim on behalf of himself and a nationwide class, and his N.Y. GBL Section 349 claim on behalf of himself and the New York subclass. The implied warranty claims, MMWA claims, and unjust enrichment claim are dismissed, as is the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d3glZR from PacerMonitor.com XPO LAST: Lopez Seeks to Continue Hearing on Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA LOPEZ, an individual; individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, v. XPO LAST MILE, INC., A Georgia Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, ex parte, for an order continuing the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification currently scheduled for April 10, 2026 to Aug. 7, 2026 and the related briefing schedule. Despite the Plaintiff's good faith efforts to meet and confer with the Defendant's counsel regarding precertification discovery including the list of putative class members, contact information of the putative class, representative documents and records for the putative class members, timing and production of witnesses and documents in order to meet the deadlines on the Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant has unreasonably denied or delayed the requests by Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff stipulated with the Defendant for a further modified briefing schedule but this recent stipulation was denied by the Court. The Plaintiff therefore brings this Ex Parte Application to provide additional context and reasoning as to why a further modification of the briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification is necessary. No party will be prejudiced by the requested continuance. To the contrary, the Plaintiff stands to suffer severe prejudice and an inability to meaningfully brief Plaintiff's Motion should the Court not grant the requested continuance. The Plaintiff's only option is to seek ex parte relief, and Plaintiff did not create the circumstances that required him to seek such relief. On Oct. 24, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime compensation; reimbursement of employment expenses; unlawful deduction from wages; failure to provide meal period; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties; and unfair competition. The Second Amended Complaint refined the scope of the putative class and defined it as: "Non-employee workers who worked as a Contract Carrier, Driver and/or Helper (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Delivery Driver") for the Defendants out of a last mile hub or dedicated warehouse location affiliated with the Defendants in the State of California at an time during the four years preceding April 29, 2018, and continuing while this action is pending ("Class Period")." XPO provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lXAhsO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com armand@boyamianlaw.com ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Armstrong Suit Over Illegal Kickback Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- ARABA ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., ZILLOW, INC., and ZILLOW HOME LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02226 (W.D. Wash., November 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. This case is about kickbacks that Defendants gave to real estate brokers, in the form of access to valuable customer leads, explicitly in exchange for sending those customers to Zillow's financing arm for mortgages. That arrangement is per se illegal under federal law. Moreover, because the true nature of the kickbacks and obvious conflicts of interest are concealed from the consumer (at Zillow's direction), the conduct also violates Washington statutory and common law prohibitions concerning consumer deception and the broker's fiduciary duties. Defendant Zillow's policies and conduct violate the law in several clear ways: (1) Zillow's exchange of valuable leads in return for mortgage sign-ups in violation of RESPA which forbids giving or accepting any fee, kickback, or "thing of value" pursuant to an agreement that business incident to a real estate settlement service will be referred; (2) Zillow's practices are unfair and deceptive under the Washington law because they create undisclosed conflicts that have the capacity to mislead reasonable consumers about the independence of participating agents and brokerages and the neutrality of Zillow's platform; and (3) Zillow aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by participating agents and brokerages. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, therefore brings this action to halt Zillow's ongoing violations of law, to obtain disgorgement and restitution of unjust gains, and to secure appropriate relief for consumers injured by Zillow's unlawful referral and steering practices in the provision of real estate settlement services. Zillow Group, Inc. is the publicly traded parent company that controls the Zillow online real estate marketplace and a range of related businesses and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by" Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and - Corban Rhodes, Esq. Emma Bruder, Esq. DiCELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: crhodes@dicellolevitt.com ebruder@dicellolevitt.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***