251222.mbx

251222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 22, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 254 Headlines 110 LAYTON HOLDING: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers 347 SOMI LLC: Watson Sues Over Disability Discrimination 3M COMPANY: Richmond Files Suit in D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Village of Steger Files Suit in D. South Carolina ABS & TAYLOR: Hynes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ACTIVEHOURS INC: Dabila Sues Over Data Security Failures ADIDAS AG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit over Ye Remarks ALASKA AIRLINES: Seeks to Shorten Class Cert Hearing in Marecheau ALASKA AIRLINES: Seeks to Strike Anello's Declaration ALL SERVICE PLASTIC: Speaks Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ALN MEDICAL: Court Grants Prelim OK of Settlement in "Reed" AMAZON.COM: Parties Seeks to Renote Class Cert Bid to Jan. 30, 2026 AMERICAN ADDICTION: Class Settlement in Parker Gets Initial Nod AMERICAN HONDA: Morales Seeks to File Response to AHM's Objections ANGEION GROUP: Duarte Sues Over Fraudulent Practices BARRETT-JACKSON HOLDINGS: Cain Bid for Class Certification Tossed BICKNELL FAMILY: Class Settlement in Tobler Suit Gets Final Nod BIOGEN INC: Shash Must File Revised Opening Brief by Jan. 5, 2026 BLOOMBERG LP: Class Certification Filing Due Feb. 20, 2026 BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 22, 2026 C & P AUTO: Seeks to Hire David P. Lloyd Ltd. as Legal Counsel CAKE 5332: Class Cert Opposition in Alvarez Suit Due Dec. 22 CERTIFIED MEDIA: Lopresti Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls CHICAGO, IL: Faces Suit Over Large Lot Program Disqualifications CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 11, 2026 COOKIE CREWS: Bid to Certify Class in Marcum Suit Tossed as Moot CRASH CHAMPIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rocha Due Oct. 2, 2026 CRAWFORD COMMUNITIES: Class Cert Discovery Due July 31, 2026 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NC: Lee et al. Allege IDEA Violations CUSIP GLOBAL: Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument in DFG Suit DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Mabey Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info EXCELLENT AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Riffle Due Jan. 25, 2027 FABS RESTAURANT: Hires Mendez Law Offices PLLC as Counsel FOLGER COFFEE: 8th Cir. Flips Class Certification in Consumer Suit FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Opposition to Class Cert Due Jan. 30, 2026 FULL HOUSE RESORTS: Hansen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII GILEAD SCIENCES: Seeks Class Cert Opposition Notice in Searcy GLOBAL E-TRADING: Class Settlement in Sihler Gets Final Nod GWG HOLDINGS: Bayati Seeks $50.95MM Settlement Fund in GWG Suit HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION: Jenkins Sues Over Unprotected Private Info HCA-HEALTHONE LLC: Underpays Patient Safety Attendants, Jensen Says HOPE VILLAGE: Fails to Comply With Contracting Law, Magnet Says INOTIV INC: Faces Consolidated Data Breach Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Suit Seeks Class Notice Approval KELSIER LABS: Court Partly Grants Bid to Unseal Docs in "Hurlock" KING COUNTY, WA: Class Settlement in Tucker Gets Final Nod KRISTI NOEM: Gutierrez Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd LAS PRINCESAS: Settlement Classes Get Certification in Hernandez LENDWYSE LLC: Harris TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina LIMESTONE BANK: $950KK Settlement in Cooper Gets Initial Nod LINKSQUARES INC: Caicedo Suit Seeks Class Certification LINKSQUARES INC: Parties Seek Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal LOS ANGELES, CA: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 6, 2026 LUX MEDSPA BRICKELL: Watson Sues Over Disability Discrimination MAD ROOM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cannet Suit Alleges MARKETSTAR QOZ BUSINESS: Jones Sues Over Illegal Discrimination MEMBERS IN BLACK: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. META PLATFORMS: Must Respond to Amended Complaint by Feb. 16, 2026 META PLATFORMS: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal MSP RECOVERY: Continues to Defend Stanley Shareholder Class Suit NATERA INC: Class Action Settlement in Davis Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Final Nod ORACLE CORP: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Access of PII PACS GROUP: Continues to Defend Manchin Securities Class Suit in NY PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Due Oct. 23, 2026 PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Faces Chavira-Hernandez Data Privacy Suit PIO PIO: Lopez Must File Amended Complaint by Jan. 5, 2026 RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Suit Seeks to Change Class Cert Date REGAL CINEMAS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Garza Due May 29, 2026 REGAN HOSPITALITY: Morancy Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action REVLON CONSUMER: Scheduling Order Entered in Savage Class Suit REWORLD SOLUTIONS: Springs Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RICOH USA: Seeks to Strike Phillips' Declaration RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Court Extends Stay of Manadero Suit ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Faces Nohle Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. ROYAL PALM PLACE: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property SABER HEALTHCARE: Dunlap Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages SCHERTZ-CIBOLO: Asbhy Seeks to Provisionally Certify Two Classes SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Phillips Claims SJK DEERFIELD: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property SKECHERS USA: Erakat Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Consolidated Data Breach Suit in Montana Court SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court SOUTHSIDE FENCE: Ordonez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SPRINGER NATURE: Settlement in Lee Gets Final OK SSA HOLDINGS: Faces Douglas Suit Over Private Data Breach STITCH FIX: Settles Shareholder Suit for $32MM SUN SURF SAND: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website SYNGENTA CROP: Madden Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks TEAM COMPANIES: Hudson Files Suit in C.D. California TOWN & COUNTRY LIFE: Pritchard Suit Removed to D. Utah TOWNE MORTGAGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barnette Alleges TOYOTA MOTOR: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Siefke" TSMC ARIZONA: Rule 16 Case Management Conference Order Entered UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Ripa Files Suit in S.D. New York UNILEVER UNITED: Ripa Sues Over Cleaners' False Retinol Benefits UNITED SECURITY: Continues to Defend Ceballes Labor Class Suit UNITED SECURITY: Continues to Defend Running Labor Class Suit UNITED STATES: Alvarez Seeks Habeas Relief for Unlawful Detention UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Patterson Suit VANGUARD FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing Due Oct. 9, 2026 VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Dettmering Seeks to Certify Class Action VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 22 VISTAPRINT NETHERLANDS: Roberts Suit Removed to E.D. Washington VOLT MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Filing in Gonzalez Due April 16, 2026 WAKEFERN FOOD: Court Dismisses "Schottenstein" Biometric Data Suit WESTERN CAROLINA PIZZA: Berry Files FLSA Suit in W.D.N.C. WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Alvear Sues Over Disability Discrimination WILLIAM PENN HEALTH: Dunlap Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages YOLO LAS OLAS: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website ********* 110 LAYTON HOLDING: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------- Darrin Malsack, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 110 LAYTON HOLDING LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01904 (E.D. Wis., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property four times before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Suburpia, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. 110 LAYTON HOLDING LLC is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com 347 SOMI LLC: Watson Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- James Watson, on behalf of others similarly situated v. 347 SOMI, LLC, d/b/a Beauty & the Butcher, Case No. 1:25-cv-25644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff is unable to effectively access, navigate, and communicate with Defendant through the website, https://www.beautyandthebutchermiami.com, due to his blindness and the Website's access barriers. Thus, Plaintiff as well as others who are blind and with visual disabilities will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant's intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly enjoined by this Court. As the result of the barriers to communication which are present within the website and by continuing to operate and/or benefit from the mobile website with such barriers, Defendant has contributed to Plaintiff's frustration, humiliation, sense of isolation and segregation and has deprived Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the public. The Plaintiff has suffered (and will continue to suffer) direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's violations until Defendant is compelled to comply with the ADA and conform the website to WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities. 347 Somi, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company, authorized and doing business in the State of Florida, which owns and/or operates a restaurant known as "Beauty & the Butcher" and part of the Grove Bay Hospitality Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220, Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com 3M COMPANY: Richmond Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as City of Richmond, Kentucky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Americas Inc; Amerex Corp.; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD.; Clariant Corporation; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; United Technologies Corporation; Tyco Fire Products LP; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-13695-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael G. Stag, Esq. STAG LIUZZA LLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 593-9600 Fax: (504) 593-9601 Email: mstag@stagliuzza.com 3M COMPANY: Village of Steger Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Village of Steger, Illinois, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC Chemicals Americas Inc; Amerex Corp.; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; Chemguard, Inc.; Chemicals Incorporated; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; Chubb Fire, LTD.; Clariant Corporation; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; United Technologies Corporation; Tyco Fire Products LP; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.; Case No. 2:25-cv-13704-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael G. Stag, Esq. STAG LIUZZA LLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 2850 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 593-9600 Fax: (504) 593-9601 Email: mstag@stagliuzza.com ABS & TAYLOR: Hynes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- James Hynes, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABS & TAYLOR ENTERPRISES, INC., Case: 1:25-cv-14652 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons. The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but Defendant did not pay them overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff was not being paid the full amount of wages he was owed at various times during his employment with Defendant. The Plaintiff reported these wage discrepancies to Defendant. The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours or more in a work week, but Defendant altered Plaintiff's reported compensable time. In most if not all workweeks, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week but Defendant did not pay them all overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay due, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in September 2019 as a Service Technician. ABS & Taylor Enterprises, Inc. was a corporation doing business in and for Cook County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8180 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ceisenback@atlaslawcenter.com ACTIVEHOURS INC: Dabila Sues Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW DABILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC. d/b/a EARNIN, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10027 (N.D. Cal., November 20, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information, including names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers. The Defendant's investigation determined that some private data may have been acquired between April 2025 and Oct. 15, 2025. While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as October 14, 2025, it did not inform victims of the data breach until November 12, 2025, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, violation of the California Customer Records Act, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law arising from the data breach. Headquartered in Palo Alto, CA, Activehours, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates as financial technology company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com ADIDAS AG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit over Ye Remarks ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of securities fraud claims in the lawsuit titled HRSA-ILA FUNDS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant v. ADIDAS AG and HARM OHLMEYER, Defendants - Appellees, and KASPER RORSTED, Defendant, Case No. 24-6655 (9th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00629-IM, Karin Immergut, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia, and Circuit Judges John B. Owens and Patrick J. Bumatay. Plaintiff-Appellant HRSA-ILA Funds appeals the district court's dismissal of its securities fraud claims against Defendant-Appellees adidas AG and Harm Ohlmeyer. HRSA-ILA, an Adidas shareholder, brought a class action lawsuit asserting (1) violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. HRSA-ILA alleges that Adidas had engaged in a significant partnership with celebrity Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) and his shoe company Yeezy, but later terminated the Partnership in Fall 2022 due to public fallout from Ye's anti-semitic and other improper behavior. The fallout and dissolution of the Partnership led to a decrease in Adidas's share price. HRSA-ILA claims Adidas had known about and internally grappled with Ye's anti-semitic and other improper behavior for years, yet misled shareholders by failing to disclose this risk in its disclosures. On appeal, HRSA-ILA argues that it adequately alleged actionable securities fraud claims under section 10(b) for the two disclosures in dispute: (1) Adidas's Business Partners Risk disclosures; and (2) Adidas's statements that it complied with the European Union's ("EU") Global Reporting Initiative ("GRI"), as part of the EU's Non-Financial Reporting Directive ("NFRD"). The Court of Appeals affirms. The Panel affirms the district court's conclusion that the Plaintiff fails to plead an actionable securities fraud claim for Adidas's Business Partners Risk disclosures. The district court determined that HRSA-ILA failed to allege an actionable material misrepresentation or omission. The Panel agrees. The Panel concludes that a reasonable investor would know that a partnership with a celebrity partner like Ye would come with inherent risks relating to improper behavior and that a reasonable investor would not be misled by the Business Partners Risk disclosures. HRSA-ILA's section 10(b) claim based on Adidas's Business Partners Risk disclosures, therefore, fails because HRSA-ILA does not plead a material misrepresentation or omission. The Court of Appeals also affirms the district court's conclusion that HRSA-ILA fails to plead an actionable securities fraud claim for Adidas's compliance with the EU's NFRD and GRI disclosure standards. Therefore, HRSA-ILA's section 10(b) claim based on the NFRD and GRI fails. Even if HRSA-ILA had adequately pled a material misrepresentation, the Panel concludes HRSA-ILA failed to plead scienter, because HRSA-ILA's complaint does not state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the Defendants acted with the required state of mind. Because the Panel determined that HRSA-ILA fails to plead an actionable section 10(b) claim, the Panel also concludes that HRSA-ILA fails to plead a section 20(a) claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 3, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4pw79yh from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ALASKA AIRLINES: Seeks to Shorten Class Cert Hearing in Marecheau ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY MARECHEAU, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order motion to shorten time for hearing and/or ruling on the motion to strike the declaration of Gabriel Anello in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court's Second Amended Scheduling Order contemplates that expert discovery should be closed before the Motion to Class Certification should even be filed. Thus, the Defendant should not be prejudiced by being required to expend these resources to attempt to rebut expert testimony that was never previously disclosed in any report or statement, while the Motion to Strike is pending and should be granted -- especially at the same time it has to prepare its Opposition. The Court should grant the Motion to Shorten Time to consider and decide Defendant’s Motion to Strike the declaration of Mr. Anello for the Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), because Defendant would otherwise suffer harm and prejudice by being forced to challenge the Plaintiff's expert testimony that should be stricken, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiff failed to comply with the expert disclosure rules or deadlines by failing to make any expert disclosure or supplemental disclosure containing any report, opinions, facts or data, or exhibits prior to September 16, 2025 (the expert disclosure deadline). If Plaintiff had done so, Defendant would have had four months to prepare to address Plaintiff’s expert report in its Opposition to Class Certification, which is due January 14, 2026. Jeng Decl. ¶ Instead, the Defendant did not conduct any expert discovery of any report, opinions, facts or data disclosed by Mr. Anello, because Plaintiff failed to disclose any report, opinions, facts, or data, as required before the expert disclosure deadline. Indeed, Plaintiff failed to produce any report, opinions, facts, or data prior to the expert discovery cut-off, and expert discovery closed on October 14, 2025. On July 18, 2025, the Court issued its Second Amended Scheduling Order continuing the deadline for expert disclosures to Sept. 16, 2025, and the expert discovery cut-off to Oct. 14, 2025. The Court also continued the Motion for Class Certification, at the Plaintiff's request, to Nov. 25, 2025. On November 25, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification and, for the first time, produced his "expert report" in the form of the Declaration of Gabriel Anello. The Defendant is an airline company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Es6EmF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. Melissa Hughes, Esq. Julia G. Remer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com pjeng@sheppardmullin.com mhughes@sheppardmullin.com jremer@sheppardmullin.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Seeks to Strike Anello's Declaration ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY MARECHEAU, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking the declaration of Gabriel Anello, the Plaintiff's expert witness, submitted in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff failed to disclose or produce any expert report, opinions, bases, reasons, or other information considered by Mr. Anello by Sept. 16, 2025, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and the Court's Second Amended Scheduling Order, or even any time prior to the close of expert discovery on October 14, 2025. This late disclosure has deprived the Defendant of the opportunity to adequately analyze the report and depose the Plaintiff's proposed expert, serve written discovery, and have its own expert prepare any rebuttal report in time to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, creating extreme prejudice and unfair surprise. The Defendant contends that the Court should grant Motion to Strike the declaration of Mr. Anello for Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) because Defendant would be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s after-the-fact disclosure that failed to comply with the established Rules, after having twice continued the deadline at Plaintiff's request. On Dec. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the original Complaint. After filing the operative First Amended Complaint, the Defendant removed this action on June 25, 2024. On Nov. 25, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification, accompanied by the Declaration of Gabriel Anello. The Defendant is an airline company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j6iGri at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. Melissa Hughes, Esq. Julia G. Remer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com pjeng@sheppardmullin.com mhughes@sheppardmullin.com jremer@sheppardmullin.com ALL SERVICE PLASTIC: Speaks Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joyce Speaks, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALL SERVICE PLASTIC MOLDING, INC., a corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00415-TMR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 2, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretiona1Y pay into its payment structure, including but not limited to Quarterly Performance Bonus pay ("bonus pay"). Throughout Plaintiff s employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff s bonus pay and other non discretiona1Y remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiffs employment with Defendant, she earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from November 2019 through November 2024. The Defendant is headquartered in Vandalia, Ohio, and employs hundreds of hourly employees in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4039 Fax: (248) 746-4050 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com ALN MEDICAL: Court Grants Prelim OK of Settlement in "Reed" ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Cameron Reed, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; John Siebuhr, Timothy Keggins, Jeffrey Judka, and Caroline Hurley, Plaintiffs, v. ALN Medical Management LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25CV3067 (D. Neb.), Judge Susan M. Bazis of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court certified the consolidated settlement class, preliminarily approved the class action settlement, and approved the form and manner of notice to approximately 1.8 million class members affected by a March 2024 data breach. Defendant ALN Medical Management LLC is a healthcare advisory firm that provides services such as physician, facility, and non-participating provider hospital billing, professional coding, claims recovery, review of billing practices, and credentialing to other healthcare-related clients. The Defendant's clients include Allied Physicians Group, PLLC, Bethany Medical Clinic of New York, PLLC, Hoag Clinic, and National Spine and Pain Centers, LLC, who are co-defendants in the present action or in related litigation. Defendant held the private information of Plaintiffs Cameron Reed, Eugene Rosenberg, Lauren Mullis, Jeffrey Judka, Virginia Gilleland, Robert Meyers, Caroline Hurley, and Timothy Keggins, whose private information was compromised in a data breach in March of 2024. Plaintiffs, along with approximately 1.8 million current and former patients of Defendant's clients, were apprised of this breach in March of 2025. On March 25, 2025, Plaintiff Cameron Reed filed the first putative class action, which alleged the breach exposed private information, entitling him to money damages and injunctive relief. On June 11, 2025, the Court consolidated Plaintiffs' class actions, and Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on June 25, 2025, alleging negligence, breach of contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act. After mediating the dispute on August 4, 2025, Plaintiffs and all defendants except Defendant Long View agreed to settle Plaintiffs' claims against the settling defendants and other parties. The parties released by the settlement agreement specifically include Defendant ALN, Health Prime International, LLC, HPI Holdco, LLC, Lotus HPI Buyer, Inc., Lotus HPI Intermediate, Inc., Lotus HPI Parent, Inc., Lotus HPI TopCo, L.P., Lotus HPI TopCo GP, LLC, Aquiline Financial Services Fund V, L.P., Aquiline Capital Partners LP, Aquiline Lotus Co-Invest L.P., Aquiline Capital Partners V GP (Offshore) L.P., Aquiline Capital Partners V GP (Offshore) Ltd., AFSF V Co-Invest GP Ltd., and their past, present, and future direct and indirect heirs, assigns, associates, corporations, investors, owners, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, managers, shareholders, members, employees, servants, attorneys, accountants, insurers, reinsurers, benefit plans, partners, predecessors, successors, managers, administrators, executors, trustees, and any other person acting on their behalf. The released parties also include Defendant's clients and their related entities. The Court found that the threshold requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) were satisfied. The numerosity requirement was met because the plaintiffs represent the approximate 1.8 million current and former patients of Defendant's clients that received a written notice that their private information may have been impacted in a data breach. Commonality was satisfied because the legal and factual issues surrounding the defendants' course of conduct arise out of the same data breach and March 2025 notice of such breach. Typicality was present for the same reason. Adequacy of representation was present because there is no conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent, as they possess the same interest and injury as the class members. The Court determined that certification under Rule 23(b)(3) was appropriate because the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The alleged negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act predominate individualized questions of damages or the cause thereof. The Court certified the settlement class as all living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice from ALN Medical Management LLC of the Data Incident, which occurred in March of 2024, indicating their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident. The Settlement Class specifically excludes (1) all persons who are parents, subsidiaries, directors, officers, members, and agents of Defendant, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and that Judge's chamber's staff; (4) all individuals who timely opt-out of the Settlement; and (5) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. The Court found that the proposed notices meet most of the requirements for adequate notice under Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The notices inform the class members of the action and their options, accurately characterize all the pertinent terms of the settlement agreement, including attorney fees and expenses, and afford the class members a reasonable opportunity to object. However, the Court required amendments to ensure that settlement class members understand the lawsuit and to prevent unnecessary confusion. The Court required the identification of the settlement class in the three forms of notice to state: If You Are A Person In The United States Who Was Sent a Notice from ALN Medical Management LLC That Your Private Information May Have Been Impacted As A Result Of The Data Incident, Which Occurred In March Of 2024, You Are Eligible To Receive A Settlement Class Member Benefit From A Class Action Settlement. The agreements, terms, and conditions of the settlement agreement are preliminarily approved pending a fairness hearing. Plaintiffs Cameron Reed, Eugene Rosenberg, Lauren Mullis, Jeffrey Judka, Virginia Gilleland, Robert Meyers, Caroline Hurley, and Timothy Keggins are provisionally designated and appointed as Class Representatives. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC are appointed as Class Counsel. Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC is appointed as Settlement Administrator. On or before January 4, 2026, the Settlement Administrator shall disseminate notice to the Class in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Class Members who seek to be excluded from the Settlement Class must send objections to the Clerk of Court by U.S. Mail, to Class Counsel, to Defendant's Counsel, and to the Settlement Administrator. For an objection to be considered by the Court, the objection must be submitted no later than April 15, 2026. Settlement class members must submit complete, timely, and valid claims for monetary relief by or before April 4, 2026. Class Counsel shall file a Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, inclusive of the Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, no later than April 15, 2026. In the event that 250 Settlement Class Members exercise their right to opt-out of the Settlement Class, Defendant shall have the option to terminate the Settlement Agreement. The Fairness Hearing shall be held on May 15, 2026 at 12 PM before the undersigned in Courtroom No. 1, at the Robert V. Denney Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 68508. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a3DJJa from PacerMonitor.com AMAZON.COM: Parties Seeks to Renote Class Cert Bid to Jan. 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER M. BERNARD, individually and on behalf of LAST MILE NATIONAL CITY, LLC, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC. ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-02037-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to renote the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, request for oral argument and prioritize non-arbitrable claims to Jan. 30 2026. Amazon.com is a global technology company primarily involved in the sale of a range of products and services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UdgTym at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald G. Rossi, Esq. ROSSI & CO., P.C. 616 33rd Ave NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Telephone: (303) 222–0300 Email: rgr@vihc.com The Defendants are represented by: Molly A. Terwilliger, Esq. Kit W. Roth, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: molly.terwilliger@morganlewis.com kit.roth@morganlewis.com AMERICAN ADDICTION: Class Settlement in Parker Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parker v. American Addiction Centers, Inc. (RE AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 3:24-cv-01505 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, and orders as follows: -- For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and (e), the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All persons whose Private Information was potentially compromised in the Data Incident, including all individuals to whom Defendant sent an individual notification letter regarding the Data Incident." -- The Settlement Class includes approximately 423,065 people. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (a) all persons who are directors and officers of the Defendant, or their respective subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Judge(s) assigned to the Action, the Judge's immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly requests to be excluded from this Settlement. -- The Plaintiffs Ethan Parker, Tracy Lee Jay, Nikolaos Skourtis, Mary Deboer, James Bouchereau, Courtney Cox, Samantha Rainey, Athena Luth, Anell Capellan, Jason Lanagan, Chris Kidder, Patricia Ellison, and Ron Pronsky are provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. J. Gerard Stranch of Stranch, Jennings, & Garvey, PLLC is provisionally designated as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1) in order to effectuate the Settlement. -- A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at 3:00 p.m. on April 20, 2026. American Addiction is a nationwide network of treatment centers, offering a full continuum of care. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KkIerQ at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Morales Seeks to File Response to AHM's Objections ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for administrative relief to respond to American Honda 's objections submitted in the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. In sum, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff requests leave to file a response to AHM's Objections and/or that the Objections be overruled. The Plaintiff believes that he made the necessary and sufficient showing to demonstrate numerosity in his opening brief. American is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OgsXmm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Y. Basser, Esq. Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com - and - Manny Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com ANGEION GROUP: Duarte Sues Over Fraudulent Practices ---------------------------------------------------- Mayra Duarte, 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. 2:25-cv-11142 (C.D. Cal., November 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendants are engaged in fraudulent and anti-competitive schemes that target the members of successful class actions. Sometime during 2021, the Administrator Defendants -- Epiq, JND, and Angeion -- 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 addition, Defendants allegedly reaped 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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as representative of the class, now brings this action against the Administrator 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 country. Angeion Group LLC is a class action administration company headquartered in Philadelphia, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. McNulty, Esq. Brett L. Rosenthal, Esq. MCNULTY LAW FIRM 827 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 471-2707 E-mail: peter@mcnultylaw.com brett@mcnultylaw.com - and - E. Kirk Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238-2434 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com BARRETT-JACKSON HOLDINGS: Cain Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dylan Cain, v. Barrett-Jackson Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03270-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Liburdi entered an order denying class certification. The Court says the if a class is certified but later decertified, the parties must file a stipulation to remand this matter for lack of diversity jurisdiction within five (5) days. The Court notes, however, that if class certification is denied, jurisdiction must rest on complete diversity. Here, the record is insufficient to make that determination because Defendant did not provide the information necessary to establish complete diversity and has waived further opportunity to supplement. Thus, if class certification is denied—or a certified class is later decertified—this case will be remanded pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2025, Order. Barrett-Jackson is an Arizona-based collector car auction company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0rgqXx at no extra charge.[CC] BICKNELL FAMILY: Class Settlement in Tobler Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKOB TOBLER and MICHELLE MCNITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 1248 HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a BICKNELL FAMILY HOLDING COMPANY; MARINER WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC f/k/a MARINER HOLDINGS, LLC; MONTAGE INVESTMENTS, LLC; MARINER, LLC f/k/a MARINER WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC; MARINER CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; TORTOISE CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; TORTOISEECOFIN PARENT HOLDCO LLC; AMERICAN CENTURY COMPANIES, INC.; AMERICAN CENTURY SERVICES, LLC; AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-02068-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric Melgren entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of proposed class action settlement and award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards is granted, consistent with this order. The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. It thus grants final approval of the Settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). No Class Member has submitted any objection to the Settlement. So, no submissions preclude the Court from finding the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. For all the reasons discussed, the court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. It thus grants final approval of the Settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Plaintiffs and Class Counsel request an award of attorneys' fees equal to one-third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of Class Counsel's expenses in the amount of $396,212.51, and service awards for Mr. Tobler and Ms. McNitt in the amount of $15,000 each. As set forth in this Order, the Court grants the motion as explained below. The Court finds that the request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the Settlement Amount is reasonable under the Johnson factors. For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the Johnson factors strongly support and warrant an award of attorney fees in the amount of one-third of the $25,500,000 Settlement Amount, together with any interest earned on that amount. Bicknell manages the personal, investment and philanthropic assets of the Bicknell family. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m9zlQa at no extra charge.[CC] BIOGEN INC: Shash Must File Revised Opening Brief by Jan. 5, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shash, et al. v. Biogen Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479 (D. Mass., Filed March 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order as follows: The Plaintiffs shall file their revised opening brief (limited to 35 pages) no later than Jan. 5, 2026. The Defendants shall file their revised opposition brief (limited to 40 pages) no later than Feb. 2, 2026. The Plaintiffs shall file their revised reply brief (limited to 5 pages) no later than Feb. 17, 2026. No additional material may be submitted by other side. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Biogen is a global, pioneering biotechnology company.[CC] BLOOMBERG LP: Class Certification Filing Due Feb. 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- BLOOMBERG LP: Rule 23 Class Certification Filing Due Feb. 20, 2026 In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER ADAM, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-04775-JLR-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Henry Ricardo entered a third revised civil case management plan and scheduling order. -- Any motion for leave to amend or join additional parties shall be filed no later than Feb. 7, 2025. -- Initial Disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than Jan. 24, 2025. -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Jan. 21, 2026. -- All discovery must be completed no later than March 4, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to move for Rule 23 class certification is Feb. 20, 2026, or 30 days after the close of fact discovery. Bloomberg is an American privately held financial, software, data, and media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7O8lLz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meagan M. Rafferty, Esq. Marcela Jimenez Rodriguez, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 153 Main Street, Suite 201 New Paltz, NY 12561 Telephone: (212) 439-4765 Facsimile: (347) 544-9259 E-mail: mrafferty@hkm.com mjimenez@hkm.com - and - Robert David McCreanor, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. MCCREANOR, P.L.L.C. 245 Saw Mill River Road, Suite 106 Hawthorne, NY 10532 Telephone: (845) 202-1833 E-mail: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristina Yost, Esq. Christian Bashi, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3816 Facsimile: (212) 326-3723 E-mail: kyost@jonesday.com cbashi@jonesday.com BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 22, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan Sheil v. Brooklyn Bedding LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08475-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order regarding the Parties' joint 26(f) report and class certification motion and hearing deadlines: Event Deadline Last date to hear motion to amend Jan. 16, 2026 pleadings or add parties: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file May 22, 2026 motion for class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Defendant to file June 26, 2026 opposition to class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply July 24, 2026 in support of motion for class certification and any class certification rebuttal expert report: Class certification hearing: Aug. 21, 2026 Brooklyn is an American made manufacturer of mattresses. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7kW78p at no extra charge.[CC] C & P AUTO: Seeks to Hire David P. Lloyd Ltd. as Legal Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- C & P Auto Service Center, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois to employ David P. Lloyd, Ltd. as counsel. The firm will represent the Debtor in matters concerning negotiation with creditors, preparation of a plan and disclosure statement, examining and resolving claims filed against the estate, preparation and prosecution of adversary matters, and otherwise to represent the Debtor in matters before the Court. The firm will be paid at the rate of $400 per hour. The firm received an initial payment of $11,738 from the Debtor, to be applied to the $1,738 filing fee. The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Mr. Reyes disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached at: David P. Lloyd, Esq. 615B S. LaGrange Rd. LaGrange IL 60525 Tel: (708) 937-1264 Fax: (708) 937-1265 About C & P Auto Service Center, Inc. C & P Auto Service Center Inc., operating under the trade name Weber Swift Car Care, provides automotive repair and maintenance services, including tire sales, routine maintenance, diagnostics, and general auto repairs. C & P Auto Service Center Inc. sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 25-15215) on October 2, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated total assets of $10,600 and total liabilities of $1,717,076. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Janet S. Baer handles the case. The Debtor is represented by David P. Lloyd, Esq., of David P. Lloyd, Ltd. CAKE 5332: Class Cert Opposition in Alvarez Suit Due Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alvarez, et al., v. Cake 5332, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00697 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct. 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr entered an order granting the Defendant's first unopposed motion for extension of time to file response/reply and certify class: Suggestions in opposition/response due on or before Dec. 22, 2025, unless otherwise directed by the court. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Cake 5332 is a regional international house of pancakes restaurant group.[CC] CERTIFIED MEDIA: Lopresti Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH LOPRESTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTIFIED MEDIA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13658-FDS (D. Mass., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cell phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm. Certified Media LLC is a solar and roofing provider based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. J. Campbell, Esq. CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP The Schrafft's Center Power House 529 Main Street, Suite P200 Charlestown, MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 872-8652 Email: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com CHICAGO, IL: Faces Suit Over Large Lot Program Disqualifications ---------------------------------------------------------------- REVOL. DEVELOPMENT, LLC and ROBERT M. WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF CHICAGO AND CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14667 (N.D. Ill., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful disqualification of the Plaintiffs as a fully approved qualifying property owner under the City Council's Large Lot Program Ordinance. According to the complaint, the City Council passed Ordinance O2019-6466 approving the Plaintiffs' large lot program application, authorizing the sale of the vacant parcel located at 4344 W. Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois 60624 to the Plaintiffs for the purchase price of one dollar. More than five years after City Council's approval and after the Plaintiffs had fulfilled all requirements, the Defendants issued an unexpected disqualification letter to the Plaintiffs. As a result, the Plaintiffs face the imminent risk of permanently losing the one dollar large lot awarded to them by City Council. Revol. Development, LLC is a limited liability corporation based in Chicago, Illinois. City of Chicago is a municipal corporation in Illinois. Chicago's Department of Planning and Development is a department of the City of Chicago in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert M. Walker, Esq. THE WALKER LAW GROUP 605 N. Michigan Ave, Floor 4 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 810-9886 Email: robert.walker.esq@gmail.com CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 11, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZA TAYLOR, v. CONVERSENOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00990-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered a pretrial preparation order: Deadline for amendment of the pleadings: Jan. 15, 2026 Further case management: Apr. 3, 2026 at 3:00 PM. Non-expert discovery cutoff is: Aug. 21, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff is: Dec. 4, 2026 Last day to file class certification Sept. 11, 2026 motions shall be filed by; Opp. Due: Oct. 30, 2026 Reply Due: Nov. 20, 2026 hearing no later than: Dec. 11,2026 at 10:00 AM. ConverseNow provides technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yg4l2P at no extra charge.[CC] COOKIE CREWS: Bid to Certify Class in Marcum Suit Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADDILYN MARCUM, v. COOKIE CREWS, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00238-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Van Tatenhove entered an order as follows: 1. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 2. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied as moot. 3. This action is stricken from the Court's active docket. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l2xm3J at no extra charge.[CC] CRASH CHAMPIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rocha Due Oct. 2, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO ROCHA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v. CRASH CHAMPIONS LLC, et. al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01880-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pretrial deadlines as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional Dec. 31, 2025 parties and amended pleadings: Reports of expert witnesses under June 22, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Rebuttal expert disclosures under July 22, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: All motions related to discovery must July 6, 2026 be filed by this date and noted for consideration pursuant to LCR 7(d): Discovery related to class certification Sept. 2, 2026 and the Plaintiff's individual claims to be completed by: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Oct. 2, 2026 for class certification and report of class certification expert: Dispositive motions addressing Plaintiffs' Oct. 2, 2026 individual claims, and motions to exclude expert testimony for failure to satisfy Daubert, must be filed pursuant to LCR 7(d): Crash operates as an auto repair center. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fOBm9 at no extra charge.[CC] CRAWFORD COMMUNITIES: Class Cert Discovery Due July 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAYLEE CAUDILL, v. CRAWFORD COMMUNITIES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01100-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order. -- Any initial disclosures shall be made by Dec. 18, 2025. -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by Mar. 30, 2026. -- All collective and class certification discovery shall be completed by July 31, 2026. -- The Plaintiff will provide Defendant with a list of information needed to formulate a settlement demand by Dec. 9, 2025. The Defendant shall provide agreed-upon information, if any, by Jan. 5. 2026. The Plaintiff will a make a settlement demand by Jan. 20, 2026. The Defendant will respond by Jan. 27, 2026. The parties understand that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement conference. They agree to file a joint status report regarding settlement by Feb. 2, 2026. Crawford is a real estate development company based in Hilliard, OH, specializing in creating residential communities. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GhokgF at no extra charge.[CC] CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NC: Lee et al. Allege IDEA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA LEE, M.S.Ed; R.S. by and through her parent, C.S., and on behalf of all others similarly situated; D.C. By and through his parent, B.C., and on behalf of all others similarly situated; J.M. by and through his parent and guardian, C.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION; CAROL ANN HUDGENS in her official capacity as Senior Director of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Office of Exceptional Children; AYANNA RICHARD in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as Cumberland County Schools' Executive Director of Exceptional Children Services; and SHANNON BOOTH, in her individual capacity and official capacity as Principal of Sherwood Park Elementary School, Defendants, Case No.5:25-cv-00746-D (E.D.N.C., November 20, 2025), alleges that Cumberland County Schools maintained an unlawful policy of using Multi-Tiered System of Support to deny plaintiffs and other similarly situated children of their right to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's evaluation procedures. As a result of CCS's policy and practice of violating the IDEA's Child Find mandate, CCS deprived R.S., D.C. and J.M. of their federal right to full, individual evaluations to identify their educational needs and develop an individualized education plan that provides the specialized instruction and related services necessary to meet those needs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring this class action under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, North Carolina's Protection for Reporting Improper Government Activities, and the common law of North Carolina. Cumberland County Board of Education is a North Carolina educational agency, headquartered and conducting business through local schools in Cumberland County, North Carolina, including Sherwood Pines Elementary School. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Ekstrand, Esq. EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND, LLP 110 Swift Avenue, 2nd Floor Durham, NC 27705 Telephone: (919) 452-4647 E-mail: rce@ninthstreetlaw.com CUSIP GLOBAL: Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument in DFG Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dinosaur Financial Group LLC et al v. CUSIP Global Services et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request oral argument concerning Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TBcZll at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. Jefferson E. Bell, Esq. Esther Lifshitz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com elifshitz@gibsondunn.com jbell@gibsondunn.com - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq. Amanda L. Dollinger, Esq. Craig E. Stewart, Esq. Caroline M. Mitchell, Esq. Kapri Saunders, Esq. Paul C. Hines, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com cestewart@jonesday.com amaugeri@jonesday.com cnmithcell@jonesday.com adollinger@jonesday.com ksaunders@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. Ellison A. Snider, Esq. James J. Kovacs, Esq. Keagan H. Potts, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 E-mail: jeff@scl-llp.com esnider@scl-llp.com james@scl-llp.com kpotts@scl-llp.com - and - W. Stephen Cannon, Esq. Seth D. Greenstein, Esq. Patrick Kennedy, Esq. Sarah Bayer, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1300 N Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 204-3500 Facsimile: (202) 204-3501 E-mail: scannon@constantinecannon.com sgreenstein@constantinecannon.com pkennedy@constantinecannon.com DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Mabey Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA MABEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00497 (D.N.H., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around August 9, 2025 through August 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Trustees of Dartmouth College is a private educational institution with its principal place of business in Hanover, New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 Facsimile: (504) 708-4512 Email: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com EXCELLENT AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Riffle Due Jan. 25, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRIN RIFFLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EXCELLENT AUTO GLASS, LLC; AUTO GLASS SHOP, LLC; and JEFF SEARLES, Case No. 3:24-cv-05975-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Cartwright entered an order setting pretrial deadlines: Case Event Deadline completion of fact discovery: Dec. 18, 2026 Class certification Proponent: Jan. 25, 2027 Respondent: Feb. 22, 2027 Reply in support: March 22, 2027 All discovery motions: March 29, 2027 Completion of all discovery: May 24, 2027 Dispositive motions Proponent: June 16, 2027 Respondent: July 7, 2027 Reply in support: July 21, 2027 Settlement Conference: Aug. 16, 2027 The Defendant is an auto glass repair service. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cipfa5 at no extra charge.[CC] FABS RESTAURANT: Hires Mendez Law Offices PLLC as Counsel --------------------------------------------------------- Fabs Restaurant Group, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida to employ Mendez Law Offices PLLC as counsel. The firm will render these services: (a) advise the Debtor with respect to its powers and duties; (b) advise the Debtor with respect to its responsibilities in complying with the U.S. Trustee's operating guidelines and reporting requirements and with the rules of the court; (c) prepare legal documents necessary in the administration of the Chapter 11 case; (d) protect the interest of the Debtor in all matters pending before the court; and (e) represent the Debtor in negotiation with its creditors in the preparation of a plan. The firm will be paid at these rates: Diego G. Mendez, Esq. $450 per hour Attorneys $350 per hour Paralegals $150 per hour The firm requires an initial fee of $15,000 from the Debtor. Diego Mendez, Esq. disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached through: Diego G. Mendez, Esq. Mendez Law Offices, PLLC P.O. Box 228630 Miami, FL 33178 Telephone: (305) 264-9090 Facsimile: (305) 264-9080 Email: diego.mendez@mendezlawoffices.com About Fabs Restaurant Group, Inc. Fabs Restaurant Group, Inc. filed a petition under Chapter 11, Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 25-23002) on October 31, 2025, listing up to $50,000 in assets and between $100,001 and $500,000 in liabilities. Judge Robert A. Mark presides over the case. Diego Mendez, Esq., represents the Debtor as legal counsel. FOLGER COFFEE: 8th Cir. Flips Class Certification in Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reverses the certification of a class of consumers in the lawsuit styled In re: Folgers Coffee Marketing. Sharel Mawby, Plaintiff; Marcia Sorin, Florida Southern, 9:20-cv-80897; Shelly Ashton, California Central, 5:20cv00992, Plaintiffs - Appellees; Jay Schoener, California Central, 5:20-cv-00992, Plaintiff; Frederick Tan, California Central, 2:20-cv-09370; Ellen Moser, Illinois Northern, 1:20-cv-07074; A. Kevin Fahey, District of Columbia, 1:20-cv-03620; Geoff Thomson, Texas Eastern, 1:21-cv-00009, Plaintiffs - Appellees; Julie Marthaller; Rodger Smith, Florida Southern, 0:21-cv-60265; Deborah Bosso, Plaintiffs; Mark Smith, Plaintiff - Appellee; Ramon Ibarra; Kimberley C. Clark, Eastern District of Texas 6:21-cv-00457; Trina Green, Missouri Western, 4:23-cv-00226-BP; Marcia Nupp, Plaintiffs v. The Folger Coffee Company; The J.M. Smucker Company, Defendants - Appellants; Does, 1 through 50, inclusive; Walmart, Inc., Florida Southern, 0:21-cv-60265, Defendants, Case No. 24-2830 (8th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City. The Eighth Circuit panel consists of Lavenski R. Smith, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd, Circuit Judges. Judge Arnold wrote the opinion of the Court. Missouri resident Mark Smith bought containers of Folgers coffee that featured representations about the number of six-ounce cups that the coffee in each container could produce. Believing the representations to be misleading at best and downright false at worse, Smith, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated to him, sued the Folger Coffee Company and its corporate parent, the J.M. Smucker Company. Smith claimed that Folgers had violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and was unjustly enriched at his expense. The district court, over Folgers's objection, certified a class for Smith to represent, and Folgers, with the Court of Appeals' permission, appealed that decision. The Panel agrees with Folgers that the class was improperly certified, and so the Panel reverses and remands. Smith's lawsuit is one of several similar lawsuits brought against Folgers around the country that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri for pretrial proceedings. After the district court appointed interim class counsel at the parties' behest, the parties filed a consolidated class complaint and later moved to certify six separate statewide classes led by different class representatives. They proposed that Smith represent a class of people, who bought certain Folgers products "in Missouri for personal, family, or household purposes" after a specific date. The district court, without objection from the parties, decided that it would consider whether to certify the Missouri class before considering whether to certify classes involving purchases made in other states. Folgers sells several different coffee products that vary by size, flavor, and roast. In seeking certification of the six state classes, class counsel identified over two dozen Folgers products that contained purported misrepresentations. Smith bought a few of these products, including, for example, Folgers's Classic Coffee Roast weighing 30.5 ounces. The front of that product's container says in all capital letters that it "[m]akes up to 240 6 fl oz cups." The side of the container contains directions, telling consumers how to mix water and coffee "[f]or best brewing results." If the consumer wants to make one serving of coffee, the container directs him to mix six fluid ounces of water with one tablespoon of coffee. The district court called this the "Single-Serving Method." Or, if the consumer wants to make ten servings using the "Pot Method," the container directs him to mix sixty fluid ounces of water with half a cup (eight tablespoons) of ground coffee. The Pot Method is more efficient than the Single-Serving Method because it can generate ten six-ounce cups of coffee using only eight tablespoons of ground coffee; to create ten six-ounce cups of coffee using the Single-Serving Method would take ten tablespoons of ground coffee. Beneath the directions, the container reiterates that it "makes up to 240 suggested strength 6 fl oz servings." The other Folgers products -- that class counsel target -- similarly state that the contents of the container make up to a specific number of cups of coffee. Since common questions would not predominate over individual questions with respect to the MMPA claim, the Panel concludes that class certification was inappropriate. Judge Arnold also finds that Smith's unjust-enrichment claim fares no better. The Panel agrees with the several courts and commentators, who have said that unjust-enrichment claims are generally inappropriate for class treatment. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reverses the district court's decision to certify a class and remands for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 26, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/23d6s3dx from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Opposition to Class Cert Due Jan. 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY REIDT, on behalf of the Frontier Communications 401(k) Savings Plan and all others similarly situated, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01538-RNC (D. Conn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion for extension of expert and class certification deadlines, as follows: Case Event Deadline The Defendants' expert designation and report: Jan. 28, 2026 The Defendants' opposition to class Jan. 30, 2026 certification: The Plaintiff's reply expert designation Feb. 27, 2026 and Report: Close of Expert Discovery: March 20, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply in support of class March 20, 2026 Certification: As agreed between the parties, they will confer further to set a schedule for briefing of dispositive motions. The motion is brought in good faith and not for purposes of delay. No party will be prejudiced by the granting of this motion. The Parties have diligently pursued discovery since the end of 2024. Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative and Other Defenses on October 25, 2024, and the Parties served Initial Disclosures on November 1, 2024. Thereafter, both parties have supplemented those disclosures. The Parties engaged in mediation on November 25, 2025. Despite the Parties' best efforts, the mediation did not result in a full and complete resolution of this matter. Frontier is an American telecommunications company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ffT7Je at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Calvin K. Woo, Esq. Kristen G. Rossetti, Esq. VERRILL DANA LLP 355 Riverside Avenue Westport, CT 06880 Telephone: (203) 222-0885 Facsimile: (203) 226-8025 E-mail: cwoo@verrill-law.com krossetti@verrill-law.com - and - Nancy G. Ross, Esq. Reginald R. Goeke, Esq. Margaret E. Vander, Esq. Malori McGill Fery, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-4637 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Facsimile: (312) 701-7711 E-mail: nross@mayerbrown.com rgoeke@mayerbrown.com mvanderwoude@mayerbrown.com mmcgillfery@mayerbrown.com FULL HOUSE RESORTS: Hansen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Hansen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FULL HOUSE RESORTS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02384 (D. Nev., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant customers' and employees' sensitive information, including full names and Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). Former and current Defendant customers and employees are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain services from Defendant, including tax reporting of gambling winnings. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the consumer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On July 23, 2025, Defendant learned that one of its IT support vendors had been penetrated by a cyberattack (the "Data Breach"). In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature of the Data Breach. As a result of its investigation, on October 14, 2025, Defendant concluded that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised in the Data Breach between July 22 and 23, 2025. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers and employees of Defendant. The Defendant owns and operates casinos and related hospitality and entertainment facilities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (725) 235-9750 Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Seeks Class Cert Opposition Notice in Searcy ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and ERVIN KIRK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file notice of supplemental authority in opposition to class certification. Gilead seeks leave to file a Notice of Supplemental Authority relating to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's recent decision in In re: Folgers Coffee Marketing, F.4th 2025 WL 3292613 (8th Cir. Nov. 26, 2025), which reversed an order granting class certification of claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and for unjust enrichment. Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jNOkJ5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: David R. Carpenter, Esq. Sean A. Commons, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: drcarpenter@sidley.com scommons@sidley.com - and – William Michael Corrigan, Esq. Jennifer A. Hill, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 190 Carondelet Plaza Suite 1350 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 690-0200 E-mail: bcorrigan@shb.com tschwettman@shb.com jshill@shb.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Class Settlement in Sihler Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Hernandez Covington entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, and all Parties to the action for purpose of settlement, including all Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that no persons filed timely requests for exclusion. Global is a global company specializing in chargeback management and prevention for online merchants. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cHbP3W at no extra charge.[CC] GWG HOLDINGS: Bayati Seeks $50.95MM Settlement Fund in GWG Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bayati et al v. GWG Holdings Inc et al. (RE GWG HOLDINGS, INC.), Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-B (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the lead Plaintiff's motion for award of attorneys' fees and expenses: Class Counsel request the Court award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,376,600 or 16.4 % of the $50.95 million settlement fund, plus interest; and approve reimbursement of $441,407.45 in out-of-pocket litigation expenses. The requested fee of $8,376,600 represents a 0.79 multiplier on Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's lodestar. The fee request is therefore reasonable under a lodestar cross-check. Lead Plaintiff's Counsel collectively invested $10,566,422, in attorney time at their customary hourly rates, exceeding the fee requested. Even if awarded in full, counsel will recover only a portion of the time devoted to this matter, despite having devoted themselves to this case without compensation since February 2022. Lead Plaintiff Frank Moore submits this motion on behalf of his attorneys for an award of attorneys' fees for services resulting in the creation of the $50,950,000 settlement fund before the Court. Class Counsel filed this case on behalf of L Bond investors in 2022, alleging securities violations by GWG Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in connection with a series of interrelated bond offerings. GWG operates as a holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ytvvvn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Sean Greene, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com sgreene@girardsharp.com - and - Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq. MALMFELDT LAW GROUP P.C. 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 606-8625 E-mail: pdm@malmfeldt.com - and - Clay R. Mahaffey, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION: Jenkins Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT JENKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION CO., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-02159-MC (D. Or., November 20, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable information including their names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license or Washington ID card numbers, financial and banking information, full dates of birth, passport numbers, health insurance policy or ID numbers, and medical information from hackers. Defendant Hamilton conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had accessed its network without authorization on June 19, 2025, and certain files were accessed. Yet, the Defendant waited over four months to notify the public and the victims of the data breach. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea that their private information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and for violations of the Oregon Consumer Information Act. Hamilton Construction Co. is a construction company based in Springfield, OR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: OLSEN BARTON LLC 4035 Douglas Way, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 468-5573 Facsimile: (503) 820-2933 E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com HCA-HEALTHONE LLC: Underpays Patient Safety Attendants, Jensen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNAN JENSEN and SYLVIA ANZALDUA, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HCA-HEALTHONE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03754-GPG-KAS (D. Colo., November 20, 2025), accuses the Defendant of failing to properly compensate its non-exempt employees for all hours that they worked. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as a patient safety attendant at HCA HealthONE Swedish hospital in Englewood, CO. They worked more than 40 hours in a week and more than 12 hours in a day for Defendant. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs their minimum wage and overtime compensation for all time worked as required by the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Wage Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order. In addition, the Defendants also unlawfully deducted 30 minutes of pay each day worked by Plaintiffs for a meal break even when no meal break was taken by Plaintiffs, in violation of both the Colorado law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. HCA-HealthONE operates hospitals and healthcare facilities across the United States, including in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com HOPE VILLAGE: Fails to Comply With Contracting Law, Magnet Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MAGNET MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOPE VILLAGE DEVELOPER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02316-CSB-RLH (C.D. Ill., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking for a temporary restraining order enjoining it and all agents, contractors, and affiliates from continuing construction at 1729 Carver Dr., Urbana, Illinois, pending proof of compliance with Section 3 requirements. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff qualifies as a Section 3 business concern under 24 C.F.R. Section 75.5. The Plaintiff made multiple inquiries and submitted capability statements to the Defendant and its contractors to participate in the project. The Defendant has failed to establish, document, or report any Section 3 outreach or contracting plans as required under 24 C.F.R. Sections 75.9–75.19. The Defendant's failure to comply with Section 3 regulations denies the Plaintiff and similarly situated Section 3 businesses opportunities that federal law is intended to provide, suit says. Magnet Maintenance Electrical LLC is a provider of electrical maintenance and contracting services based in Champaign, Illinois. Hope Village Developer, LLC is a real estate developer based in Urbana, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy Deen, Esq. MAGNET MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL LLC 1012 Hollycrest Dr. Champaign, IL 61821 Telephone: (217) 888-0600 Email: llcmagnet@gmail.com INOTIV INC: Faces Consolidated Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------- Inotiv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that it is facing a consolidated data breach suit captioned "In re: Inotiv, Inc. Data Incident Litigation," Case No. 4:25-CV-46-PPS-JEM, consolidated on October 21, 2025. As a result of the consolidation, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on November 26, 2025. The company was initially named as a defendant in a putative class actions relating to the cybersecurity incident experienced in August 2025. Case was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana docketed under "Doyal v. Inotiv, Inc.," Case No. 4:25-cv-00046, filed on August 21, 2025. Complaint generally alleges that the plaintiffs and the proposed class members were harmed when their personally identifying information and protected health information was impacted by the breach. The purported class includes all persons in the United States. Complaint seeks (i) an order certifying the cases as class actions, (ii) unspecified amounts of monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and (iii) certain injunctive or equitable relief relating to (a) the safeguarding of proposed class members' private information, and (b) the implementation of technical and administrative cybersecurity programs, procedures and controls. Inotiv, Inc. and its subsidiaries comprise a contract research organization dedicated to providing nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services to the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and selling a range of research-quality animals and diets to the same industries as well as academia and government clients. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, et al., v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Walker entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives and class counsel, approval of class notice, notice plan, and claims form, and appointment of a notice administrator. The proposed class is certified as to Counts I and II. Class representatives, class counsel, and the class administrator are APPOINTED as requested. The proposed class notice and notice plan are approved. Class certification is denied as to Counts III and IV. The Court reserves ruling on approval of the claim form. The defendants’ motions to exclude the expert opinions and testimony of Michael Malecki, Laura Craft, and Rena Conti. The Plaintiffs CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., and CareFirst Bluechoice, Inc. move to (1) certify a class and appoint class representatives and class counsel and (2) approve class notice, notice plan, claims form, and appointment of notice administrator. The Court has previously described the factual background of this case, so it will not do so here. CareFirst now moves to certify two classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g): a "Damages Class" and an "Unjust Enrichment Class," defined as: "All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased or paid for, as part of a prescription drug benefit, some or all of the purchase price for Stelara in the [Damages Class or Unjust Enrichment] States or Territories for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries, from Jan. 1, 2024 until Dec. 31, 2025 (the "Class Period"). The following entities are excluded from the Damages Class: a) J&J and its subsidiaries and affiliates; b) federal and state governmental entities; and c) Third-Party Payers whose only purchases were made pursuant to any Medicaid plan, whether Fee-for-Service or Managed Medicaid. Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WuExEE at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Suit Seeks Class Notice Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for approval of 45 day notice period. The plaintiffs request an order approving an opt-out deadline of Jan. 22, 2026, and the 45-day notice period first commencing on Dec. 8, 2025. On Dec. 5, 2025, the Court entered a Class Certification Order, approving class certification as to Counts I and II, denying class certification as to Counts III and IV1 and approving the "proposed class notice and notice plan." The parties met and conferred regarding the appropriate notice period. J&J acknowledged the opt-out period should end before the start of trial and stated that it had no objection to a 45 day notice period with an opt-out deadline of Jan. 22, 2026, but only on the condition that the Court enter an order approving the same. J&J stated that it would not object to a motion requesting such an order but declined to join the motion. Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bbAft8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser, Esq. GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C. Crown Center, Suite 600 580 East Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. Rebekah Glickman-Simon HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com abbyeo@hbsslaw.com whitneyst@hbsslaw.com hannahs@hbsslaw.com - and - Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Noelle Ruggiero, Esq. Alexis Castillo, Esq. Thomas Griffith, Esq. Peyton A. Woodward, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com URabinovitz@lowey.com RGirnys@lowey.com NRuggiero@lowey.com ACastillo@lowey.com tgriffith@lowey.com pwoodward@lowey.com - and - John Radice, Esq. April Lambert, Esq. Kenneth Pickle, Esq. Charles Kopel, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com alambert@radicelawfirm.com kpickle@radicelawfirm.com ckopel@radicelawfirm.com KELSIER LABS: Court Partly Grants Bid to Unseal Docs in "Hurlock" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kelsier Labs, LLC, d/b/a Kelsier Ventures, Hayden Mark Davis, Gideon Davis, Charles Thomas Davis, Meteora, an unincorporated association, and Benjamin Chow, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03891 (JLR), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendant Hayden Davis's motion to unseal documents in a putative class action concerning an alleged fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme involving the $LIBRA token. Plaintiffs sued Defendants for their alleged scheme to defraud investors regarding the $LIBRA token. Plaintiff Hurlock originally brought this putative class action in state court. On May 9, 2025, Defendant Chow removed the case to federal court. For the first month of the litigation, three attorneys entered appearances for Hurlock: Max Burwick of Burwick Law, PLLC, Margaret Hoppin of Hoppin Grinsell LLP, and Timothy Treanor of Treanor Law, PLLC, which is now Treanor Devlin Brown PLLC. On May 21, 2025, Hurlock moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to freeze the assets held by Defendants, which the Court granted on May 27, 2025. On June 10, 2025, Treanor Law filed an ex parte letter under seal requesting guidance on filing a sensitive motion concerning the termination of Treanor Law. Burwick Law responded on June 11, 2025, opposing the request and asserting that Treanor Law no longer represented Hurlock, attaching a termination letter. The Court ordered Hurlock to file a sworn affidavit confirming that he terminated Treanor Law as counsel in this matter. Hurlock thereafter filed an affidavit indicating that he terminated Treanor Law as his counsel. Treanor Law subsequently filed a motion disputing that Hurlock knowingly consented to the termination of Treanor Law with full information and sought the appointment of Treanor Law as interim class counsel, which Burwick Law and Hoppin opposed. The Court held a conference on June 27, 2025 where Hurlock was present. The Court discussed the motion filed by Treanor Law and confirmed directly with Hurlock that, notwithstanding the items raised by Treanor Law, he still intended to terminate Treanor Law as his counsel. The Court thereafter denied Treanor Law's motion to be appointed interim class counsel because of the procedural posture of the case and informed termination of Treanor Law by Hurlock. On July 10, 2025, Defendant Hayden Davis filed a motion to unseal the items filed at Dkts. 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 41, on the grounds that the common law presumption of public access applies to these filings. Hurlock opposed the motion, claiming that countervailing confidentiality factors, including the potential for revealing client confidential and privileged communications and the work product doctrine, outweighed the presumption of public access. On July 17, 2025, the Court ordered Hurlock to submit proposed redactions and supplemental briefing for the court to conduct an in camera review of the documents and unseal documents or portions thereof for which the presumption of public access outweighs any countervailing interests. Judicial documents are subject at common law to a potent and fundamental presumptive right of public access. The common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history. Since Article III judges are shielded from electoral accountability, preserving the public confidence requires vigorous professional and public monitoring. Such monitoring is not possible without access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of Article III functions. Therefore, a judicial document may be sealed only when there is a strong countervailing interest against public access. The Second Circuit articulated a three-step analysis to decide whether material filed with the court can remain under seal. First, the court must conclude that the documents at issue are indeed judicial documents, meaning that the item is relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process. Second, the court will determine the weight of that presumption which is governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts. Lastly, the court weighs the presumption of public access attached to the document against the countervailing factors, such as privacy interests. The Court found that the materials filed at Dkts. 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 41 are judicial documents. A judicial document is an item filed with the court that is relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process. The items were filed in relation to issues presented to the Court regarding the ongoing representation of Hurlock, including a motion to appoint interim class counsel and are therefore judicial documents. Countervailing considerations include protecting from disclosure confidential client information, such as privileged communications and legal strategies, that could prejudice the client if disclosed. Courts routinely allow papers submitted in connection with a motion regarding attorney representation to be filed under seal where necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship between a party and its counsel and to protect the client from being prejudiced by the motion. The work product doctrine also shields from disclosure materials prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or the party's representative, absent a showing of substantial need. The Court unsealed Dkt. 37 and Dkt. 37-1, which are the affidavit of Hurlock and the termination letter, because these items do not present countervailing interests that overcome the presumption of public access. The Court also unsealed Dkt. 41, Hoppin's brief opposition to Treanor Law's motion, in full because the letter contains no confidential client information or litigation strategy. The Court unsealed Dkts. 34, 35, 36, 39, and 40 with limited redactions to prevent disclosure of confidential client information, including communications protected by attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. The Court found that Dkt. 35-1, Hurlock's letter terminating Treanor Law as his attorney, will be unsealed in its entirety because communications concerning the termination of the retainer agreement are not privileged. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to unseal. The Court unsealed Dkts. 37 and 41 in full and unsealed Dkts. 34, 35, 36, 39, 40 with redactions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Ek4zF from PacerMonitor.com KING COUNTY, WA: Class Settlement in Tucker Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALIK TUCKER and REGINALD WILLIAMS, v. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, Case No. 2:24-cv-00002-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and due process requirements. 2. Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, for purposes of this Settlement only, the Settlement Class is defined as follows: a. No Warrants Subclass: "all persons who (i) were detained by the Defendant King County for more than 48 hours without a determination of probable cause or a warrant for their arrest at any time between Jan. 2, 2021 and April 23, 2025, and (ii) were not detained pursuant to a warrant in an unrelated matter during the pendency of their detention." b. Warrants Subclass: "all persons who (i) were detained by the Defendant King County for more than 48 hours without a determination of probable cause or a warrant for their arrest at any time between Jan. 2, 2021 and April 23, 2025, and (ii) were also detained pursuant to a warrant in an unrelated matter during the pendency of their detention." 3. The Court approves Class Counsel's petition for a Service Award to the Named Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000.00 each per Named Plaintiff. 4. The Court approves Class Counsel's petition for attorneys' fees and expenses of $440,000.00, plus the difference between the amount Class Counsel requested as a Service Award and that which the Court ordered. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EDfhF2 at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Gutierrez Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAMIL LUNA GUTIERREZ, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01766-SLS (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Sooknanan entered an order granting in part, as modified, and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The case is certified as a class action with the following class definition: "All immigration detainees originally apprehended and detained in the United States who have been ordered removed, except those ordered removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1225, and who are, or will be, held at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." The Court further entered an order that: The class may pursue Administrative Procedure Act and Fifth Amendment claims under Counts I, II, and III of the Complaint against the Defendants for the recent policy of holding immigration detainees at Guantanamo. Yamil Luna Gutierrez and Rafael Angel Lopez Ocon are appointed as Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs' counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, Center for Constitutional Rights, and International Refugee Assistance Project are appointed as class counsel. The Lee Gelernt, Eunice H. Cho, and Noor Zafar of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Arthur B. Spitzer and Scott Michelman of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia are appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Co-Lead Class Counsel will be responsible for and have the authority to prosecute any and all claims of the Plaintiffs and the class and to provide general supervision of the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=insXX4 at no extra charge.[CC] LAS PRINCESAS: Settlement Classes Get Certification in Hernandez ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALBERTO HERNANDEZ LARA, et al., v. LAS PRINCESAS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00346-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Walker entered an order as follows: -- The Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlements, the following Settlement Classes: Las Princesas Class "All individuals who were brought to the U.S. by Defendant Las Princesas to perform agricultural work under H-2A contracts in the U.S. between May 29, 2021, and September 9, 2024." Tankard Class "All individuals who were brought to the U.S. as H-2A workers by the Las Princesas Corporation and/or Martha Zeferino José and who performed work for The Tankard Nurseries Inc. between May 29, 2021, and the present." -- The Court finally approves under Rule 23(e)(2) the Settlement Classes, and, having previously appointed Class Counsel and approved the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, finds that all prerequisites to certification of a Settlement Class have been met. -- The proposed service awards of $2,500 for each of the four Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives are reasonable in light of their assistance to the class in securing the settlement, including attendance at the mediation. The proposed payments of $1,000 to each of these four Named Plaintiffs for their alleged individual damages under state and federal anti- trafficking statutes are reasonable and also approved. -- The Settlements contemplate a payment of $60,000 in attorneys' fees. -- If no appeal is filed from a final order in this case, then 15 days after the entry of a final judgment approving this class settlement the terms of this monetary relief shall take effect. The Class shall receive a monetary recovery of three- hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) to be distributed to class members as follows: A. Tankard Settlement Within 15 days of this Order, Tankard shall issue payments to Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of: 1. The gross sum of $100,000 shall be for alleged back wages (Back Wages) and liquidated damages ("Liquidated Damages") under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Virginia Wage Payment Act (VWPA), and Virginia Overtime Wages Act (VOWA). Of this amount, $50,000 shall be paid to Plaintiffs, FLSA Opt-Ins, and Settlement Class members as back wages, and $50,000 shall be paid as liquidated damages. 2. Each FLSA Opt-In and Settlement Class Member who worked for Tankard or who was assigned to Tankard pursuant to the labor contract between Tankard and Las Princesas Corporation between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022 shall receive an amount proportional to the overtime wages calculated by Plaintiffs to be owed to them for work performed during this period. Each FLSA Opt-In and Settlement Class Member who worked for Tankard or who was assigned to Tankard pursuant to the labor contract between Tankard and Las Princesas Corporation between May 29, 2021 and the date this Agreement is fully executed shall receive an amount proportional to the back wages calculated by Plaintiffs to be owed to them for other alleged violations of the FLSA and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. $7,500 shall be paid to the named Plaintiffs José Alberto Hernández Lara, Ismael Lorenzo Perez, and Uriel Hernández Espinoza ($2,500 each) for their service to the Rule 23 class. 3. $42,500 shall be for the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses. $12,500 in costs (to include costs associated with notice and settlement distribution) and $30,000 in fees shall be paid by wire or by a check payable to Kakalec Law PLLC. B. Las Princesas Settlement The Las Princesas Defendants shall make all additional monthly payments as provided under their Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs until the Las Princesas Defendants have paid a total of $150,000 in settlement of Plaintiffs' individual and the class claims. All payments shall continue to be made to the Kakalec Law PLLC IOLTA Client Trust Account and shall be wired to Plaintiffs' counsel or mailed to Plaintiffs' counsel at 80 Broad Street, Suite 703, New York, NY 10004 (or any address subsequently designated by Plaintiffs' counsel). The Las Princesas Defendants may, in their discretion, pay these amounts earlier than these dates. The total $150,000 accounts for: 1. Approximately $43,000 shall be for alleged damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) for Settlement Class Members, and $4,000 shall be for damages for the individual named Plaintiffs’ trafficking claims ($1,000 each). 2. The gross sum of approximately $55,500 shall be for alleged back wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Virginia Wage Payment Act (VWPA), Virginia Overtime Wages Act (VOWA), and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). Of this amount, half shall be paid to Plaintiffs, FLSA Opt-Ins, and Settlement Class members as back wages, and half shall be paid as liquidated 7 damages 3. $2,500 shall be paid to the named Plaintiff Leonel Santiago Gomez for his service to the Rule 23 class. 4. Up to $45,000 shall be for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses: up to $15,000 in costs (to include costs associated with notice and settlement distribution) and $30,000 in fees. Las Princesas is an agricultural company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pZBqxH at no extra charge.[CC] LENDWYSE LLC: Harris TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Princess Harris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LendWyse, LLC, Case No. 25CV011705-310 was removed from the Durham County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Dec. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01096 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LendWyse, LLC -- https://lendwyse.com/ -- is a legitimate, licensed financial services company that operates as a loan marketplace and provides debt consolidation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD LAW 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: (919) 960-1545 Email: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryli Wallace Leader, Esq. BURR & FORMAN 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610 Charlotte, NC 28280 Phone: (205) 458-5394 Fax: (704) 347-4467 Email: rleader@burr.com LIMESTONE BANK: $950KK Settlement in Cooper Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIMESTONE BANK, INC. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00389-GNS-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Stivers entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, and denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for hearing. 1. The Court certifies the following Plaintiff Class for settlement purposes only: "All persons who were charged one or more Challenged Fees by Limestone Bank during the Class Period." The Class Period is May 3, 2013, to April 30, 2023, and Challenged Fees means: (i) Overdraft fees incurred during the Class Period on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds and settled on negative funds in the same amount for which the debit card transaction was authorized ("APSN Fees"); and (ii) Fees charged as a result of a verification process on an account in which a third-party deposited and debited minimal amounts of equal funds in less than 24 hours ("Verify Bank Fees"). Excluded from the Class are Defendant's current and former officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns, along with all judges who have presided over this matter and their immediate families and judicial staff. The Court appoints Robin Cooper as Class Representative, and the Court appoints Cohen & Malad, LLP, and Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, as Class Counsel. 2. A final approval hearing shall be held before the undersigned at 11:00 AM ET, on March 19, 2026. Class Benefits Class members will share in a settlement in the amount of $950,000. In sum, the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) support the certification of the proposed class as defined in the Agreement. Accordingly, the Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for the purposes of settlement. Both the Rule 23 and Sixth Circuit factors weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the Agreement. Accordingly, the Agreement represents a fair and reasonable settlement to a bona fide dispute and is preliminarily approved. Limestone provides financial services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fz7HUz at no extra charge.[CC] LINKSQUARES INC: Caicedo Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action, appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class defined below ("Class"), and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should certify the following proposed Class: "All persons who (1) worked for LinkSquares since Oct. 17, 2021, in any of the following roles: Account Executive, Account Executive I, Account Executive II, Account Executive III, Sales Development Representative, Sales Development Representative I, Sales Development Representative II, Enterprise Sales Development Representative, (2) earned less in total annual compensation than the threshold salary for highly compensated employees under 29 C.F.R. section 541.601 in effect during a calendar year in which the employee worked; and (3) have not previously signed a release of legal claims against the Company." LinkSquares provides artificial intelligence solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X3jAr7 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 LINKSQUARES INC: Parties Seek Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 granting joint motion to impound per Local Rule 7.2. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal and to have impounded certain exhibits in support of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant produced and marked the Subject Exhibits discussed as "confidential" under the Parties' Protective Order, which was entered by the Court on June 5, 2025. The Parties met and conferred regarding Defendant's confidentiality designations, narrowed their disputes regarding such confidentiality designations, and Plaintiffs do not oppose the designations made to the Subject Exhibits discussed. The Plaintiffs have submitted a supporting memorandum hereto, and, as the original designating party, Defendant will submit a further responsive memorandum to this Joint Motion providing additional justifications regarding their designations of the Subject Exhibits. Defendant asks the Court to allow Defendant to file the supporting memorandum by December 23, 2025, because Defendant is preparing a motion for decertification (due today) and also has a December 22, 2025 deadline to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Subject Exhibits, as discussed further in Plaintiffs' supporting memorandum and in Defendant’s forthcoming memorandum, are: a. Exhibit 1: Excerpts of deposition transcript of LinkSquares Chief Revenue Officer Stephen McKenzie, dated October 17, 2025, showing: non-public financial information (including employee salary and compensation data); the names of LinkSquares employees below the VP level who were not deposed and are not opt-in plaintiffs; the names of companies LinkSquares considers to be its "direct competitors"; non-public information about the revenue generated by certain LinkSquares products; non-public information about LinkSquares's product pricing and packaging; and non-public information about LinkSquares’s product discounting policies and practices. b. Exhibit 6: Excerpts of deposition transcript of former LinkSquares Chief Revenue Officer Steve Travaglini, dated November 17, 2025, showing: non-public financial information (including employee salary and compensation data); the names of LinkSquares employees below the VP level who were not deposed and are not opt-in plaintiffs; non-public information about LinkSquares's product pricing and packaging; and non-public information about LinkSquares's product discounting policies and practices. c. Exhibit 11: Non-public document used to guide hiring interviews for SDRs. d. Exhibits 14-15: Non-public new hire training and onboarding scheduling materials. e. Exhibits 16-20: Non-public training documents discussing Defendant’s internal sales techniques. LinkSquares provides artificial intelligence solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oOo2k3 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: Hillary J. Massey, Esq. Barry J. Miller, Esq. Beth L. Sherwood, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 E-mail: hmassey@seyfarth.com bmiller@seyfarth.com bsherwood@seyfarth.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Black Lives Matter Los Angeles et al., v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marshall entered an order Having considered the stipulation, the Court sets the following briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class Dec. 8, 2025 Certification to be filed: The Defendants' opposition to be filed: Jan. 6, 2026 The Plaintiffs' reply to be filed: Jan. 13, 2026 Hearing on the renewed motion: Jan. 27, 2026 At 10:00 a.m. Los Angeles is the most populous city in the U.S. state of California, and the commercial, financial, and cultural center of Southern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7PbLZW at no extra charge.[CC] LUX MEDSPA BRICKELL: Watson Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- James Watson, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lux MedSpa Brickell, L.L.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-25642-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff is unable to effectively access, navigate, and communicate with Defendant through the website https://www.luxmedspabrickell.com, due to his blindness and the Website's access barriers. Thus, Plaintiff as well as others who are blind and with visual disabilities will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant's intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly enjoined by this Court. As the result of the barriers to communication which are present within the website and by continuing to operate and/or benefit from the mobile website with such barriers, Defendant has contributed to Plaintiff's frustration, humiliation, sense of isolation and segregation and has deprived Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the public. The Plaintiff has suffered (and will continue to suffer) direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's violations until Defendant is compelled to comply with the ADA and conform the website to WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA Guidelines, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities. Lux MedSpa Brickell, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company that owns and operates "Lux MedSpa Brickell", a premier medical spa located in Miami's Brickell neighborhood.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 220, Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com MAD ROOM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cannet Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- SEAN CANNET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MAD ROOM HOSPITALITY, LLC; and THE MAD ROOM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-62454-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 1, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Cannet was employed by the Defendants as a server. The Mad Room Hospitality, LLC is a Polynesian-themed restaurant located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 441-8909 Email: jminick@jsmlawpa.com MARKETSTAR QOZ BUSINESS: Jones Sues Over Illegal Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Dustin Jones, for and on behalf of himself and other persons similarly Situated v. MARKETSTAR QOZ BUSINESS, LLC and AON CONSULTING, INC., MARKETSTAR QOZ BUSINESS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-14710 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for engaging in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADAAA"). MarketStar requires AON's flagship screening products—the ADEPT-15 adaptive personality inventory and the gridChallenge cognitive "gamified" assessment--as a mandatory gatekeeping step in its hiring process for all U.S. job openings. Applicants who do not achieve a sufficiently high score on these tests are automatically rejected or deprioritized by MarketStar, frequently before any human being ever looks at their resume or application. AON's own technical manuals and validation studies conclusively demonstrate that both tests produce large, statistically significant racial score gaps and systematic differences on personality dimensions that correlate with common mental-health disabilities (including autism, PTSD, depression, anxiety, and OCD). Despite having full knowledge of these disparities from AON's publicly available documentation and industry standards, MarketStar continues to enforce these tests, rejecting individuals like Jones based on biased outputs without any mitigation or alternative procedures. MarketStar's willful disregard for these known biases perpetuates systemic discrimination across its global operations. The Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, the classes he seeks to represent have made applications for employment using MarketStar's platform only to be rejected. Because of this high rate of rejection, Plaintiff, and the classes he seeks to represent have also been discouraged from seeking employment with MarketStar and similar firms that use biased screening as such application is futile because of MarketStar's discriminatory algorithmic decision-making tools. The hiring discrimination African-Americans and the disabled have experienced and are experiencing because of MarketStar's discriminatory practices cause tangible financial harm, and are unreasonable, vexatious, and humiliating. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a 35-year-old bi-racial male (African-American and white), who was diagnosed with autism, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood in September of 2021. MarketStar is a global outsourcing agency headquartered in Ogden, Utah, specializing in B2B sales, marketing, channel partner management, customer success, and revenue operations services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee D. Winston, Esq. Roderick T. Cooks, Esq. Bethany M. Neal, Esq. WINSTON COOKS, LLC 420 20th Street North, Suite 2200 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 502-0970 Facsimile: (205) 278-5876 Email: lwinston@winstoncooks.com rcooks@winstoncooks.com bneal@winstoncooks.com MEMBERS IN BLACK: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Members in Black Private Security/MIB, et al. The case is styled as Rebekah Ann Brown, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Members in Black Private Security/MIB, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25CV028717 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Members in Black Private Security/MIB -- https://www.mibsacramento.com/ -- is a professional security services in Sacramento for events, businesses & homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Sandoval, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 META PLATFORMS: Must Respond to Amended Complaint by Feb. 16, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc. et al. (RE META PLATFORMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-08812-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to adjust the current schedule to allow for an orderly process for filing the amended complaint and for motion to dismiss briefing, followed by class certification briefing: 1. The deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to add parties or amend pleadings shall be moved from Jan. 13, 2026 to Feb. 16, 2026; 2. The Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss or otherwise, on or before May 18, 2026; 3. Lead Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, if any, on or before Aug. 10, 2026; 4. The Defendants shall file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, if any, on or before Sept. 24, 2026; 5. Pursuant to the PSLRA, all discovery in this action is stayed as of the date of this stipulation; and 6. All further deadlines in the action, including the deadlines for class certification briefing and the close of fact discovery, are suspended pending the resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss. Lead Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint in this action, the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, on October 28, 2022; WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fg1u9C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. Jorge G. Tenreiro, Esq. Aasiya M. Glover, Esq. Mathews R. de Carvalho, Esq. Sarah Schmidt, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com jorge.tenreiro@blbglaw.com aasiya.glover@blbglaw.com mathews.decarvalho@blbglaw.com sarah.schmidt@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Shawn Busken, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (800) 282-0515 E-mail: Shawn.Busken@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov The Defendants are represented by: James P. Rouhandeh, Esq. Charles S. Duggan, Esq. Rory A. Leraris, Esq. Nikolaus J. Williams, Esq. Esther C. Townes, Esq. Paulina Perlin, Esq. Neal A. Potischman, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800 E-mail: rouhandeh@davispolk.com charles.duggan@davispolk.com nikolaus.williams@davispolk.com paulina.perlin@davispolk.com neal.potischman@davispolk.com rory.leraris@davispolk.com esther.townes@davispolk.com META PLATFORMS: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file under seal Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Meta seeks to provisionally seal the following materials because they contain information designated by Meta as CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY, or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- SOURCE CODE pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case. Meta is the American multinational technology company, formerly known as Facebook. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zPJ0Df at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Kristin Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com MSP RECOVERY: Continues to Defend Stanley Shareholder Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MSP Recovery, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2021, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Stanley shareholder class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On May 7, 2025, Lionheart Equities, LLC, the sponsor of Lionheart Acquisition Corporation II, and certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”), Stanley v. Lionheart Equities, LLC, No. 2025–0505–LWW (Del. Ch. filed May 7, 2025) (the “Shareholder Litigation”). The complaint alleges fiduciary-duty breaches and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants intend to vigorously defend their position in the Shareholder Litigation. MSP Recovery Inc., formerly known as formerly known as Lionheart Acquisition Corporation II, operates as a medicare, medicaid, commercial, and secondary payer reimbursement recovery company. The Company offers healthcare reimbursement system with data-driven solutions to secure recoveries against responsible parties. MSP Recovery serves customers in the United States. [BN] NATERA INC: Class Action Settlement in Davis Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis v. Natera, Inc. (RE NATERA PRENATAL TESTING LITIGATION) Case No. 4:22-cv-00985-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement as modified. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, and the terms embodied therein pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The Court preliminarily finds that the relief provided—a non-reversionary common settlement fund of $8,250,000—is adequate considering, among other things, the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the alleged harm to Settlement Class Members, and the proposed method of distributing payments to the Settlement Class (i.e., direct digital and mailed payments). Within seven business days of this Order, Defendant shall pay the Escrow Agent Eight Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($8,250,000) to be placed in an interest-bearing account that constitutes a qualified settlement fund. The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a "Settlement Class," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), consisting of: "All persons in the United States who purchased at least one Natera NIPT (under the brands Panorama and Vasistera) during the applicable Class Period." The Settlement Class Period depends on the state in which the Settlement Class Member's testing was ordered, and is defined as follows: State(s) Dates Ohio February 17, 2016 – August 7, 2025 New Jersey May 5, 2016 – August 7, 2025 Florida February 24, 2017 – August 7, 2025 New York & Illinois April 27, 2017 – August 7, 2025 All other states February 17, 2018 – August 7, 2025 The Court appoints Plaintiffs Lisa Cassinis, Sara Martinez, Amanda Law, Lillian Delaurie, Laura Ashley Heryla, Yelena Kreynstein, Chelsey Stephens, and Amanda Davis as Settlement Class Representatives. The Court appoints the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court approves an initial payment by the Escrow Agent to the Settlement Administrator of $475,000 from the Settlement Fund for Notice and Administrative Costs. The Escrow Agent may pay the Settlement Administrator additional Notice and Administrative Costs out of the Settlement Fund as payments come due, not to exceed $599,000 in total Notice and Administrative Costs. To the extent Notice and Administrative Costs exceed $599,000, Plaintiffs must seek approval from the Court. Natera is a clinical genetic testing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4v4VIZ at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURBRAN PIERRE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, TD BANK N.A., DUANE READE INC., B & H PHOTO VIDEO PRO AUDIO LLC, BLOOMBERG L.P., TRIHOP 14TH STREET LLC, DOES NOS. 1-10, SILVERSEAL CORPORATION d/b/a/ S.E.A.L. SECURITY LLC, and GARDAWORLD SECURITY CORPORATION d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Case No. 1:20-cv-05116-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order as follows: . 1. The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval. 2. Pursuant to FRCP 23, the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Class consisting of: "All current and former New York City Police Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, and Lieutenants ("Officers") who worked at a Duane Reade location in New York State through the Paid Detail Program at any time from July 3, 2014 through May 15, 2025." 3. The Court appoints Plaintiff Burbran Pierre to represent the Class, finding that the Plaintiff meets all the requirements for class certification under FRCP 23(a) and (b)(3). 4. The Court finds that service payments of $10,000 to Burbran Pierre, Luc Vaval, Angel Rivera, Jean Francois-Pierre, and Wendy Earls; $8,000 to Albert Piney; $7,000 to Ryan Loomis, Mostayen Faysal, and Kenneth Walls; and $3,000 to Kyna Phillip and Robinson Martinez are reasonable. 5. The Court appoints Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel, finding that they meet all the requirements under the FRCP 23(g). 6. The Court grants Class Counsel's requested fees of $2,408,333.33 and reimbursement of litigation expenses of $ 100,000.00. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ExaqJO at no extra charge.[CC] ORACLE CORP: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Access of PII ------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Smith, Michael Ellis, Dolores Ferrero, Gerry Greco, Kimberly Martel, Timothy Martins, Joseph Molina, Patrick Reynolds, Leonid Rosenboim, Matthew Sampson, Henry Sanchez, and Benjamin Wand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORACLE, CORP., RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., TRIMBLE, INC., INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES HOLDING CORP., MILGARD MANUFACTURING, INC., ENVOY AIR, INC., EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., MKS INSTRUMENTS, INC., SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., and LOGITECH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01964 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought as a result of a data breach involving the unauthorized access and exfiltration of sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), including names, dates of birth, addresses, bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, tax ID numbers, and passport numbers, of millions of Class Members, including Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have been substantially injured by Defendants' data security failures. Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII has or will be published for sale on the dark web following the Data Breach, as that is the modus operandi of cybercriminals that commit cyberattacks of this type and they have already published data from the Data Breach on a dark web leak site. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, lost time and expenses mitigating the risk of data misuse, diminishment in value of their PII, lost time monitoring and repairing credit, and failing to receive the benefit of the bargain reached with Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring this action to hold Defendants accountable for their data security failures, enjoin their continued failure to implement basic and fundamental data security practices, and recover damages and all other relief available at law on behalf of themselves and members of the Class they seek to represent, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defednants. Oracle is a company specializing in cloud-based computing services and data storage serving thousands of corporate clients by helping them "run their key business operations."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Lawrence, Esq. Braden N. Anderson, Esq. RIGBY SLACK, PLLC 3500 Jefferson Street, Suite 330 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (512) 782-2060 Email: dlawrence@rigbyslack.com banderson@rigbyslack.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-540-7200 Email: jpizirusso@hausfeld.com PACS GROUP: Continues to Defend Manchin Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- PACS Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Manchin securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 13, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08636-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) ("Manchin Action") was filed against the Company, individual defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Jacqueline Millard, and Taylor Leavitt; and underwriter defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Truist Securities, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Stephens Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Regions Securities LLC. The complaint brings claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges the Company and its leadership engaged in a multi-year scheme to inflate revenue and profitability by (i) exploiting a COVID-era Medicare waiver to "flip" long-term Medicaid patients to higher-paying Medicare coverage, (ii) billing unnecessary Medicare Part B respiratory and sensory integration therapies, and (iii) falsifying licensure and staffing documentation. On January 7, 2025, the court consolidated the Manchin action with a similar action brought by plaintiff New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, and on February 11, 2025 the court appointed 1199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and its counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as lead counsel. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and as ordered by the court on May 29, 2025, the Lead Plaintiff's consolidated complaint is not due until 14 days after it files its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2024 and its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint is due 60 days after the complaint is filed, Plaintiffs' opposition is due 60 days after the filing of the motion to dismiss, and Defendants' reply is due 45 days after the filing of the opposition. PACS is one of the largest operators of skilled nursing facilities ("SNFs") and post-acute care facilities in the United States.[BN] PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Due Oct. 23, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.; COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01933-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order revising case schedule set forth in the Parties’ Stipulation to Modify Case Schedule as follows Case Event Date The Plaintiff's deadline to file opposition Jan. 21, 2026 to Defendants' early motion for summary judgment: Hearing on Defendants' early motion for April 23, 2026 summary judgment: Class-certification non-expert discovery July 22, 2026 Completion: Class-certification expert discovery Oct. 2, 2026 cut-off: Last day to file class certification motion: Oct. 23, 2026 Oppositions to class certification motion: Dec. 8, 2026 Reply in support of class certification motion: Jan. 12, 2027 Hearing on class certification motion Jan. 28, 2027 and/or further case management Conference: Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GV0KHA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Rachael G. Jung, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rjung@kellergrover.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 447-0100 Facsimile: (916) 933-5533 E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Patterson, Esq. Meghan C. Killian, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957-3000 Facsimile: (415) 957-3001 E-mail: cspatterson@duanemorris.com mckillian@duanemorris.com - and - Sophia M. Mancall-Bitel, Esq. Matthew D. Provance, Esq. Michelle J. Annunziata, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave., 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 E-mail: smancall-bitel@mayerbrown.com mprovance@mayerbrown.com mannunziata@mayerbrown.com PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Faces Chavira-Hernandez Data Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN CHAVIRA-HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09684 (S.D.N.Y., November 20, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and of others, including their names, Social Security numbers, addresses, birthdates, and financial account information. In or around late April 2025, cybercriminals were able to infiltrate Pillsbury's computer systems. The data breach resulted in the download of "firm documents" and caused associated harm to Plaintiff and Class Members. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and declaratory relief. Pittman Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP. is an international law firm that provides legal services to a variety of sectors, including in the fields of technology, finance, energy, and life sciences. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com PIO PIO: Lopez Must File Amended Complaint by Jan. 5, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABRAHAM LOPEZ et. al., v. PIO PIO NYC, INC. et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03998-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order: -- The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint by Jan. 5, 2026. -- Initial requests for production of documents shall be served by Jan. 14, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for/to collective action certification no later than Feb. 4, 2026. Any opposition shall be filed by Feb. 25, 2026. Any reply shall be filed by Mar. 4, 2026. -- The parties shall file a joint letter by Mar. 6, 2026 indicating whether they would like the Court to refer the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge and/or the Court mediation program for settlement purposes and, if so, approximately when they believe a settlement conference should be held. -- The next pretrial conference is scheduled for Sept. 10, 2026 at 3 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kkJzaF at no extra charge.[CC] RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Suit Seeks to Change Class Cert Date ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to change time for class certification responsive deadlines and sealing-related declaration: The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant this administrative motion and enter an order: 1. Extending the Plaintiff's class certification responsive deadline(s) by two court days as related to the following: Motion in limine and opposition to motion for class certification from Dec. 17, 2025 to Dec. 19, 2025; and 2. Extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file his statement in support of sealing materials submitted in connection with class certification by two court days from Dec. 8, 2025 to Dec. 10, 2025. The requested two day extension will not prejudice the Defendant. Defendant has already filed its class certification opposition and related materials; a short extension for the Plaintiff's responsive filings does not materially affect the Defendant's workload. The class certification hearing currently set for Jan. 15, 2026, will still proceed as scheduled, with ample time for the Court to consider the completed briefing. By contrast, denying the extension would prejudice the Plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the balance of equities strongly favors granting the requested two day enlargement of time. The requested extension is necessary because Defendant's unredacted document productions were delayed, leaving the Plaintiff insufficient time to review those materials and incorporate them into his responsive submissions and sealing showing. This motion does not seek to modify the class certification hearing date or any other case management deadlines. Ralph markets products in apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDzJlS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com REGAL CINEMAS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Garza Due May 29, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORFIRIO GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01941-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered an order setting schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Jan. 28, 2026 Discovery related to class certification May 13, 2026 must be completed by: Deadline to file motions relating to class May 29, 2026 certification: Deadline to oppose motions relating to June 26, 2026 class certification: Deadline to reply to oppositions July 10, 2026 relating to class certification: Regal owns and operates movie theaters. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SwKDq6 at no extra charge.[CC] REGAN HOSPITALITY: Morancy Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MORANCY, v. REGAN HOSPITALITY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-24663-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (with the proposed class described herein); (2) compelling expedited production by the Defendant, within 15 days of Court order, of a complete list of each and every person – and their last-known home addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and social security numbers -- who was employed by the Defendants, performed services on the Defendant's behalf, and/or performed services which benefited the Defendant in any way, at any time for the past three (3) years, and who was classified and/or described by the Defendant as a "cook," or the like (hereinafter "the Proposed Class"); (3) requiring the Defendant, in light of the relatively large number or persons in the Proposed Class, to provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the list both by hard copy and electronically – in an Excel spreadsheet with each person listed alphabetically form "A" to "Z" and with each person's last-known home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and social security number in a separate field corresponding with each name; (4) authorizing the Plaintiff counsel's mailing of a Court- approved Notice to all such persons about their right to opt into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit (in the proposed forms attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibits "A" and "B"); (5) in the event that the Court would prefer that the parties stipulate to the use of a Notice in this or a different form, to require that the parties' counsel confer on the contents of the Notice and, if the parties' counsel are unable to agree on the form, they are to submit the disputed issues to this Court for resolution and such submissions shall occur no less than 15 days after the entry of the Order; and (6) granting such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. (7) the Defendants do not oppose the relief requested in this motion. The Plaintiffs claim they are non-exempt cooks working at a restaurant owned and operated by Defendant. Plaintiff claims that he was paid only straight time as a cook and did not receive overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Regan is a boutique hospitality company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=64Fehk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC 2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 E-mail: jremer@rgph.law REVLON CONSUMER: Scheduling Order Entered in Savage Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN VICTORIA SAVAGE, v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01672-FMO-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered a scheduling order as follows: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party’s/parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, (see infra at ¶ 5), or page and line number(s) of a deposition. The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief: The briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as follows: A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than thirty-five (35) days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order. Revlon is a global beauty company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9TyUM0 at no extra charge.[CC] REWORLD SOLUTIONS: Springs Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Lashonda Springs, on behalf of herself and all current and former non -exempt employees v. REWORLD SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a REWORLD WASTE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00287-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and unpaid wages pursuant to Plaintiff's contract with Defendant that it would pay her for all hours worked. At the direction of Mr. Solomon, 30 minutes were deducted automatically from Plaintiff's worktime every day, purportedly for meal breaks. However, the truckers and non-exempt workers never or rarely had time to take a meal break. They regularly worked through meal times and were unable to take meal breaks. Thus, Defendant was improperly and automatically deducting 2.5 hours each week from Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' pay. This caused them to be underpaid or not paid the required overtime hours as mandated by the FLSA, and not paid for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired to work for Defendant at its Augusta facility on Goshen Industrial Drive as a truck driver in September 2024 Reworld has been a leader in sustainable waste solutions, providing our customers with innovative solutions that help them achieve carbon-negative outcomes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Batson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. BATSON 1104 Milledge Road Augusta, GA 30904 Phone: (706) 737-4040 Email: jpbatson@aol.com - and - Douglas R. Kertscher, Esq. HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP 3625 Cumberland Blvd., SE, Ste. 1050 Atlanta, GA 30339-6406 Phone: 770-953-0995 Email: drk@hkw-law.com RICOH USA: Seeks to Strike Phillips' Declaration ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH, USA, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move for entry of an order to strike the declaration of G. Michael Phillips, Ph.D. pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and L.R. 7-4. Ricoh produces and distributes printing equipment. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ccrwyb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Deanna J. Lucci, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Brian A. Mcaleenan, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-7442 Facsimile: (213) 403-6511 E-mail: jariley@duanemorris.com DJLucci@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com GMaatman@duanemorris.com Bamcaleenan@duanemorris.com RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Court Extends Stay of Manadero Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL MANADERO, individually and for others similarly situated, v. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00051-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Jamar K. Walker entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend the stay of this case. The stay shall be extended until Feb. 9, 2026, to enable the parties to participate in mediation on Jan. 13, 2026. The Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) statute of limitations shall be tolled while the case is stayed. If the parties do not reach a settlement, they shall file a status report on or before Feb. 9, 2026, and the plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification not later than April 10, 2026. Riverside is a healthcare facility that specializes in acute medical care and inpatient rehabilitation. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zOUnss at no extra charge.[CC] ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Faces Nohle Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS NOHLE, ANTHONY GARDYNSKI, JOEY HAINES, DAQUELL SIMMONS, BRANDON HOFFERT, COLE PENDOCK, MICHAEL TERRIZZI, KYLE ROBINSON, KALOB ROBERTS, and ZACHARY KRAJEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, INC., ROTO-ROOTER PLUMBING & DRAIN SERVICE, FIRST DOWN BROWN PLUMBING LLC, and MARK STEPOWOY, and RYAN WILLBANKS, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01688-AJB-TWD (N.D.N.Y., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay liquidated damages for overtime wages, unpaid commissions, unlawful wage deductions, failure to pay minimum wages, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, failure to provide proper wage notices, and failure to provide proper wage statements. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as technicians. Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc. is a plumbing service provider, with a principal place of business in Cincinnati Ohio. Roto-Rooter Plumbing & Drain Service is a plumbing service provider, with a principal place of business in Cincinnati Ohio. First Down Brown Plumbing LLC is a franchise of Roto-Rooter located in Phoenix, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol A. Crossett, Esq. TULLY RINCKEY PLLC 420 Lexington Avenue, Ste. 1601 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (646) 813-2966 Email: ccrossett@tullylegal.com ROYAL PALM PLACE: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ROYAL PALM PLACE INVESTMENTS, LLC, BIERGARTEN, LLC and MERCATO ITALIANO BOCA RATON LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81494-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. ROYAL PALM PLACE INVESTMENTS, LLC owned and operated the commercial shopping center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com SABER HEALTHCARE: Dunlap Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Shirley Dunlap, individually and for others similarly situated v. SABER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01862 (W.D. Pa., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at their agreed hourly rates for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for so-called "meal breaks" (Saber's "auto-deduction policy"). But the Defendant regularly fails to provide or make available bona fide 30-minute meal breaks to the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees. Rather, the Defendant requires them to remain on duty throughout their shifts and subjects them to interruptions during their unpaid, off the clock "meal breaks." The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees are thus not paid their agreed rates for all hours worked. Additionally, the Defendant requires the Hourly Employees to clock in and out for their shifts via its timekeeping system but automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit (the Defendant's "rounding policy"). Finally, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, that it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed Dunlap as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) from September 2024 until November 2025. Saber operates "over 140 skilled nursing and assisted living facilities in six states (Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virgina and North Carolina)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Phone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com SCHERTZ-CIBOLO: Asbhy Seeks to Provisionally Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ODULIA ASHBY AND KEVIN ASHBY, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their minor child, N.A., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. SCHERTZ-CIBOLO-UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and a class of all Texas independent school districts similarly situated, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01613-FB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification of a "Plaintiff Class" and a "Defendant Class" to protect children and families statewide from the constitutional harm caused by the implementation of the Act. Class-wide relief is necessary considering the State's insistence that school districts continue to comply with the Act even in the face of a judicial consensus that the Act is unconstitutional, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order provisionally certifying both classes and simultaneously grant plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on a class-wide basis until such a time that the court can rule on certification and later issue a permanent injunction. Thie action is brought on behalf of a putative plaintiff class (the "Plaintiff Class") defined as follows: "All students enrolled in a Texas ISD that is subject to S.B. 10, and their parents or legal guardians." Excluded from the class are students, and the parents or guardians of such students, enrolled in: (i) a Texas ISD that is subject to Court Orders enjoining the posting of the Ten Commandments, or (ii) a Texas ISD subject to S.B. 10-related litigation initiated by the Attorney General of Texas prior to the filing of this litigation. In addition to the Plaintiff Class, Plaintiffs also seek to certify the following putative defendant class (the "Defendant Class"): "All Texas ISDs that are subject to S.B. 10." Excluded from the class are: (i) Texas ISDs that are subject to Court Orders enjoining the posting of the Ten Commandment displays, and (ii) Texas ISDs subject to S.B. 10-related litigation initiated by the Attorney General of Texas prior to the filing of this litigation. The Defendant is a public school district based in Schertz, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3qxJR3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. Janet A. Gochman, Esq. Noah Gimbel, Esq. Jordan T. Krieger, Esq. Avia Gridi, Esq. Griselda Cabrera, Esq. Nicolas A. Lussier, Esq. Victoria Wang, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: jyoungwood@stblaw.com jgochman@stblaw.com noah.gimbel@stblaw.com jordan.krieger@stblaw.com avia.gridi@stblaw.com griselda.cabrera@stblaw.com nicolas.lussier@stblaw.com Victoria.wang@stblaw.com - and - Adriana Piñon, Esq. Chloe Kempf, Esq. Sarah Corning, Esq. Thomas Buser-Clancy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS FOUNDATION, INC. Houston, TX 77288 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 E-mail: apinon@aclutx.org ckempf@aclutx.org scorning@aclutx.org tbuser-clancy@aclutx.org - and - Daniel Mach, Esq. Arijeet Sensharma, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC. 915 15th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 675-2330 E-mail: dmach@aclu.org cl_asensharma@aclu.org - and - Alex J. Luchenitser, Esq. Amy Tai, Esq. Jess Zalph, Esq. Alexandra Zaretsky, Esq. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE 1310 L Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 466-7306 E-mail: luchenitser@au.org tai@au.org zalph@au.org zaretsky@au.org - and - Patrick C. Elliott, Esq. Samuel T. Grover, Esq. Nancy A. Noet, Esq. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 256-8900 E-mail: patrick@ffrf.org sgrover@ffrf.org noetn@ffrf.org SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Phillips Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ STACIE PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10043 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on or about November 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. SitusAMC Holdings Corporation is a provider of specialized technology, data, advisory, and outsourcing solutions, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 244-6363 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com SJK DEERFIELD: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SJK DEERFIELD LLC and SUNSHINE RESTAURANT MERGER SUB, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62455-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. SJK DEERFIELD LLC, owned and operated the commercial building.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com SKECHERS USA: Erakat Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------- SHAHD ERAKAT, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-01607 (E.D. Cal., November 20, 2025) alleges that Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on its website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol addresses, session data, and clickstream activity in real time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action against the Defendant and asserts claims for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Headquartered in Manhattan Beach, CA, Sketchers USA, Inc. operates as a footwear and lifestyle company. The company owns and maintains the website, www.skechers.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Consolidated Data Breach Suit in Montana Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Snowflake Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that it is currently facing a consolidated data breach suit alleging that Snowflake failed to take reasonable measures to secure systems that contained consumer data, thereby allowing threat actors to access and exfiltrate the customers' data. On June 13, 2024, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Montana against Snowflake. On October 4, 2024, an order was issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combining the class actions filed in the United States into a multidistrict litigation in the District of Montana. On February 3, 2025, plaintiffs filed their representative complaint on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs. On February 14, 2025, the court created a separate financial institution track to represent the interests of certain financial institutions and ordered that a separate representative complaint be filed. On April 7, 2025, a representative complaint was filed and on April 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended representative complaint on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs. On May 16, 2025, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended representative complaint on behalf of the consumer plaintiffs. On May 20, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a third amended representative complaint that asserted additional claims against the company on behalf of individuals impacted by the breach of a Snowflake customer account containing personally identifiable information from the Los Angeles Unified School District. On June 26, 2025, the company moved to dismiss the complaint by financial institutions and on July 30, 2025, the company moved to dismiss the claims by the Los Angeles Unified School District. On October 28 and 29, 2025, following oral argument, the court denied the three motions to dismiss. The company is currently required to file its answers to the complaints on or before December 15, 2025. Snowflake Inc. provides a cloud-based data platform for solving business problems, build data applications and share data and data products. SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------- Snowflake Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that on February 29, 2024, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. On October 28, 2024, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff. On December 23, 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 29, 2025, the lead plaintiff informed that it would seek leave to file a second amended complaint rather than respond to the motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2025, the court ordered the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by April 7, 2025. On September 19, 2025, the company filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for December 11, 2025. Snowflake Inc. provides a cloud-based data platform for solving business problems, build data applications and share data and data products. SOUTHSIDE FENCE: Ordonez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Fredy Ordonez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. SOUTHSIDE FENCE, RAILINGS & SHEDS, INC and EDWARD REYER, individually, Case No. 0:25-cv-06676 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid overtime wage compensation for Plaintiff. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants willfully only compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $30 per hour, and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from March 2023 until November 2025. During this period, Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as determined by the work schedule set by the Defendant. The Defendant regularly exercised his authority to require Plaintiff to work additional hours beyond his scheduled work hours without providing the requisite overtime compensation. This included instances from March 2023 until August 2025, where the Plaintiff was required to work approximately 55 hours per week without receiving appropriate overtime pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a fence installer and performed any additional tasks assigned by Defendant. SOUTHSIDE FENCE, RAILINGS & SHEDS, INC is, upon information and belief, a duly organized New York Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com SPRINGER NATURE: Settlement in Lee Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04493-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order granting final certification of a settlement class, approval of the class-actio n settlement, and an order finding the notice program to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) and due process. The motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and a service award is granted as modified below: -- $200,593.13 in attorneys' fees; -- $18,189.53 in attorney expenses; and -- $5,000 as a service award to Plaintiff Mark Lee. Class Representative Mark Lee moves for final certification of a settlement class, approval of a class-action settlement in the amount of $900,000, an order finding the notice program to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) and due process, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of $318,189.53 and a service award of $25,000. The settlement class is certified, the notice program is approved, and the settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. The award of attorneys’ fees and costs and the service award are approved as modified. The proposed Settlement Class is defined as: "All persons in the United States who: (1) possessed login credentials for the website, https://www.scientificamerican.com (the 'Scientific American Website'), whether accessed via a web browser or mobile device and were paying subscribers, (2) possessed a Facebook account, and (3) requested or obtained video content from and/or through any of [Defendant]'s services during the Class Period while logged into Facebook." The Class Period is June 12, 2022, to and through July 10, 2025. The Plaintiff brought suit on June 12, 2024, complaining that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 ("VPPA"), by knowingly disclosing to Meta the Facebook IDs and URLs identifying the prerecorded audio visual material that he and other class members requested or obtained without obtaining informed written consent. By opinion and order of March 4, 2025, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss finding that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged standing and stated a claim for relief under the VPPA. On March 18, 2025, the Defendant answered the complaint. The Defendant is a New York corporation that publishes the Scientific American magazine and owns and operates the website https://scientificamerican.com A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z1hWwy at no extra charge.[CC] SSA HOLDINGS: Faces Douglas Suit Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- SHANIEL DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03758 (D. Colo., November 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendant breached its duty to securely store and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information. The Defendant claims that an unauthorized actor gained access to its systems and acquired files containing private information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members on September 15, 2025. On October 24, 2025, Defendant determined that Plaintiff's private information was exposed in the data breach. The Defendant subsequently began sending notice to affected individuals notifying them of the breach on November 13, 2025. Moreover, the Defendant failed to timely detect the data breach, failed to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the data breach, and failed to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the private information, and failed to provide timely and adequate notice of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business Law. Headquartered in Denver, CO, SSA Holdings, LLC partners with zoos, museums, aquariums, and other cultural attractions to provide consulting services for their food service, retail, and admissions operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com STITCH FIX: Settles Shareholder Suit for $32MM ---------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that on November 20, 2025, the parties signed preliminary terms settling a securities class action for $32.0 million in exchange for mutually agreeable releases and dismissal with prejudice of all claims. On July 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a Motion to Dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws filed by certain of its stockholders in on August 26, 2022. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2024. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 8, 2024. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was held on March 27, 2025. The suit named, as defendants, the company, certain of its officers and directors. Defendants filed an amended complaint on August 15, 2023. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its "Freestyle" offering between December 2020 and June 2022. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss on November 1, 2023. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2023, and the company filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2024. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on April 18, 2024. Stitch Fix is an online personal styling service in the United States and United Kingdom that uses recommendation algorithms and data science to personalize clothing items based on size, budget and style. SUN SURF SAND: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website -------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE RESTAURANT PEOPLE, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a SUN SURF SAND, Case No. 1:25-cv-25625-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://s3restaurant.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. SUN SURF SAND, is a company that sells starters, sandwiches, sides, rolls, sashimi, and nigiri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com SYNGENTA CROP: Madden Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MADDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N25C-12-043 PQT (Del. Super., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. As a result of being exposed to Paraquat, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals developed Parkinson's disease. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a manufacturer of crop protection products, doing business in Delaware. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a subsidiary of the global energy company, Chevron Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com TEAM COMPANIES: Hudson Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The TEAM Companies, LLC. The case is styled as Siobhan Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The TEAM Companies, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11483 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The TEAM Companies is a leading payroll, business affairs and technology provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com TOWN & COUNTRY LIFE: Pritchard Suit Removed to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jeremiah Pritchard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWN & COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a SAMERA HEALTH, Case No. 250908749 was removed from the Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah, to the United States District of Utah on Dec. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00197. The Plaintiff has raised several causes of action including Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Invasion of Privacy, Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of Confidence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Declaratory Judgment. Defendant denies the allegations underlying each of Plaintiff's claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Heidi G. Goebel, Esq. GOEBEL ANDERSON PC 405 South Main Street, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Phone: 801-441-9393 Email: hgoebel@gapclaw.com - and - Tara Gill Nalencz, Esq. Jonathan Tobin, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER PC 450 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: 610-567-0700 Email: TNalencz@c-wlaw.com JTobin@c-wlaw.com TOWNE MORTGAGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barnette Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN TODD BARNETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWNE MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13841-JJCG-DRG (E.D. Mich., Dec. 1, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and at least 2,000 others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the data that the Defendant exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information ("PII"), like names, Social Security Numbers, financial account numbers, loan numbers, and dates of birth (collectively "Private Information"). The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Towne's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries, alleges the suit. Towne Mortgage Company, doing business as AmeriCU Mortgage, operates as a mortgage banking firm. The Firm offers home financing services such as mortgages and home equity loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5633 Email: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Siefke" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Philip Siefke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Connected Analytic Services, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-406 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation, granted Defendant Connected Analytic Services' Joinder to Motion to Compel Arbitration, and granted Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company's Joinder in Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court stayed the case against all Defendants pending arbitration. Plaintiff Philip Siefke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought suit against Toyota, CAS, and Progressive. Toyota is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company, and CAS is Toyota's data analytics servicer. Plaintiff alleged Toyota and CAS collected private information from owned or leased Toyota vehicles without consent. The private information at issue consisted of the vehicles' location, speed, direction, braking and swerving/cornering events, image and voice data, and other personal identifiable information of the driver (the Driving Data). Plaintiff alleged Toyota sold the Driving Data to third parties such as Progressive, an insurance company. Based on this disclosure, Plaintiff asserted several causes of action: (1) Defendants violated the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, et seq.; (2) Toyota violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, et seq.; (3) Defendants are liable for invasions of privacy; (4) Toyota is liable for breach of express and implied contract; and (5) Toyota is liable for unjust enrichment. On March 20, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a new 2021 Toyota vehicle, identified through its Vehicle Identification Number, 2T3W1RFVXMC122334. On March 21, 2021, Plaintiff downloaded the Toyota App, linked his vehicle, accepted the Customer Services Master Data Consent, and signed up for Connected Services, specifically Service Connect and Wi-Fi Connect. On March 9, 2024, Plaintiff enrolled in Service Connect but declined to enroll in Insure Connect, at which time Toyota ceased sharing his driving data with CAS. On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff used the Toyota App to opt-out of Connected Services entirely. Toyota filed its Motion to Compel, arguing that each of Plaintiff's claims are subject to the Arbitration Agreement found in its Terms of Use. CAS and Progressive each filed their respective Motions for Joinder, requesting the same relief asserted in Toyota's Motion. The Court applied Texas law to determine the validity of the Arbitration Agreement under substantive contract law. The Court found that the Arbitration Agreement satisfied the elements of a binding contract under Texas law. The Toyota App relied on sign-in-wraps to notify users of the Terms of Use. First, to link a user's vehicle to the Toyota App, the user must input specific information and can only proceed by clicking the Save Changes button. Above this Save Changes button is a notice that states, By continuing, you agree to Toyota's handling of vehicle data according to the Connected Services Terms of Use and Connected Services Privacy Notice. Second, to enroll in the free Connected Services trial, the user must click a red button labeled Continue at the bottom of the screen, with notice that Terms of use apply. Third, the user will eventually land on the screen titled Connected Services Master Data Consent, with two red buttons at the bottom of the page labeled Accept and Decline. The Court found the hyperlinks to Toyota's Terms of Use found on the various screens with which Plaintiff interacted were reasonably conspicuous and placed Plaintiff on notice of the Arbitration Agreement. Accordingly, by signing up and linking his vehicle to the Toyota App and activating Connected Services, Plaintiff manifested his assent to be bound by Toyota's Terms of Use, which included the Arbitration Agreement. The Court concluded the Arbitration Agreement satisfied the elements of a valid contract. The Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that the Terms of Use provide the unilateral right for Toyota to modify the Terms, rendering any consent obtained illusory. The Court found that had Plaintiff attempted to enforce the Arbitration Agreement, Defendant would have been bound by its own terms. Moreover, if there was a modification, Toyota was required to provide Plaintiff notice, and the effective date of any applicable change would have applied to prospective claims and not retroactively. The Court concluded the Arbitration Agreement is valid and enforceable. The Court found that Toyota identified a valid delegation clause through the incorporation of the American Arbitration Association rules in the Arbitration Agreement. The Court stated the express incorporation of the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, including Rule 7(a), constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. The delegation clause is valid and Plaintiff's remaining arguments regarding the validity of the Arbitration Agreement should be addressed by the arbitrator. Regarding CAS, the Court found that Toyota and its affiliates are considered collectively as Toyota within the Terms of Use. Accordingly, the Arbitration Agreement extends to the disputes between CAS and Plaintiff. Regarding Progressive, although it is a non-signatory to the Arbitration Agreement, Progressive contended that Plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate his claims under an equitable estoppel doctrine. The Court found that whether or not Progressive violated the Federal Wiretap Act and is liable for invasions of privacy will be affected by the existing contracts between Plaintiff and Toyota. Specifically, whether Toyota was authorized to disclose the Driving Data to Progressive will depend on arguments made in reliance on the Connected Services Terms of Use and Privacy Notice. As a result, the Arbitration Agreement extends to disputes between Progressive and Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court ordered that Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc.'s Motion to Compel, Defendant Connected Analytical Services' Joinder to Motion to Compel Arbitration, and Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company's Joinder in Motion to Compel Arbitration are granted. The case against Defendants is stayed pending arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 2 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=phVeyH from PacerMonitor.com TSMC ARIZONA: Rule 16 Case Management Conference Order Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Bernardo, v. TSMC Arizona Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-03319-SHD (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Desai entered an order setting Rule 16 case management conference: The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report, which must be filed within 30 days of this order. It is the responsibility of Plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule 26(f) meeting and prepare the Joint Case Management Report. The Defendant(s) shall promptly and cooperatively participate in the Rule 26(f) meeting and assist in preparation of the Joint Case Management Report. The Court further entered an order that within ten days, the Plaintiff(s) must serve this order on any defendant that has not yet appeared or answered. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AZtnmO at no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Ripa Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever United States, Inc. The case is styled as Rozaliya Ripa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-10012 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Deceptive Trade Practices. Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unileverusa.com/ -- are a global leader in consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (917) 776-6740 Email: ykopel@bursor.com UNILEVER UNITED: Ripa Sues Over Cleaners' False Retinol Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROZALIYA RIPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10028 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Dove Retinol Rinse-Off Cleansers. According to the complaint, the retinol in the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleansers do not work as advertised and does not provide the advertised benefits since washing off the cleanser after application means minimizing its contact time with the skin. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Unilever United States, Inc. is a consumer goods manufacturer based in Hoboken, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. James M. Davis, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com jdavis@bholaw.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com UNITED SECURITY: Continues to Defend Ceballes Labor Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sentinel Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2021, that United Security Specialists, Inc., the Company it purchased in 2022, continues to defend itself from the Ceballes labor class suit. Josue Ceballes v. United Security Specialists, Inc. is a wage and hour class action filed by USS employee Tim Running against USS. The Plaintiff agreed to submit this claim to arbitration and the class action was dropped. The Company anticipates negotiating a settlement with this plaintiff. United Security Specialists, Inc. provides security guard services in California. UNITED SECURITY: Continues to Defend Running Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Sentinel Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2021, that United Security Specialists, Inc., the Company it purchased in 2022, continues to defend itself from the Running labor class suit. Tim Running v. United Security Specialists, Inc. involves a wage and hour class action filed by USS employee Tim Running against USS. The Company filed a Motion to compel arbitration of these claims and the plaintiff agreed to move his claims into arbitration. The Company anticipates negotiating a settlement with this plaintiff. United Security Specialists, Inc. provides security guard services in California. UNITED STATES: Alvarez Seeks Habeas Relief for Unlawful Detention ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VALDES ALVAREZ, Petitioner v. GREG LONDON, Sarpy County Sheriff; PETER BERG, Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement St. Paul Field Office; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; SIRCE OWEN, Executive Office of Immigration Review; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States; DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in their official capacities, Respondents, Case No. 8:25-cv-00672-JMG-JMD (D. Neb., November 20, 2025) is a class action seeking habeas relief under U.S. Code Title 28, Section 2241 and challenging Plaintiff's unlawful detention. The Plaintiff alleges that the government's decision to not hold a bond redetermination hearing for noncitizens similarly situated to him and continued detention of him violates his substantive due process rights. Moreover, the Plaintiff now requests the court to order respondents to provide him with a bond redetermination hearing. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducts criminal investigations, enforces immigration laws, preserves national security, and protects public safety. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Roth Roth Weinstein, LLC 713 S. 16th St. Omaha, NE 68102 Telephone: (402) 346-0720 Facsimile: (402) 615-6223 E-mail: Roth@RothWeinstein.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Patterson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ERIC L. PATTERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; OPTUM, INC.; SWAGELOK COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-3175 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the dismissal of a class action lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland (Case No. 1:23-cv-00378-J, Philip Calabrese, District Judge). The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Eugene E. Siler, Jr., John B. Nalbandian, and Chad A. Readler, Circuit Judges. Judge Readler wrote the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff Eric Patterson has had a long-running dispute with UnitedHealth Group, his insurer and health plan administrator. In short, Patterson claims that United collected reimbursement for medical expenses paid on Patterson's behalf even though his health plan gave United no such right. For that reason, Patterson sued United and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The district court dismissed those claims, and the Panel largely affirmed the district court on appeal (Patterson v. United HealthCare Ins. Co., 76 F.4th 487 (6th Cir. 2023)). While that appeal was pending, however, Patterson filed an action in state court asserting state law claims against the Defendants that echoed in substance his federal claims. The Defendants removed on the grounds that ERISA completely preempted Patterson's state law claims and sought dismissal of what it viewed to be a lawsuit duplicative of its federal case. The district court again granted dismissal, and Patterson again appealed. The Panel agrees with the district court and affirms. The Panel affirms the district court's decision to (1) deny Patterson's motion to remand his state-law claims to state court, and (2) dismiss those claims. Judge Readler opines that ERISA completely preempted Patterson's state-law causes of action because they were essentially about enforcing rights under his ERISA-governed health plan and recovering benefits he allegedly lost when the insurer sought reimbursement. The state claims depended entirely on the terms of the ERISA plan, so there was no independent state-law duty that could avoid preemption. Even though complete preemption usually leads to converting state claims into ERISA claims rather than dismissing them, Judge Readler finds that the district court properly dismissed the case because Patterson already had a pending federal ERISA case involving the same facts, and he had previously disclaimed an ERISA Section 1132(a)(1)(B) theory. Judge Readler adds that allowing the new case to proceed would result in impermissible claim-splitting and duplicative litigation. The Panel followed the Supreme Court's two-prong test from Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004), for ERISA complete preemption: Prong 1 -- Could the claim have been brought under ERISA Section 1132(a)?; and Prong 2 -- Is there a legal duty independent of ERISA or the plan?. Judge Readler explains that the claim have been brought under ERISA Section 1132(a) as the Court of Appeals emphasized that substance -- not labels -- controls. Judge Readler adds that that all of Patterson's claims directly depended on interpreting the plan. All things considered, the Panel agrees with the district court in holding that Patterson's claims meet both Davila prongs and are, thus, completely preempted by ERISA. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 2, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye26ykfr from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Patrick J. Brickman -- pbrickman@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A., in Painesville, Ohio; Benjamin P. Pfouts -- bpfouts@knrlegal.com -- THE HENRY FIRM, in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, for the Appellant. Wesley E. Stockard -- wstockard@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Atlanta, Georgia; Noah G. Lipschultz -- nlipschultz@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Appellees. VANGUARD FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing Due Oct. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM McCOLLISTER, v. VANGUARD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00573-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Matthew McFarland entered an order as follows: 1. Deadline to exchange initial disclosures: Nov. 26, 2025 2. Deadline to submit protective order: Dec. 12, 2025 3. Deadline for motion to amend pleadings/add parties: Feb. 6, 2026 4. Deadline for motions related to pleadings: Feb. 27, 2026 5. Deadlines for disclosure of expert witnesses and submission of expert reports: The Plaintiffs' expert report(s): June 12, 2026 The Defendant's expert report(s): July 10, 2026 Disclosure and report of rebuttal experts: Aug. 21, 2026 6. Disclosure of non-expert (fact) witnesses: Aug. 28, 2026 7. Deadline to file motion for class certification: Oct. 9, 2026 Discovery deadline: Nov. 30, 2026. 8. Dispositive motions deadline: Dec. 18, 2026 Vanguard is an investment management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zly31k at no extra charge.[CC] VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Dettmering Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSS DETTMERING, FRANCIS MANGUBAT, and all other similarly situated individuals, v. VBIT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., VBIT MINING LLC, ADVANCED MINING GROUP, DANH CONG VO a/k/a DON VO, PHUONG D VO a/k/a KATIE VO, SEAN TU, JIN GAO, and JOHN DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-10, and ABC COMPANIES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-01482-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action with a proposed class (the "Class") defined as: "All persons or entities who, at any time up to the present ("Class Period"), entered into an agreement to purchase, acquire or lease Bitcoin mining equipment from Defendants that withdrew less in Bitcoin from their VBit virtual wallet than paid towards their Bitcoin Mining Packages." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, agent, or employee of any Defendant, any co-conspirator and any governmental entity. Also excluded from the Class are residents of Washington State. The Plaintiffs will also move the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives, and appoint Boni, Zack & Snyder LLC and Langer, Grogan & Diver PC as Co-Lead Counsel, and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP as Liaison Counsel. VBit sells bitcoin mining hardware and offers mining equipment hosting. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VTdlMM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Scott M. Tucker, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 656-2500 E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com smt@chimicles.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com beichel@bonizack.com - and - Peter Leckman, Esq. Mary Catherine Roper, Esq. David Nagdeman, Esq. LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER PC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 Facsimile: (215) 320-5703 E-mail: pleckman@langergrogan.com mroper@langergrogan.com dnagdeman@langergrogan.com VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSS DETTMERING, FRANCIS MANGUBAT, and all other similarly situated individuals, v. VBIT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., VBIT MINING LLC, ADVANCED MINING GROUP, DANH CONG VO a/k/a DON VO, PHUONG D VO a/k/a KATIE VO, SEAN TU, JIN GAO, and JOHN DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-10, and ABC COMPANIES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-01482-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for leave to file class certification motion under seal. The Plaintiffs move for an order permitting the filing of certain exhibits to the Motion for Class Certification under seal. Accordingly, because these documents were designated as Confidential by third parties and contain personal financial and bank account information, Plaintiffs are obligated to seek leave to file these documents under seal. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, none of this information is publicly available. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1.1, undersigned counsel avers that a reasonable effort has been made to reach agreement with the defendants on the matters set forth in this Motion and Defendants do not oppose the relief sought herein. The grounds for the motion are as follows: The Motion for Class Certification attaches as exhibits (Exhibits F, S, X, and Y to the Motion for Class Certification) certain documents produced in response to subpoenas to third parties, Truist Bank and Coinbase. Truist Bank and Coinbase designated these documents as Confidential under the Protective Order. VBit sells bitcoin mining hardware and offers mining equipment hosting. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3NF7rw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Scott M. Tucker, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 656-2500 E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com smt@chimicles.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com beichel@bonizack.com - and - Peter Leckman, Esq. Mary Catherine Roper, Esq. David Nagdeman, Esq. LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER PC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 Facsimile: (215) 320-5703 E-mail: pleckman@langergrogan.com mroper@langergrogan.com dnagdeman@langergrogan.com The Defendant is represented by: Travis Steven Hunter, Esq. RICHARD, LAYTON & FINGER 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 E-mail: hunter@rlf.com schoenbaum@rlf.com - and - Mitchell S. Kim, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 2049 Century Park E, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3217 E-mail: mitchell.kim@thompsonhine.com marah.gragdon@thompsonhine.com - and - Joanna J. Cline, Esq. Cassandra L. Thompson, Esq. Andrea Martin, Esq. Callan G. Stein, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE 1313 N. Market Street Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 E-mail: Joanna.Cline@troutman.com Cassandra.thompson@troutman.com Andrea.Martin@troutman.com Callan.Stein@troutman.com VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murphy, et al., v. Villages at Noah's Landing, LTD, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00022 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting the Defendants unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class The Defendants may file their response on or before Dec. 22, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act. The Defendant is a senior living community in Lakeland, Florida.[CC] VISTAPRINT NETHERLANDS: Roberts Suit Removed to E.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Roberts, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. VISTAPRINT NETHERLANDS B.V. and CIMPRESS USA INCORPORATED, Case No. 25-2-05325-32 was removed from the Superior Court for Spokane County, to the United States Eastern District of Washington on Dec. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00496. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that comprises the following: "All Washington residents who, within four years before the date of the filing of this complaint until the date any order certifying a class is entered, received an email from or at the behest of Defendants that contained a subject line stating or implying that a percentage discount off would apply to the recipient's 'order' or 'cart' with no conditions or exclusions; or a sale, discount, price, or other offer would end soon or on a definitive date, and the sale, discount, price, or other offer continued to be offered for at least an additional day." The Plaintiff alleges that he "has identified more than 50 of Defendants' emails with false and misleading subject lines."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Winthrop Hubbard, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com whubbard@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206.622.3150 Facsimile: 206.757.7700 VOLT MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Filing in Gonzalez Due April 16, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01348-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part the Parties' renewed stipulated request to continue class certification briefing schedule and discovery related dates and deadlines: Event Deadline Non-expert discovery cut-off: Feb. 16, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: April 9, 2026 Deadline to file a motion for class April 16, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file an opposition to the April 30, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline to file a reply in support of May 11, 2026 the motion for class certification: Hearing date on motion for class June 10, 2026, Certification: at 10:30 AM The Plaintiff Gonzalez initiated this putative class action with the filing of a complaint on September 26, 2024, in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-24-103281. Volt Management and IKEA removed the case to E.D. Cal. on Nov. 4, 2024. Following a scheduling conference on March 25, 2025, the Court entered the class certification scheduling order setting forth class certification discovery and motion deadlines. Volt provides recruitment and staffing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ytIQsQ at no extra charge.[CC] WAKEFERN FOOD: Court Dismisses "Schottenstein" Biometric Data Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Alexis Schottenstein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wakefern Food Corp., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-8635 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. The Plaintiff alleged that Wakefern's use of facial recognition technology at Fairway Market grocery stores violated New York City's biometrics law and New York State's consumer protection and civil rights laws. Wakefern owns over 200 grocery stores across the United States, including several stores in New York City operating under the name Fairway Market. The company contracts with FaceFirst, a facial recognition software provider, to reduce shoplifting and theft. According to FaceFirst's website, its technology can instantly detect habitual shoplifters and other persons of interest the moment they enter the store. Wakefern uses FaceFirst to identify repeated offenders, from repeat shoplifters to organized retail theft rings. The Plaintiff acknowledged that Wakefern disclosed its use of facial recognition technology on signage displayed at store entrances and in statements to the media. The signage states: The Business collects, retains, converts, stores, or shares customers' biometric identifier information, which is information that can be used to identify or help identify you. Examples of biometric identifier information are eye scans and voiceprints. On September 16, 2025, the Plaintiff filed this action in New York state court on behalf of herself and a putative class of all natural persons in the State of New York who had their facial recognition data collected at Defendant's retail stores, including Fairway Markets' grocery stores, using facial recognition software during the applicable statutory period. The complaint asserted causes of action for violations of (1) New York State's consumer protection statute, (2) New York City's biometrics law, and (3) New York State's Civil Rights Law, and (4) for unjust enrichment. Wakefern timely removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act and moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Regarding the New York Consumer Protection Law claim under Section 349, the Court found that the Plaintiff alleged Wakefern failed to disclose its biometric data practices, secretly incorporated FaceFirst's facial recognition software into its loss prevention procedures without providing notice, and did not publicly disclose this technology to its customers. However, the Court noted the Plaintiff did not allege a wholesale failure to disclose Wakefern's use of facial technology. The Plaintiff argued that Wakefern omitted material information regarding the nature of the collection and sharing of plaintiff's sensitive biometric data. The Court held that the Plaintiff's argument failed because the complaint did not allege any omission by Wakefern, much less a materially misleading one. Signage at the entrances of Wakefern's stores notifies customers that it collects, retains, converts, stores, or shares customers' biometric identifier information. The complaint did not specify what material information, if any, was omitted from this disclosure. The Court found that the signage clearly stated that Wakefern shares customers' biometric identifier information. To the extent the Plaintiff argued that Wakefern should have disclosed the specific entity with which it was sharing biometric data, she did not point to any reason why that omission would be misleading or material to a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had not alleged adequately a Section 349 claim. For the New York City Biometric Identifier Information Law claim under Section 22-1202(b), the Court addressed whether Wakefern otherwise profited within the meaning of the law when it collected biometric data and shared it with a third-party vendor for the purpose of identifying potential shoplifters. The Court relied on its decision in Gross v. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., which held that Section 22-1202(b) does not prohibit companies from receiving any benefit, no matter how attenuated, from the sharing of biometric data. Rather, it makes it unlawful for companies to profit from the transaction itself. The Court held that the argument failed for the reasons set forth in Gross: (1) the NYC Biometrics Law does not prohibit any commercially useful application of biometric data, (2) to say that Wakefern profits when it purchases a service from FaceFirst defies common sense, and (3) the Plaintiff's position cannot be reconciled with Section 22-1202(a). The Court found that the use of biometric information may enable Wakefern to reduce costs but does not mean that Wakefern profits from the transaction of biometric identifier information. Regarding the New York Civil Rights Law claim, the Plaintiff conceded the insufficiency of this cause of action. Accordingly, this claim was dismissed. Removed: The Court cited its decision in Gross, which explained that New York courts have long recognized the Civil Rights Law as preempting all common law claims based on unauthorized use of name, image, or personality, including unjust enrichment claims. The Court found that facial recognition technology analyzes facial features to identify a person and generates a unique face print by performing an analysis of facial geometry and other features of the face. Therefore, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was dismissed. For the unjust enrichment claim, the Court held that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was preempted by the Civil Rights Law. The Court granted Wakefern's motion to dismiss without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend the complaint filed no later than December 15, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/dbn2febb from PacerMonitor.com WESTERN CAROLINA PIZZA: Berry Files FLSA Suit in W.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Carolina Pizza Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Berry, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Western Carolina Pizza Ventures, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00961 (S.D.N.Y, Dec. 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Western Carolina Pizza Venture is a local pizzeria in Hickory, North Carolina that offers a variety of pizza options.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. WHITE HOUSE BLACK: Alvear Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Alvear, on behalf of others similarly situated v. WHITE HOUSE BLACK MARKET, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-02314 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.whitehouseblackmarket.com/store (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise that is also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.1 Level A and AA), says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been blind and visually disabled in that he suffers from optical nerve atrophy, a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of retail stores selling clothing, bags, jewelry, and accessories, including the physical store Plaintiff intended to patronize in the near future located in Ormond Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com WILLIAM PENN HEALTH: Dunlap Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Dunlap, individually and for others similarly situated v. WILLIAM PENN HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES and QUEST HEALTHCARE DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01859 (W.D. Pa., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants. The Defendants together paid Dunlap and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendants do not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all hours worked at their agreed hourly rates, including overtime hours. Instead, the Defendants automatically deduct 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiff's and the other Hourly Employees' hours for so-called "meal breaks" (Defendants' "auto-deduction policy"). But the Defendants regularly fail to provide or make available bona fide 30-minute meal breaks to the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees. Rather, the Defendants require them to remain on duty throughout their shifts and/or subject them to interruptions during their unpaid, off the clock "meal breaks." The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees are thus not paid their agreed earned wages for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was jointly employed by the Defendants as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) from September 2023 to September 2024. Quest touts that it is "attuned to the needs of long-term healthcare providers because we own and operate several such facilities currently operating various services in 13 states and continues to grow with nearly 600 employees nationwide."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Phone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com YOLO LAS OLAS: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website -------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOLO LAS OLAS, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company D/B/A YOLO, Case No. 1:25-cv-25631-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://yolorestaurant.com. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. YOLO, is a company that sells starters, salads, flatbreads, sushi, market fish, sandwiches, and sides. There is a retail location in Miami-Dade County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com ********* 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 ***