---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 23, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 255

                            Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
3M COMPANY: Rabun County Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Sparta Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Spring Hill Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Toccoa Files Suit in D. South Carolina

3M COMPANY: Village of Ruidoso Files Suit in D. South Carolina
AAA NORTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jeng Suit Alleges
AIRGAS SPECIAL TV: Brown Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
AKI HOLDINGS: Thorne Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
AMAIN.COM INC: Cole ADA Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois

AMERICAN INT'L: Bid for Class Cert in Shea Suit Due June 24, 2026
AMES H. BATMASIAN: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
AMN WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS: Gill Suit Removed to E.D. California
ANDERSON MAZDA LINCOLN: Petersen Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
ASP ISOTOPES: Continues to Defend Corredor Securities Class Suit

BIGBADTOYSTORE INC: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California
BITDEER TECHNOLOGIES: Sakar Sues Over Decline of Securities Price
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Amin Says
CAPITAL SAND: Briner Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
CATCHPOINT SYSTEMS: Velasco Suit Removed to C.D. California

CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website
CHEVRON CORP: Herold Balks at Unlawful Inflated Gas Prices
CITIBANK N.A.: Novin Sues Over Deceptive and Abusive Practices
COMFRT LLC: Pollard Files Suit in S.D. California

COMPU-FACT RESEARCH: Class Cert Filing in Snow Due June 12, 2026
COTTON ON USA: Ryu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
CR GEMS: Faces Tripi Suit Over Race, Gender-Based Discrimination
CREATE ADVERTISING: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
DEFI TECHNOLOGIES: Linkedto Sues Over Drop in Share Price

DELTA DENTAL: Harrington Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
DELTA DENTAL: Harvey Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
DEMANDSCIENCE US: Galli Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Hague Files Suit in D. Columbia
DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court

DOORDASH INC: Karbasyoun Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
DOSTER LAWN: Loweth Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
EMERSON HOSPITAL: Doe Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS: Aguilar Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
FARMERS INSURANCE: Sylejmani Suit Removed to D. New Mexico

FINGER LAKES TRAFFIC: Fails to Properly Pay Flaggers, Brandon Says
FIRE APPARATUS: Chelsea Sues Over Fire Apparatus Monopoly
FIT GENO: Follette Suit Removed to D. Colorado
FOOD 4 LESS: Dimino Suit Removed to S.D. California
FORGE GROUP ROCKFORD: Guerin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

FRANK PEPE'S: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
FURNITURE COUNTRY: Evans Sues Over Disability Discrimination
GARNIK LLC: Kunzman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
GLOBAL RETAIL: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GOTHAM DRYWALL: Castro Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

GREAT SOUTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
GURHAN NEW YORK: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GWG HOLDINGS: Bayati Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlements
HARLEM CHOCOLATE: Jones Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
HEIGHTENED SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fonville Says

HELPING HEARTS: West Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HILL WALLACK: Gensey Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
HYDRA-ELECTRIC COMPANY: Nambo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IMPERFECT FOODS: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. California
INGLES MARKETS: Estate of Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

INOTIV INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 27, 2026
INSTACART: Mollins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
INTERSTATE WASTE: Solomayer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JAPAN VILLAGE: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JEREMY BACON: Maryland Court Parly Dismisses ICE Suit

KANSAS STAR: Court OKs $981K Settlement in "Perry" Tip Dispute
KHALILS FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says
KJSS CORP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
KOHL'S INC: Pescador Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
KOSETTE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Alexandria Says

KRISTI NOEM: Maria Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
LANNETT COMPANY: Class Settlement in Utesch Gets Initial Nod
LANZATECH GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Business Combination Suit
LENS.COM INC: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule
LIFE CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Alleges

LINCOLN BENEFIT: PHT Balks at Cost Insurance Rate Overcharges
LOCANUT INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MARINER WEALTH: $25.5MM Settlement in "Tobler" Gets Court OK
MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cusick Alleges
MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Geoffrey Says

MCCORMICK COUNTY, SC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
META PLATFORMS: Class Certification Deadlines Tossed
MISTER WRIGHT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Says
MVM INC: Must Face Amended Class Action with New Plaintiffs
NAKED WHEY: Livingston Sues Over Mislabeled Vegan Supplements

NASIR HAMEED: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime Work
NAVAL CONTINUING: Willcock Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info
NEBULA GENOMICS: Continues to Defend Portillo GIPA Class Suit
NEW JERSEY: Devericks Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
NEW YORK CITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Z.Q. Due March 16, 2026

NEW YORK: Dunne Sues Over Illegal Tolling Program
NUCOR WAREHOUSE SYSTEMS: Bennett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OGLETHORPE INC: Scott Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
PACIFIC TO CENTRAL: King Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Martinez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Zapotocky Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
PERSANTE HEALTH: Faces Rudek Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Crowell Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Smallwood Sues Over False Consumer Reports
PROSPERITY GROUP: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers

ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Suit Seeks Class Certification
ROBINSON ECONOMIC: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending
SCHERTZ, TX: Ashby Alleges Senate Bill No. 10 "Unconstitutional"
SONG 'E NAPULE: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind

STATE FARM: Concealed Threats Facing Insurance Policies, Jason Says
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Soliz Claims
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Pressley Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Fabrikant Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info
[] ClaimScore Rebrands as Covalynt, Expands Data Science Platform

[] Paul Boehm Joins Sidley as Partner in D.C.

                            *********

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 1-00-Flowers.com, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-04501-PJS-JFD
(D. Minn., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.1800flowers.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are
blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In
addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a
companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
(MHRA).

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.

Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.

The Defendant offers flowers and gifts including, but not limited
to, floral arrangements, plants, gift baskets, keepsakes, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

3M COMPANY: Rabun County Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al.
The case is styled as Rabun County Water and Sewer Authority,
Georgia, 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-13694-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: Sparta 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 Sparta, 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-13698-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: Spring Hill 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 Spring Hill, Tennessee, 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-13701-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: Toccoa 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 Toccoa, Georgia, 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-13706-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 Ruidoso 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 Ruidoso, New Mexico, 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-13696-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

AAA NORTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jeng Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAMATOULIE BERAN JENG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA NORTHEAST; and AAA NORTHEAST
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00635-JJM-AEM (D.R.I.,
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 Jeng was employed by the Defendants as a staff.

AAA Northeast offers 24-hour emergency road service, plus travel,
insurance and financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chip Muller, Esq.
          MULLER LAW LLC
          47 Wood Ave.
          Barrington, RI 02806
          Telephone: (401) 256-5171
          Email: chip@mullerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                 kmilz@sommerspc.com

AIRGAS SPECIAL TV: Brown Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airgas Special TV
Products, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Larry Brown, Gary
Albert, Staci Albert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Airgas Special TV Products, Inc., Airgas
Inc., IHG HOtels & Resorts PLC, IHG Franchisor LLC, Champion Hotels
and Development Company of Oklahoma LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No.
CJ-2025-00149 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Custer Cty., Dec. 2, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Negligence for Civil Relief More Than
$10,000."

Airgas Inc. -- https://www.airgas.com/ -- is a distributor of
industrial, medical and specialty gases as well as a product line
of safety products, welding equipment, specialty tools, and MRO
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

AKI HOLDINGS: Thorne Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AKI HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09976 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.alaffia.com/, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

AKI Holding Corporation sells body and hair care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Tel: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                 Michael@Gottlieb.legal

AMAIN.COM INC: Cole ADA Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Amain.com Inc, Hobby Town Unlimited
Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-04084 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of Illinois on Dec. 4, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04217-SLD-RLH to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Amain -- https://www.amainhobbies.com/ -- provides radio-controlled
cars, trucks, helicopters, airplanes, drones, bicycles and bike
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Baldemar Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street, Flushing
          New York, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 554-0237
          Email: dreyes@ealg.law

AMERICAN INT'L: Bid for Class Cert in Shea Suit Due June 24, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY SHEA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-11449-AK (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered a scheduling order as follows:

-- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) must
    be completed within sixty (60) days of entry of this Order, by

    Dec. 23, 2025.

-- Initial written discovery (requests for production of
    documents, interrogatories, and request for admissions) shall
    be served no later than Dec. 30, 2025.

-- The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification
    and shall disclose her experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
    26(a)(2) by June 24, 2026.

-- The Defendant shall raise any objections to the Plaintiff's
    experts, shall file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for
    class certification, and shall disclose its experts pursuant
    to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by Aug. 10, 2026.

-- The Plaintiff shall file her reply in support of her motion
    for class certification and disclose her rebuttal experts by
    Sept. 9, 2026.

-- The Defendant shall disclose its rebuttal experts by Oct. 9,
    2026.

American International College is a private university in
Springfield, Massachusetts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eiu88Y at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMES H. BATMASIAN: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. JAMES H. BATMASIAN and JEFE DEERFIELD LLC, Case No.
0:25-cv-62456-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.

JAMES H. BATMASIAN, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial
Property, its common areas, paths of travel, general parking lot
and/or parking spots specific to the business therein, located in
Broward County, Florida.[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

AMN WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS: Gill Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Barinder Kaur Gill, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. AMN WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ADVENTHEALTH ACO PLUS, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-16243 was removed from the Superior Court
in and for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District
Court for Eastern District of California on Dec. 4, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03516-CSK.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and "all others
similarly situated" pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
section 382 and under the auspices of California Business &
Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"). The Plaintiff
asserts ten causes of action against Defendant for alleged
violations of California law involving minimum wages, overtime,
meal periods, rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, untimely
final wages, and business expense reimbursements. Plaintiff also
alleges her causes of action implicate remedies and the four-year
statute of limitations provided under the UCL.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mary P. Snyder, Esq.
          Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
          Brian G. Lee, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: 619.236.9600
          Facsimile: 619.236.9669
          Email: msnyder@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                 elitney@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                 blee@wilsonturnerkosmo.com

ANDERSON MAZDA LINCOLN: Petersen Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anderson Mazda
Lincoln. The case is styled as Nicole Petersen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anderson Mazda Lincoln,
Case No. 8:25-cv-00694 (D. Neb., Dec. 4, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Anderson Mazda -- https://www.andersonmazdalincoln.com/ -- sells
and services Mazda vehicles in the greater Lincoln, Nebraska
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

ASP ISOTOPES: Continues to Defend Corredor Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASP Isotopes 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 Corredor securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On December 4, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between October 30, 2024 through November 26,
2024 against ASP Isotopes Inc. and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Corredor v. ASP Isotopes Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:24-cv-09253 (S.D.N.Y)) (the "Securities Class Action").

The Securities Class Action alleges that the Company, its chief
executive officer and chief financial officer ("Defendants") made
materially misleading or false statements or omissions regarding
the Company's business and asserts purported claims under 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees and costs. On May 2, 2025, the Court appointed Mark Leone
("Leone") as lead plaintiff and directed the Clerk of court to
amend the caption to substitute Leone for Alexander Corredor as
plaintiff.

On May 2, 2025, the Court also appointed lead counsel and set
deadlines for filing an amended consolidated class action complaint
and briefing schedules for a motion to dismiss, if any, and class
certification.

On May 27, 2025, Leone and two additional named plaintiffs
("Plaintiffs") filed the amended class action complaint ("Amended
Complaint"), that asserts the same causes of action and seeks the
same relief as the initial complaint and is based upon
substantially similar factual allegations as the initial complaint.
On June 27, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. Also on June 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification. On July 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Also on July 25, 2025,
Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Securities Class
Action; however, the Company cannot be certain of the outcome and,
if decided adversely to the Company, its business and financial
condition may be adversely affected.

ASP engages in the production, distribution, marketing, and sale of
isotopes.


BIGBADTOYSTORE INC: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BIGBADTOYSTORE, INC., a WISCONSIN
corporation d/b/a WWW.BIGBADTOYSTORE.COM, Case No. 25STCV12977 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
Central District of California on Dec. 2, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 2:25-cv-11494.

On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed his First Amendment Class
Action Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff's FAC alleges violation of
the California Trap and Trace Law, California Penal Code section
638.51, a part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA")
codified at California Penal Code sections 630.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathleen M. Hartman, Esq.
          CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
          2601 Main Street, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 261-2872
          Fax: (949) 261-6060
          Email: khartman@ctsclaw.com

BITDEER TECHNOLOGIES: Sakar Sues Over Decline of Securities Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAIL N. SAKAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BITDEER TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, JIHAN WU, MATT
LINGHUI KONG, and HARIS BASIT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10069
(S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Bitdeer's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Bitdeer securities at artificially
inflated prices between June 6, 2024 and November 10, 2025.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that the SEAL04
chip projected to have a chip-level energy efficiency of 5 J/TH
would be ready for use in the A4 rigs with an expected mass
production to begin in the second quarter 2025. Such statements
absent these material facts caused the Plaintiff and other
shareholders to purchase Bitdeer's securities at artificially
inflated prices.

When the truth emerged, the price of Bitdeer's stock declined from
a closing market price of $17.65 per share on November 10, 2025 to
$15.02 per share on November 11, 2025, a decline of more than 14
percent. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Bitdeer Technologies Group is a Bitcoin mining and high-performance
computing (HPC) data-center infrastructure company based in
Singapore. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Adam M. Apton, Esq.
       LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
       33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
       New York, NY 10004
       Telephone: (212) 363-7500
       Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
       Email: aapton@zlk.com

CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Amin Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED AMIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE d/b/a
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10347 (N.D.
Cal., Dec. 2, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive data of the Plaintiff and the
Class.

According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and
former policyholders. But Defendant lost control over that data
when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected
computer systems in a data breach.

The cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems
because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards
or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's
failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable
position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the
suit.

California Casualty Indemnity Exchange provides insurance services.
The Company offers auto, motorcycle, home, renters, boat,
earthquake, and other insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
     Carly M. Roman, Esq.
     STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
     980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
     Chicago, IL 60611
     2261 Market Street, Ste 22946
     San Francisco, CA 94114
     Telephone: (872) 263-1100
     Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
     Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com
            croman@straussborrelli.com


CAPITAL SAND: Briner Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Neil Briner, individually and for others similarly situated v.
CAPITAL SAND PROPPANTS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00207 (E.D. Mo., Dec.
3, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant.

The Defendant's Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours
in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay its Hourly Employees
at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all
remuneration--for the hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek.
Instead, the Defendant pays its Hourly Employees non-discretionary
bonuses that it excludes from its employees' regular rates of pay
for overtime purposes (the "bonus pay scheme").

The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA and Missouri law
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly
Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on
all remuneration—for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a foreman in
Missouri from June 2017 until May 2025.

Capital Sand supplies premium frac sand across the Permian and
Marclellus/Utica basins.[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

CATCHPOINT SYSTEMS: Velasco Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Vianca Diane Velasco, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CATCHPOINT SYSTEMS,
INC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28123 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for Central District of California on
Dec. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11535.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code Section 638.51
("CIPA"), based on Catchpoint's alleged installation of at least
one data broker software development kit on its website,
https://www.catchpoint.com/, which Plaintiff claims functions as
trap and trace device.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Teresa Michaud, Esq.
          Sara Victoria M. Pitt, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          355 S Grand Ave., Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3105
          Phone: (213) 561-3250
          Facsimile: (213) 561-3244
          Email: tmichaud@cooley.com
                 sporter@cooley.com

CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
ChargePoint Holdings, 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 a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on
November 29, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
former officers. On May 16, 2024, the court consolidated the Class
Actions into one action captioned "Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings,
Inc., et al.," Case No. 23-cv-06172-PCP, appointed two lead
plaintiffs, and appointed lead counsel.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between June 1, 2023 and November 16, 2023
and alleges that the Class Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding component costs and supply overruns
for DC charging products which resulted in impairment charges and
an adverse impact on profitability. A second class action lawsuit
asserting the same claims and premised on the same underlying
allegations, which purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023, was
filed against the Class Defendants on January 22, 2024.

The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. On July 19, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint which purports to be on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023.
This Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the class
defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Act regarding ChargePoint's handling of supply chain
disruptions, its revenue and the value of its inventory. Lead
Plaintiffs also allege the Class Defendants engaged in a scheme to
prematurely recognize revenue in violation of Sections 10(a) and
(c) of the Securities and Exchange Act. The Class Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on September
17, 2024, and the motion is fully briefed. The motion to dismiss
was scheduled to be heard on July 16, 2025 but on July 8, 2025,
pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the court vacated the hearing
so Plaintiffs could file a Second Amended Complaint, which they did
on July 22, 2025.

The Second Amended Complaint alleged the same claims based on the
same theories as the consolidated amended complaint, but names an
additional former officer as a defendant and added additional
challenged statements made within the same Class Period.

The class defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on September 17, 2025, which is fully briefed and under
submission. A case management conference is scheduled for February
24, 2026.

ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. is a designer, developer and a marketer
of networked electric vehicle charging system infrastructure based
in California.



CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., a
Foreign Profit Corporation D/B/A CHECKERS & RALLY'S, Case No.
1:25-cv-25658-FAM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 3, 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://checkersandrallys.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.

CHECKERS & RALLY'S, is a company that sells burgers, chicken,
chicken wings, fish, hot dogs, fries, sweet sides, and drinks.[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

CHEVRON CORP: Herold Balks at Unlawful Inflated Gas Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
KEN HEROLD, GINA STABILE, LYNN ELIAS, MICHAEL SIMMONS, ROBERT
LASIEWICZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A, INC.;
VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION; VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA;
ULTRAMAR, INC.; PBF ENERGY INC.; MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC;
TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY LLC; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP; and
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10282 (N.D. Cal.,
November 26, 2025) is a putative class action challenging an
unlawful scheme by the five largest oil refiners operating in
California to inflate the reported compliance cost of the state's
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program, and to pass those inflated
costs on to California consumers through increased gasoline prices
in violation of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act.

According to the complaint, each month, Defendants Chevron, Valero,
PBF, Marathon, and Phillips 66 are required to submit data about
that month's gasoline refining margins, including the specific
costs associated with California's LCFS program. Volume-weighted
reports compiled from Defendants' monthly submissions show a sudden
increase of approximately 7 cents per gallon in LCFS-related costs
beginning January 1, 2025, despite no change in actual LCFS market
credit prices and no change in regulatory obligations.

This hidden overcharge implemented by each Defendant has added
hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of gasoline for
California consumers, in direct violation of antitrust and
California consumer protection laws, says the suit.

Plaintiff Herold purchased gasoline in California from an ARCO gas
station in South Pasadena between January 1, 2025 and May 31,
2025.

Chevron Corporation is an energy company. The Company manufactures
crude oil and natural gas, including transportation fuels,
lubricants, petrochemicals, and additives. Chevron serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
         Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
         Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
         Regina Wang, Esq.
         Kevin J. Boutin, Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         San Francisco Airport Office Center
         840 Malcolm Road
         Burlingame, CA 94010  
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577  
         E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                 azapala@cpmlegal.com
                 ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                 rwang@cpmlegal.com
                 kboutin@cpmlegal.com

              - and -   

         William Pletcher, Esq.
         Benjamin Powell, Esq.
         CONSUMER WATCHDOG
         6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250
         Los Angeles, CA 90048
         Telephone: (310) 392-0522
         Facsimile: (310) 392-8874    
         E-mail: will@consumerwatchdog.org
                 ben@consumerwatchdog.org

              - and -

         Christina Tusan, Esq.
         Adrian Barnes, Esq.
         TUSAN LAW, PC
         680 E. Colorado #180
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 418-8203
         Facsimile: (626) 619-8253  
         E-mail: ctusan@ctusanlaw.com
                 abarnes@ctusanlaw.com

CITIBANK N.A.: Novin Sues Over Deceptive and Abusive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adel Novin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:25-cv-06889-VMC-LRS (N.D. Ga., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought
challenging the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and abusive
practices concerning the Costco Anywhere Visa Card rewards program,
which include: delaying consumer access to earned rewards for a
full year; paying no interest while holding earned rewards; and
permanently forfeiting earned rewards upon account closure.

The Defendants delay reward redemption for 12 months after the
rewards are earned. This delay is inconsistent with industry
standards. In the U.S. credit card market, virtually all major
issuers--including Chase, American Express, Discover, and Capital
One--allow cardholders to redeem earned cash rewards immediately or
at least monthly. Defendants' rewards structure therefore deviates
sharply from prevailing norms.

The 12-month holding period causes significant consumer harm with
no legitimate consumer benefit. It forces cardholders to wait a
full year to access value they have already earned, exposes them to
inflationary loss of purchasing power, increases the likelihood of
accidental or unavoidable forfeiture (especially upon account
closure), and deprives consumers of the use of their funds during
the entire waiting period.

A practice that imposes substantial injury on consumers, that
consumers cannot reasonably avoid, and that offers no meaningful
benefit to offset the harm is considered "unfair" under both the
Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Georgia Fair Business
Practices Act. The Defendants' 12-month redemption delay meets all
criteria for unfairness under federal and state law, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff earned $536.23 and relied on a Citibank
representative's false assurance that he could redeem them after
account closure.

Citibank, N.A. is a national banking association.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

COMFRT LLC: Pollard Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comfrt, LLC. The case
is styled as Gracie Pollard, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. Comfrt, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-03423-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Comfrt -- https://comfrt.com/ -- was created to provide versatile,
and superior comfortable clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison Ferraro, Esq.
          Daniel Ethan Sachs, Esq.
          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Rae Monroe, Esq.
          Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
          FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
          L2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 215-1754
          Email: aferraro@fmfpc.com
                 dsachs@fmfpc.com
                 jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
                 mmonroe@fmfpc.com
                 tflynn@fmfpc.com

COMPU-FACT RESEARCH: Class Cert Filing in Snow Due June 12, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA SNOW, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, v. COMPU-FACT RESEARCH, INC.,
Case No. 5:25-cv-06177-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips
entered a scheduling and trial order:

  1. This case is scheduled for a jury trial, commencing at 8:30
     a.m., on March 29, 2027, at the United States District
     Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri.

  2. A teleconference is set at 10:30 a.m., on March 5, 2027, to
     discuss the progress of the case and possible court ordered
     mediation. Parties shall call in by dialing 855-244-8681 and
     enter access code 2307 534 8438.

  3. A final pretrial conference in this case will be held at
     11:00 a.m., on March 19, 2027, at the United States District
     Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri.

  4. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before

     Feb. 27, 2026.

  5. Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or
     before Feb. 27, 2026.

  6. The deadline to file the motion for class certification is
     June 12, 2026.

  7. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of
     Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before Sept. 15,
     2026.

  8. All dispositive motions, except those under Rule 12(h)(2) or
    (3), shall be filed on or before Oct. 16, 2026.

CompuFACT is an employment background check /drug screen company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mA4H2F at no extra
charge.[CC]

COTTON ON USA: Ryu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hannah Ryu, Ella Boers, on their own behalf and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cotton On USA, Inc., Case
No. 25-00002-33108-3 SEA was removed from the King County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on Dec. 4, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02459 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Cotton on USA Inc. -- https://cottonon.com/US/ -- provides clothing
apparel. The Company offers t-shirt, pants, swimwear, lingerie,
sleepwear, baby clothes, shoes, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone (872) 263-1100
          Fax: (872) 263-1109
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey A James, Esq.
          SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES
          15375 SE 30th PL, Ste. 310
          Bellevue, WA 98007
          Phone: (425) 454-4233
          Fax: (425) 453-9005
          Email: jjames@sbj.law

CR GEMS: Faces Tripi Suit Over Race, Gender-Based Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA TRIPI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CR GEMS, INC., JSD TRADING LTD, and
JEETENDRA SINGH DOSANJH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10095
(S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Federal Equal Pay Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York Equal Pay Act, and the Administrative Code of the
City of New York.

On or about September 22, 2022, the Plaintiff began working for the
Defendants as a sales/customer service representative. She was
terminated on or about October 12, 2024. Throughout the Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendants, she has been subjected to
continuous and systematic discrimination directed at her on the
basis of her race, national origin, gender, height and weight.

CR Gems, Inc. is a wholesale jeweler in New York.

JSD Trading Ltd. is a company doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Seamus P. Barrett, Esq.
         PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         45 Broadway, Suite 430
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 248-7431

CREATE ADVERTISING: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gerardo Ruiz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CREATE ADVERTISING GROUP, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; DAVID STERN, an individual;
JONATHAN GITLIN, an individual; CAROLIN GORMLEY, an individual; and
DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 25STCV09716 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central
District of California on Dec. 4, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-11569.

The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: failure to
pay all wages during and upon separation of employment pursuant to
California Labor Code sections 201.3, 201.5, 203, 204; failure to
provide compliant pay statements pursuant to California Labor Code
section 226(a); failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods
pursuant to California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage
Orders 4 or 12; failure to compensate for unpaid overtime pursuant
to California Labor Code sections 510, 515, 558.1, and 1194;
failure to pay minimum wage pursuant to California Labor Code
sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1198; failure to reimburse business
expenses pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2802; failure
to maintain employment records pursuant to California Labor Code
sections 1174(d), 1174.5, and Wage Orders 4 or 12; unfair business
practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
section 17200 et seq.; failure to provide payroll records pursuant
to California Labor Code section 226(b); failure to provide
personnel records pursuant to California Labor Code sections
1198.5; and breach of implied employment contract.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer N. Lutz, Esq.
          Celeste M. Leung, Esq.
          PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (858) 755-8500
          Facsimile: (858) 755-8504
          Email: jlutz@pettitkohn.com
                 cleung@pettitkohn.com

DEFI TECHNOLOGIES: Linkedto Sues Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
LINKEDTO PARTNERS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEFI TECHNOLOGIES INC.; OLIVIER
ROUSSY NEWTON; PAUL BOZOKI; and STEFAN HANSSEN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-06637 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2025) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
DeFi Technologies securities between May 12, 2025 and November 14,
2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose that: (i) DeFi Technologies was
facing delays in executing its DeFi arbitrage strategy, which at
all relevant times was a key revenue driver for the Company; (ii)
DeFi Technologies had understated the extent of competition it
faced from other DAT companies and the extent to which that
competition would negatively impact its ability to execute its DeFi
arbitrage strategy; (iii) as a result of the foregoing issues, the
Company was unlikely to meet its previously issued revenue guidance
for the fiscal year 2025; (iv) accordingly, Defendants had
downplayed the true scope and severity of the negative impact that
the foregoing issues were having on DeFi Technologies' business and
financial results; and (v) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

DeFi Technologies' stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 27.59
percent, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $1.05
per share on November 17, 2025.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

DeFi Technologies Inc. provides financial services. The Company
provides retail and institutional investors with access to
disruptive asset classes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

DELTA DENTAL: Harrington Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Dental of
Virginia. The case is styled as Tierra Harrington, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delta Dental of
Virginia, Case No. 7:25-cv-00894-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., Dec. 4, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Delta Dental of Virginia -- https://deltadentalva.com/ -- provides
high-quality, cost-effective dental and vision plans to more than
two million members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          Dylan Scout Graham, Esq.
          Robert Douglas Witte, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
          10640 Page Ave, Ste 320
          Fairfax, VA 22030-7409
          Phone: (703) 934-6377
          Fax: (703) 934-6379
          Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                 dgraham@wiselaw.pro
                 rwitte@wiselaw.pro

DELTA DENTAL: Harvey Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Harvey, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. DELTA DENTAL OF VIRGINIA, Case
7:25-cv-00888-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private
Information").

The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant
with their Private Information in connection with the services
Defendant provides. On April 23, 2025, Defendant became aware of a
cyber security incident occurring between March 21, 2025 and April
23, 2025 where an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's network
and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information ("Data Breach").

In November 2025, Defendant began sending individualized Notice of
Data Security Incident letters ("Notice") to victims of the Data
Breach. The Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members
exposed in the Data Breach includes, but may not be limited to:
Social Security numbers and individual health insurance policy
numbers.

The Defendant knowingly obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive Private Information and had a resulting duty to securely
maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class
Members would not have provided their Private Information to
Defendant if they had known that Defendant would not ensure that it
used adequate security measures, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to the Defendant.

The Defendant is the Virginia branch of a dentist network, called
Delta Dental Plans Association, boasting the largest network of
dentists nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
          Meredith Harbison, Esq.
          BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
          2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
          Richmond, VA 23223
          Phone: (804) 351-9040
          Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
          Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
                 meredith@bbtrial.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

DEMANDSCIENCE US: Galli Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christopher Galli, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DEMANDSCIENCE US, LLC, Case No.
2584CV02687-BLS2 was removed from the Superior Court for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, to the United States
District Court for District of Massachusetts on Dec. 4, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13683.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and
all putative Class Members for alleged violations of the Prevention
of Telemarketing Fraud Act (the "PTFA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Justin J. Wolosz, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          One Beacon Street, Ste 28-200
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-646-1400
          Email: jwolosz@manatt.com

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Hague Files Suit in D. Columbia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Department of
Commerce, et al. The case is styled as Allen Hague, Kimberly Grand,
Steve Q. Smith, Raj Q. Patel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Department of Commerce, Howard
Lutnick, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce;
Department of Energy; Chris Wright, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Energy; Alison Emgarden; Case No. 1:25-cv-04202
(D.D.C., Dec. 2, 2025).

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.

The United States Department of Commerce (DOC) is an executive
department of the US federal government.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 3, 2025, that it is facing a
putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on February 8, 2022,,
captioned "Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," Case No.
3:22-cv-00824, naming DocuSign and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants. The court held a hearing on the
motion to dismiss on September 11, 2025, and has not yet ruled on
it.

Suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements
about its business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19
pandemic. Suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
company securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022.

Its motion to dismiss the case at the pleading stage was denied by
the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2023 and a second amended
complaint was filed on April 14, 2025, but has been held in
abeyance and is superseded by a third amended complaint filed May
22, 2025. Docusign's motion to dismiss that complaint was due last
June 12, 2025. Discovery and other case proceedings have been
stayed pending resolution of our forthcoming motion to dismiss.

DocuSign is into eSignature category offering products that address
broader agreement workflows, and digital transformation, including
electronic signature products, enabling agreements to be signed
electronically on a wide variety of devices, from virtually
anywhere in the world, securely.


DOORDASH INC: Karbasyoun Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ardalan Karbasyoun, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. DOORDASH, INC., Case No.
25A10070-9 was removed from the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia, to the United States District Court for Northern
District of Georgia on Dec. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-06913-TRJ.

First, Plaintiff alleges that DoorDash kept "all or a portion of
each of the tips to subsidize its pay to the Dashers." Second,
Plaintiff further alleges that DoorDash "did not receive the total
amount of tips" and "retained a portion of these gratuities" across
"drivers who made deliveries through DoorDash's service over the
past six years," and pleads examples indicating at least $1 of each
tipped order was allegedly applied to subsidize base pay. Third,
resolutions of similar allegations in other matters confirm the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie A. Dent, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1200
          Phone: 404.760.3946
          Email: ldent@littler.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Mccloskey, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          One Embarcadero Center Suite 2600,
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
          Phone: 415.393.8200
          Facsimile: 415.393.8306
          Email: emccloskey@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Michael Holecek, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: mholecek@gibsondunn.com

DOSTER LAWN: Loweth Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Loweth and Steven Austin Lundquist, individually, and on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. DOSTER LAWN &
LANDSCAPING, DOSTER RENTALS and REAL ESTATE and DEREK DOSTER,
individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01277-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 3,
2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
recover the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation
rates of pay owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
hourly-paid employees.

The Plaintiffs and other Rule 23 class members accepted Defendants'
offer by performing all work required by Defendants. However,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and other Rule 23 class members
the promised wages within weekly pay periods during all times
material. The Defendants thereby breached their contractual
obligations to Plaintiffs and other Rule 23 class members by
failing to pay them the wages promised during all times material
herein. The Defendants knew, and were aware at all relevant times,
that they were not compensating Plaintiff and those similarly
situated for all their compensable hours at the applicable FLSA
minimum (straight time) wage and overtime compensation rates of pay
within weekly pay periods during all times material, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid employees by
Defendants.

The Defendants have provided lawn, landscaping, and real
estate/rental services to customers in and around Dresden,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jleatherwood@jsyc.com

EMERSON HOSPITAL: Doe Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Doe, James Doe, Joseph Doe, and Jane
Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EMERSON HOSPITAL, Case No. 2277CV01000 was removed from the
Superior Court of Massachusetts, Essex County, to the United States
District of Massachusetts on Dec. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-13631.

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class
Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial ("FAC"). On November 3,
2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which
added new Doe Plaintiffs and new claims, including a claim under
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa Oliver White, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Federal Street, Suite 2620
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 531-1411
          Email: lowhite@shb.com

               - and -

          Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 544-1900
          Email: twebb@shb.com

               - and -

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Tara D. Kennedy, Esq.
          Avery M. Epstein, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 704-7700
          Email: jsheikali@shb.com
                 tkennedy@shb.com
                 aepstein@shb.com

EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS: Aguilar Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Maia Aguilar, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS, INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 25-2-12599-3 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Pierce,
to the United States Western District of Washington on Dec. 3,
2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06084-DGE.

The Plaintiff filed a civil action against Defendant asserting
various wage and hour related claims under the laws of the State of
Washington on behalf of herself and a putative Washington
class.[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:

          Alexandra M. Shulman, Esq.
          BUCHALTER
          A Professional Corporation
          1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 319-7052
          Email: ashulman@buchalter.com

FARMERS INSURANCE: Sylejmani Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bejtush Sylejmani, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA,
FARMERS GROUP INC., MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, BRISTOL WEST
INSURANCE COMPANY, 21ST CENTURY CASUALTY COMPANY, 21ST CENTURY
CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 21ST CENTURY NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE
COMPANY, 21ST CENTURY PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, FOREMOST INSURANCE
COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, FOREMOST PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, and FOREMOST SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. D-202-CV-2025-09399 was removed from the Second Judicial
District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, to the
United States District of New Mexico on Dec. 2, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-01195-SCY-KK.

The Plaintiff alleges the following eight claims against
Defendants: negligence; violations of the New Mexico Unfair Trade
Practices Act (UPA); violations of the New Mexico Unfair Insurance
Practices Act (UIPA); reformation of insurance policy; breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligent
misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and declaratory
judgment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicole G. True, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
          201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: 602.262.5389
          Email: Nicole.True@wbd-us.com

FINGER LAKES TRAFFIC: Fails to Properly Pay Flaggers, Brandon Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINICK BRANDON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINGER LAKES TRAFFIC CONTROL LLC, ARTERA
SERVICES, LLC d/b/a DDS COMPANIES, NORTHLINE UTILITIES, LLC, and
O'CONNELL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-01669-ECC-ML (N.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engage in a common,
willful, and deliberate policy and practice of consistently
compensating Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at
rates that are drastically below the applicable State minimum wage
rates and failing to pay a portion of their overtime wages and for
all hours worked.

Additionally, the Defendants require Plaintiff to purchase clothing
and other equipment from them but improperly deduct the costs
relating to same from employees' wages.

Finally, the Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff and other
similarly situated with notices of pay rate or accurate wage
statements, as required by law, contends the suit.

Plaintiff Brandon was employed by the Defendants as a flagger from
August 2022 through June 2023.

Finger Lakes is a company that provides traffic control services to
utility companies DDS, Northline, and O'Connell, throughout upstate
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.

          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330  
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

FIRE APPARATUS: Chelsea Sues Over Fire Apparatus Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF CHELSEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION;
OSHKOSH CORPORATION; PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC.; REV GROUP, INC.;
E-ONE, INC.; FERRARA FIRE APPARATUS, INC.; KOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT
CORP.; SPARTAN FIRE, LLC; SMEAL SFA, LLC; SMEAL LTC, LLC;
ROSENBAUER AMERICA, LLC; ROSENBAUER SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC; ROSENBAUER
MINNESOTA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13643 (D. Mass., Dec.
2, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act, and the Clayton
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in the conspiracy to fix prices, suppress competition, and
restrict the supply of critically needed firefighting apparatus.
Fire apparatus—pumpers, aerials, rescues, tankers, wildland
units, and Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting ("ARFF") vehicles—are
life-saving tools that local municipalities and other governmental
entities rely upon to protect the public. When these entities
cannot secure the necessary apparatus to perform their public
safety duties, firefighters and civilians face unacceptable risks.

Beginning no later than January 1, 2016, Defendants engaged in a
concerted scheme to artificially inflate prices and limit
production of fire apparatus, despite unprecedented levels of
demand and an enormous backlog.

As a result, the Plaintiff and class members have paid
supracompetitive prices for fire apparatus and faced years-long
delays in receiving equipment essential to protecting their
communities. Municipal budgets have been strained, departments have
been forced to operate unsafe aging fleets far beyond recommended
service life, and public safety has been compromised nationwide,
says the suit.

Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association is a not-for-profit trade
association committed to enhancing the quality of the fire
apparatus industry and emergency services community. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Homer, Esq.
          Brooke C. Watson, Esq.
          DYNAMIS LLP
          175 Federal Street, Suite 1200
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 693-9732
          Email: mhomer@dynamisllp.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Laura K. Mummert, Esq.
          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 314-7980
          Email: lmummert@litedepalma.com
                 sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

FIT GENO: Follette Suit Removed to D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aimee Follette and Scott Ruble, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIT GENO LLC and
HYEWON HAM, individually, Case No. 2025-CV-30860 was removed from
the Boulder County District Court, State of Colorado, to the United
States District Court for District of Colorado on Dec. 3, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03882.

This is a putative class action alleging that Defendants falsely
advertised a knee brace product on Amazon.com. The Plaintiffs
allege that this is a class action for Violation of the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), Violation of consumer Laws in Other
States, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of
Express Warranties, Fraud by Silence or Omission, and Unjust
Enrichment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100
          Boulder, CO 80303
          Phone: (512) 474-6092
          Email: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Zheng "Andy" Liu, Esq.
          APTUM LAW
          1660 S Amphlett Blvd Suite 315
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Phone: 650-475-6289
          Email: Andy.Liu@AptumLaw.us

FOOD 4 LESS: Dimino Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Glen Dimino, an individual on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and the general public v.
FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, FOOD 4
LESS GM, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 -100,
inclusive, Case No. 25CU057649C was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for Southern District of California on Dec.
3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03418-RSH-MMP.

The Plaintiff alleges that he purchased F4L products including
Plastic Checkout Bags, Coconut Milk, Ultra Soft Toilet Paper, and
Zing Zang Cocktail Mix, based on his belief that they were
recyclable products, as indicated by the use of the text "100%
recyclable" and/or the "chasing arrows" symbol on the packaging.
The Plaintiff contends that the products and their packaging do not
meet the legal standard for recyclability. The Plaintiff further
contends that F4L sells mixer products, such as Zing Zang Cocktail
Mix, in which F4L charges a 10 cent CRV fee, which do not meet the
requirements to be part of the CRV program. The Plaintiff brings
claims on behalf of a putative class of California consumers for
violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL) and Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
          James H. Moon, Esq.
          Peter Bae, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          350 South Grand Ave., 27th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 633-6800
          Fax: (213) 633-6899
          Email: jacobharper@dwt.com
                 jamesmoon@dwt.com
                 peterbae@dwt.com

FORGE GROUP ROCKFORD: Guerin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis J. Guerin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FORGE GROUP ROCKFORD LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-50498 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 4, 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").

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to overtime
pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were
paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not
include Defendant's shift differentials, incentive pay, or bonuses
as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 22, 2024
through September 16, 2024.

The Defendant is an Illinois limited liability company,
headquartered in DeKalb, Illinois and registered to do business in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Phone: (269) 250-7500
          Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          Meghan Higday, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 824-3828
          Email: mh@melmedlaw.com
                 jm@melmedlaw.com

FRANK PEPE'S: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANK PEPE'S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09885 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is
a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.pepespizzeria.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on May 8, 2025, to access
Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that
denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and
services.

The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by him using keyboards and screen
reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to
missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly
formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Frank Pepe's Development Company operates the website that serves
as a local pizzeria.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

FURNITURE COUNTRY: Evans Sues Over Disability Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Makeda Evans, and all others similarly situated v. FURNITURE
COUNTRY CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-00366-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla., Dec. 4,
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 utilizes available screen reader software that allows
individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with
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.

Accordingly, Defendant's website,
https://www.myfurniturecountry.com/ (the "Website"), was
incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard.
The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the
Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and
humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and
segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same
online experience, with the same access to the sales, services,
discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as
the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and
visually disabled.

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a U.S. based store
offering furniture, mattresses, and home decor, the store Plaintiff
intended to patronize in the near future.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aleksandra Kravets, Esq.
          ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A.
          865 SW 113 Lane
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33025
          Phone: 347-268-9533
          Email: ak@akesqpa.com

GARNIK LLC: Kunzman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garnik, LLC. The case
is styled as Anita Kunzman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Garnik, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-03292
(M.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Garnik Building Solutions -- https://garnikbuildingsolutions.com/
-- offers top-notch Finish Carpentry and Flooring services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN, PLLC
          18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152
          Miami, FL 33160
          Phone: (877) 333-9427
          Email: law@stefancoleman.com

GLOBAL RETAIL: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL RETAIL BRANDS USA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-09870 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.thecustomchef.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on June 7, 2025, to access
Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for
Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full
and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and
services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a set of
custom knives.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Global Retail Brands USA, LLC operates the website that offers
kitchen tools and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

GOTHAM DRYWALL: Castro Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddyn Castro, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v.  GOTHAM DRYWALL INC., and JOHN
FITZPATRICK, individually, Case 1:25-cv-06649 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2,
2025), is brought for damages and other redress based upon
violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants willful failure to
pay the Plaintiff overtime wages.

Throughout the entirety of his employment, Defendants willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him
under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, throughout his
employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff
did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each week, or virtually
each week. Yet in exchange for his work, Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff, who was an hourly employee, at any rate of
pay for any hours that Plaintiff worked prior to his scheduled
shifts that exceeded forty in a workweek, and thus not at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of pay for those hours. More
specifically, in addition to his regularly-scheduled forty-hour per
week shifts, Defendants required Plaintiff to arrive approximately
fifteen to thirty minutes prior to his shift to, inter alia, attend
Defendants' safety meetings. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at
any rate of pay for this pre-shift work, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-managerial laborer
from August 2019 until February 11, 2025.

The Defendants operates as a drywall and construction company based
in Brooklyn that primarily services the New York City area, and its
owner and day-to-day overseer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 248-5550
          Fax: (516) 248-6027

GREAT SOUTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fernandez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT SOUTH BAY SEAFOOD COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06585 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is
a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.captainbills.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on April 14, 2025, to
access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers
that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content
and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to make a
reservation and review the menu.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Great South Bay Seafood Company, LLC operates the website that
engaged in seafood business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com  

GURHAN NEW YORK: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GURHAN NEW YORK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09863 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.gurhan.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when she attempted multiple
times, most recently on May 15, 2025, to access Defendant's website
from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but
encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the
Plaintiff wanted to purchase a birthday gift.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Gurhan New York, Inc. operates the website that offers luxury
jewelry brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

GWG HOLDINGS: Bayati Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bayati, et al., v. GWG
Holdings Inc et al. (RE GWG HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION),
Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-B (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting motion for final approval of
settlements.

The Court previously granted preliminary approval of two
settlements totaling $50,950,000 to resolve this Class Action1
alleging that over $350 million of GWG's L Bonds were sold pursuant
to a false and misleading Registration Statement. The first
settlement, which provides for a $450,000 payment, will resolve
claims against the regional accounting firm Whitley Penn LLP.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the Whitley Penn
settlement on Dec. 12, 2024. The second settlement, which provides
for a payment of at least $50,500,000, will resolve claims against
the remaining defendants. The Court granted preliminary approval of
the D&O Defendants settlement on Sept. 25, 2025 ("D&O Settlement"
and together with the Whitley Penn Settlement, the "Settlements").
The settling defendants have timely paid the required amounts to
fund the Settlements.

On Feb. 18, 2022, plaintiffs Bayati and Kamalvand initiated the
Bayati Action under the securities laws on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired L Bonds
pursuant to the 2020 Registration Statement, against GWG and
certain of its (then) current and former directors and officers.

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=y6TH1n at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is 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

HARLEM CHOCOLATE: Jones Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEM CHOCOLATE FACTORY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-09881 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.harlemchocolatefactory.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Allegedly, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple
times, most recently on June 14, 2025, to access Defendant's
website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full
and equal access to Defendant's online content and services.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a dessert item,
specifically a cookie cake.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Harlem Chocolate Factory, LLC operates the website that offers
handcrafted chocolate-based desserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

HEIGHTENED SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fonville Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN FONVILLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEIGHTENED SECURITY INCORPORATED; CIPRIANI
42ND ST., LLC; CIPRIANI 55 WALL, LLC; and CIPRIANI GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10008 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 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 Fonville was employed by the Defendants as a security
guard.

Heightened Security Incorporated owns, operates, or controls a
security company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
          580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 457-1699

HELPING HEARTS: West Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharice West, individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. HELPING HEARTS
USA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01403 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 3, 2025), is
brought against Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum wage
and overtime compensation, and other damages owed to Plaintiff and
other similarly situated caregivers.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for all hours worked at the applicable
FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay within
bi-weekly pay periods during all times material to this action. The
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated the
applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay
for all hours worked within bi-weekly pay periods during all times
material herein., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
caregiver.

Helping Hearts USA, LLC, is a provider of senior care services in
Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jleatherwood@jsyc.com

HILL WALLACK: Gensey Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill Wallack LLP, et
al. The case is styled as Christine Gensey, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Hill Wallack LLP, Newrez LLC doing
business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No.
5:25-cv-06773-JLS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 2, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Hill Wallack LLP -- https://www.hillwallack.com/ -- is a law firm
based in Princeton, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
          1500 Walnut St., Ste 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 351-0200
          Fax: (215) 827-5403
          Email: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Mays, Esq.
          THE MAYS LAW FIRM PC
          Warminster Corporate Center
          65 W. Street Rd., Suite B102
          Warminster, PA 18974
          Phone: (215) 792-4321
          Fax: (215) 792-4321
          Email: sean@maysfirm.com

HYDRA-ELECTRIC COMPANY: Nambo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hydra-Electric
Company. The case is styled as Jaime Nambo, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Hydra-Electric Company, Case No.
25STCV35485 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 4, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Hydra Electric -- https://hydraelectric.com/ -- designs and
manufactures accurate pressure-sensing switches and sensors for
every aerospace application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

IMPERFECT FOODS: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Phillip James Brown, Jr., on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. IMPERFECT FOODS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; IMPERFECT FOODS, an entity of unknown form;
MISFITS MARKET, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25CV478839 was removed from the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United
States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec.
4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-10416.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following eight causes of
action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and
Overtime under Labor Code Section 510; Meal Period Liability Under
Labor Code Section 226.7; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code
Section 226.7; Violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); Failure to
Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code Sectionss 1174 and
1174.5; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; and Violation
of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven A. Groode, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Phone: 925.932.2468
          Facsimile: 925.946.9809
          Email: sgroode@littler.com

               - and -

          Alexandria Rafizadeh, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Facsimile: 800.715.1330
          Email: awitte-rafizadeh@littler.com

INGLES MARKETS: Estate of Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ESTATE OF CHASIDY MITCHELL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, JOSEPHINE MITCHELL, DESIRAE SAXON, DEEANN
EDMONDS, DANIEL HA YES, REBECCA BROYLES, and CEDRIC WHITNER,
DEEANNEDMONDS, DANIELHAYES, REBECCABROYLES, and CEDRIC WHITNER,
Plaintiffs v. INGLES MARKETS, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-25-018184 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., November
26, 2025) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against the
Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, during their employment with the
Defendant, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated employees
allege that they were not paid time and one-half their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during
one or more work weeks.

This action is intended to include former Department Managers in
the Bakery, Deli, Grocery, Meat Market, Produce, and Starbucks
Departments who worked for the Defendant from October 3, 2022 to
October 6, 2024.

Ingles Markets, Incorporated is an American supermarket chain based
in Black Mountain, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-5355
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

INOTIV INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Jan. 27, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------
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 on June 23, 2022, a putative
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming the
company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A. Taylor as defendants,
captioned "Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al.," Case No. 4:22-cv-00045
(N.D. Ind.). On September 25, 2025, the parties entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle and the court
preliminarily approved it on October 3, 2025. A final settlement
hearing was set on January 27, 2026.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on alleged false and
misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
company's acquisition of Envigo RMS Holding Corp. and its
regulatory compliance.

On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System was appointed by the court as lead plaintiff. Thereafter, on
November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the same defendants, in addition to John E. Sagartz and
Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along with a claim
under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 23, 2022, the
lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint against the
aforementioned defendants asserting the same claims as the amended
complaint and further alleging that false and misleading statements
and material omissions were made concerning the company's non-human
primate business. The purported class in the operative complaint
includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between September 21, 2021 and November 16,
2022, and the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and
other relief. On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. That motion has been fully briefed
since April 28, 2023, and is currently pending.

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.


INSTACART: Mollins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Instacart (Maplebear Inc.).
The case is styled as Kenneth M. Mollins, on behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Instacart (Maplebear Inc.), Case No.
632386/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 3, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Commercial - Contract."

Instacart (Maplebear Inc.) -- https://www.instacart.com/ -- is an
American company that operates a grocery delivery and pick-up
service in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

INTERSTATE WASTE: Solomayer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Solomayer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTERSTATE WASTE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-18195 (D.N.J., Dec. 4, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Laws ("NJWHL"), and the supporting regulations, and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL") (collectively, "NJ State Laws").

Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have
routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were
not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise,
Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40
hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked during those
workweeks. IWS knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours
worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime each
workweek on a routine and regular basis, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by IWS in New Jersey as an hourly,
non-exempt Driver from August 2023 until June 2024.

IWS is a full-service solid waste company providing waste
collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial,
industrial, and residential customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)983-9330
          Fax: (212)983-9331
          Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com

JAPAN VILLAGE: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAPAN VILLAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09868 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.sunrisemart.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, he Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on April 26, 2025, to
access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers
that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content
and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase
Japanese specialty grocery products.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Japan Village, Inc. operates the website that serves as a
supermarket offering a range of imported goods from pantry staples
to specialty snacks and frozen meals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

JEREMY BACON: Maryland Court Parly Dismisses ICE Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as D.N.N., et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v.
Jeremy Bacon, et al., Respondents-Defendants, Civil No.:
1:25-cv-01613-JRR (D. Md.), Judge Julie R. Rubin of the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part
and denied in part the Government's Partial Motion to Dismiss on
December 9, 2025. The parties shall confer and jointly propose a
deadline for the Government to answer Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiffs initiated this action on May 9, 2025, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, namely civilly
detained people confined in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement holding cells operated by ICE's Baltimore Field Office
(the Baltimore Hold Rooms). The Plaintiffs assert violations of the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Following amendment and dismissal of certain
counts, Plaintiffs presently assert seven causes of action: Count I
for Violation of the APA, Section 706—Waiver of Policy; Count II
for Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment—Deviation from Policy; Count III for Violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment—Deprivation of Sleep;
Count IV for Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment -- Deprivation of Hygienic and Sanitary Conditions; Count
V for Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment—Deprivation of Adequate Medical Care; Count VI for
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment --
Deprivation of Adequate Food and Water; and Count VII for Violation
of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and 8 U.S.C.
Section 1229a(b)—Deprivation of Access to Counsel.

The named Plaintiffs D.N.N. and V.R.G. were initially detained at
the Baltimore Hold Rooms on May 7 and 8, 2025, respectively. Both
were detained at their routine check-ins. There is no dispute that
they are no longer detained in the Baltimore Hold Rooms.

ICE's Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations issued a
directive on Operations of ERO Holding Facilities, identified as
Policy Number 11087.2, on January 31, 2024 (Directive 11087.2). A
holding facility is a facility that contains hold rooms that are
primarily used for the short-term confinement of individuals who
have recently been detained, or are being transferred to or from a
court, detention facility, other holding facility, or other agency.
Short-term confinement refers to a period not to exceed 12 hours,
absent exceptional circumstances.

On January 30, 2025, then-Deputy Field Office Director of ERO
Baltimore Baker submitted a memorandum requesting a waiver for the
ERO Baltimore Field Office 12-hour hold room utilization time, as
it relates to Directive 11087.2. The memorandum sought an extension
of 48 hours beyond the 12 hours set by Directive 11087.2. Burke
approved Baker's request on February 5, 2025. On June 24, 2025,
Burke issued a nationwide waiver of Directive 11087.2's 12-hour
hold room utilization limit for all ICE ERO Field Offices (the
Nationwide Waiver). The Nationwide Waiver allows for aliens who are
recently detained, or are being transferred to or from a court,
detention facility, other holding facility, or other agency to be
housed in a holding facility for up to, but not exceeding, 72
hours, absent exceptional circumstances.

The Government argued that all counts brought by named Plaintiffs
should be dismissed due to mootness because the individual
Plaintiffs are no longer detained in the Baltimore Hold Rooms. The
Court denied the Motion to the extent it seeks dismissal on grounds
of mootness. The Court remained persuaded that the claims at
issue—claims that relate to the treatment and conditions at the
Baltimore Hold Rooms, a short-term detention facility—are of such
a transitory nature that the class-action specific relation back
exception applies.

The Government challenged the Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
APA claim (Count I), arguing that the Waiver is not a final agency
action. The Court rejected this argument, finding that Plaintiffs
have identified specific and discrete government conduct—the
Waiver of the 12-hour hold room utilization limit imposed in
Directive 11087.2. The Court stated that Plaintiffs' challenge to
the Waiver is neither a generalized challenge to ICE day-to-day
operations, nor a broad programmatic attack. The Court found that
the Waiver plainly marks the consummation of ICE's decision-making
process to waive its requirement set forth in Directive 11087.2.
The Court concluded that the Waiver is an action through which
legal rights or obligations have been determined and from which
legal consequences flow. Accordingly, the Court denied the Motion
to the extent it seeks dismissal of Count I for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

In Count II, Plaintiffs alleged a violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment based on ICE's Waiver of the 12-hour
hold room utilization limit under the Accardi doctrine. The Court
stated that the case law does not support Accardi as a vehicle to
state a substantive due process claim. The Court found that
Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege an Accardi-based substantive due
process claim. Therefore, the Court granted the Motion to the
extent it seeks dismissal of Count II. However, the Court noted
that while case law does not support an Accardi-based substantive
due process claim, APA claims enjoy a more welcome reception. The
Court addressed the Government's remaining arguments as to reliance
on Accardi in support of Plaintiffs' APA claim. The Court found
that Plaintiffs nonetheless plausibly state an Accardi claim based
on substantial prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiffs remain free to
rely on Accardi in support of their APA claim.

The Government argued that Plaintiffs' Count VII, alleging
deprivation of access to counsel, should be dismissed. The Court
found that Plaintiffs adequately plead that, by denying them the
ability to communicate with their counsel through the mail,
unreasonably restricting their ability to meet with attorneys, and
by denying them the ability to make private telephone calls, the
Government has violated Plaintiffs' right to retain counsel at
their own expense under the INA and Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. The Court stated that noncitizens have a Fifth Amendment
right to due process in removal proceedings and the right to retain
counsel of their choosing, at their own expense, is an integral
part of the procedural due process to which a noncitizen is
entitled. The Court denied the Government's Motion to dismiss Count
VII.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mM0N2b from PacerMonitor.com

KANSAS STAR: Court OKs $981K Settlement in "Perry" Tip Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Aaron V. Perry, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Kansas Star Casino, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
24-1183-KHV (D. Kan.), Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas sustained in part the Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement.

Aaron Perry worked as a table games dealer earning a sub-minimum
wage plus tips at Kansas Star Casino, LLC near Wichita, Kansas.
Boyd Gaming Corporation owns and operates Kansas Star Casino and
the other defendants: Par-A-Dice Gaming Corporation, Blue Chip
Casino, LLC, Diamond Jo Worth, LLC, Belle of Orleans, LLC, Red
River Entertainment of Shreveport, LLC, Treasure Chest Casino, LLC,
Boyd Tunica, Inc. and Valley Forge Convention Center Partners,
LLC.

The defendants required Perry and other dealers to pool their tips
with fellow dealers at each casino. The Plaintiffs alleged that for
purposes of paying Paid Time Off, the defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., by including a
dual job position in the tip pool. Specifically, the Plaintiffs
alleged that the Dual Rate Supervisor position, where an individual
works as both a dealer and a floor supervisor, improperly received
PTO (Paid Time Off) from the dealer tip pool for work performed as
a non-tipped, managerial floor supervisor.

On October 31, 2024, the Court conditionally certified a collective
defined as follows: All persons employed as table games dealers and
included within a tip pooling arrangement at a casino property
operated by a defendant at any time from January 1, 2022 to March
8, 2024. On March 8, 2024, the defendants ceased paying PTO to Dual
Rate Supervisors from dealer tip pools.

This action followed a prior lawsuit, James v. Boyd Gaming Corp.,
522 F. Supp. 3d 892 (D. Kan. 2021), where the same law firms
represented plaintiffs in a similar tip pooling case. In James, the
settlement agreement included a release of all claims through
December 31, 2021. After the settlement in James, the Plaintiffs'
counsel learned that at nine Boyd Gaming casinos, the defendants
continued the same tip pooling practice which the Plaintiffs had
challenged in James. This action covered the period from January 1,
2022 through March 8, 2024.

The Plaintiffs and defendants reached a collective action
settlement limited to the 507 members of the tip pool who returned
consent forms to join the collective action. According to the
settlement defendants will pay $981,000 into a Qualified Settlement
Fund that will make settlement payments to collective members, pay
Analytics Consulting, LLC the cost of notice and settlement
administration ($19,956), pay a service award of $10,000 to Perry,
and reimburse the Plaintiffs' counsel's attorney fees and
litigation expenses.

The Qualified Settlement Fund represents 77 per cent of the value
of the tip credit and misallocated tips at issue. Analytics
Consulting will pay each collective member a minimum payment of
$100 plus a pro rata share based on each individual's tip credit
and misallocated tip damages. In addition to the $981,000, the
defendants will separately pay the employer's share of payroll
taxes. Payments to the 507 collective members will average at least
$1,225 net of fees and expenses. The largest settlement check is
nearly $5,000, and 121 workers will recover more than $2,000.

On September 9, 2025, the Court sustained the Plaintiffs' request
for final collective action certification and overruled without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for approval of the parties'
collective action settlement. The Court determined that the
parties' settlement resolved a bona fide dispute and that the gross
settlement fund of $981,000 was fair and equitable to all parties.
However, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' counsel's request for
a fee of one third of the common fund and ordered counsel to file a
renewed motion for approval which included a full lodestar analysis
for the requested fee award and a reduced service award ($1,100) to
Perry.

In the renewed motion, the Plaintiffs sought $245,250.00 in
attorney fees (25 per cent of the common fund settlement),
litigation expenses of $414.60, and a $1,100 service award to
Perry. The Court calculated the lodestar at $145,725 based on
reasonable hourly rates and hours expended. The Court used an
hourly rate of $750 for Alexander Ricke and Ryan McClelland, $500
for Benjamin Stueve, and $150 for paralegals and legal assistants,
applying these rates to 253.4 hours of work.

The Court considered the twelve Johnson factors in determining
reasonableness. The Court noted that because the Plaintiffs'
counsel litigated the same claims in James for a different period,
the factual and legal issues in this case were not complicated or
novel. The Court also noted that the Plaintiffs' counsel took this
case with minimal to no risk given their extensive experience in
FLSA cases.

Based on the Johnson factors, the Court found that a fee award of
20 per cent of the common fund is reasonable. This represents
approximately a 1.345 multiplier of the lodestar, which is within
the range of court-approved multipliers in FLSA cases when the
lodestar is used as a cross check of the reasonableness of the
percentage of a common fund.

Therefore, the Court sustained in part the Plaintiff's Renewed
Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement. The Court
approved the settlement which creates a common fund of $981,000 to
be distributed to the 507 collective members. The Court appointed
Analytics Consulting as the third-party settlement administrator
and authorized the following awards from the common fund: the
Plaintiffs' counsel's attorney fees totaling 20 per cent of the
fund ($196,200); the Plaintiffs' counsel's litigation expenses in
the amount of $414.60; a $1,100 service award to Perry; and $19,956
to Analytics Consulting for the cost of notice and settlement
administration.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cKAFhC from PacerMonitor.com

KHALILS FOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KHALILS FOOD, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-06586 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.khalilsfood.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on April 15, 2025, to
access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers
that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content
and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff visited the Website with
the intention of ordering Kacchi Biryani and a Vegetable Roll.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Khalils Food, Inc. operates the website that offers serves
Bangladeshi and South Asian culinary offerings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

KJSS CORP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Gonzalez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. KJSS CORP. d/b/a KASHI SUSHI
AND STEAKHOUSE, and KBAY CORP. d/b/a KASHI JAPANESE OF SYOSSET, and
KMORE CORP. d/b/a KASHI JAPANESE OF BELLMORE, and WSTB CORP. d/b/a
KASHI JAPANESE, and 216 SUNRISE HIGHWAY CORP. d/b/a MEET IZAKAYA,
and XIANG LIN a/k/a SKY LIN, individually, and TONY LAM,
individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-06669-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3,
2025), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful
violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to him by: the minimum and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

Throughout his employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due under the FLSA and the
NYLL and the minimum wages due under the NYLL. Specifically,
throughout his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work,
and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each
workweek, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange, Defendants paid
him a flat weekly salary that by operation of law only covered only
Plaintiff's first forty hours of work in a week. Thus, Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone at the
legally-mandated rate of one and one half times his regular rate
for the hours that Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of forty.
Moreover, when calculated on a per hour basis, the effective hourly
rate for minimum wage purposes fell below the minimum wage rate
that New York law requires per hour of work, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food preparer and
kitchen helper at two of Defendants' restaurants from March 2020
until January 7, 2024.

The Defendants are five legally distinct New York corporations that
together operate a single enterprise that runs at least five
Japanese restaurants on Long Island, and the enterprise's co-owners
and day-to-day overseers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 248-5550
          Fax: (516) 248-6027

KOHL'S INC: Pescador Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rachelle Pescador, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 25-2-23154-2 SEA was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of Washington for the County of King,
to the United States Western District of Washington on Dec. 3,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02456.

The Complaint asserts that Plaintiff and putative class members
have brought this State Court Action to recover alleged unpaid
wages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and
post-judgment interest. See Complaint at XIV. Plaintiff alleges
generally that Kohl's has failed to ensure that employees received
rest breaks, meal breaks, appropriate minimum wages for all hours
worked, overtime wages, paid sick leave, and wages due at
termination, amongst other claims, as required by Washington
law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          April Rheaume, 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
                 arheaume@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam T. Pankratz, Esq.
          E. Ashley Paynter, Esq.
          Nohl C. Speck, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 693-7057
          Fax: (206) 693-7058
          Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com
                 ashley.paynter@ogletree.com
                 nohl.speck@ogletree.com

KOSETTE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Alexandria Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOSETTE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09857 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.kosettebeautymarket.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 19, 2025, to access Defendant's website from her
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff
wanted to purchase a personal care product, specifically the
Kosette Beauty Box - MD's Pick.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Kosette, Inc. operates the website that offers personal care
products, including skincare, haircare, and wellness items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

KRISTI NOEM: Maria Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA L., et al., v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-13471-GAO
(D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

-- certifying a class and two subclasses pursuant to Rule 23(a)
    and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

-- appointing them as class and subclass representatives and
    their counsel as class counsel.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the
following class and subclasses:

Class:

    "All individuals subjected to a civil monetary penalty imposed

    pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sections 1229c or 1324d on or after Jan.
    20, 2025."

Subclass 1:

    "Any individual subjected to a civil monetary penalty imposed
    pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1324d on or after Jan. 20, 2025
    (the "1324d Subclass").

Subclass 2:

    "Any individual subjected to a civil monetary penalty imposed
    pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1229c or section 1324d on or
    after June 27, 2025 (the "Post-IFR Subclass")."

The Plaintiffs further request the Court to order the Defendants to
identify and give notice, immediately upon the Court's order on
this motion, to all class members, including both class members who
have been subjected to a civil monetary penalty pursuant to 8
U.S.C. Sections 1229c or 1324d since Jan. 20, 2025 and class
members who are subjected to a civil monetary penalty pursuant to 8
U.S.C. section 1229c or section 1324d in the future.

The Plaintiffs request this Court to order the form of notice to
include, at a minimum: (1) the nature of the action; (2) the
definition of the certified class; and (3) the class claims and
issues.

To facilitate notice, Plaintiffs request that Defendants be ordered
to maintain, on an ongoing basis and until further order from this
Court, records sufficient to allow for adequate and effective
notice to all class members.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wQXzDu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Moore, Esq.
          Mariam Elbakr, Esq.
          Shelby Leighton, Esq.
          Leila Nasrolahi, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE
          1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-5226
          E-mail: cmoore@publicjustice.net
                  melbakr@publicjustice.net
                  sleighton@publicjustice.net
                  lnasrolahi@publicjustice.net

                - and -

          Hasan Shafiqullah, Esq.
          Evan Henley, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          49 Thomas Street, Floor 5
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 577-3300
          E-mail: HHShafiqullah@legal-aid.org
                  EWHenley@legal-aid.org

                - and -

          Richard Caldarone, Esq.
          REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR
          EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES (RAICES)
          San Antonio, TX 78278
          Telephone: (210) 960-3206
          E-mail: richard.caldarone@raicestexas.org  

                - and –

          David Bennion, Esq.
          FREE MIGRATION PROJECT
          426 E. Allegheny Ave, Unit 306
          Philadelphia, PA 19134
          Telephone: (646) 441-0741
          E-mail: david.bennion@freemigrate.org

                - and -

          Ranganath Sudarshan, Esq.
          Stephen Rees, Esq.
          Addison Thompson, Esq.
          Joy Chen, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          E-mail: rsudarshan@cov.com
                  srees@cov.com
                  athompson@cov.com
                  jchen@cov.com

                - and -

          Alina Das, Esq.
          Ajay Singh, Esq.
          Ximena Valdarrago, Esq.
          NYU IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CLINIC
          WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES
          245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 998-6430
          E-mail: alina.das@nyu.edu  
                  as11021@nyu.edu
                  xfv201@nyu.edu

LANNETT COMPANY: Class Settlement in Utesch Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN UTESCH, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LANNETT COMPANY,
INC., ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN, and MARTIN P. GALVAN, Case No.
2:16-cv-05932-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Beetlestone entered an
order granting the Plaintiffs' amended unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, for issuance of
notice to the settlement class, and for scheduling of settlement
hearing.

     The Settlement Class has the same definition as the class
     previously certified by the Court, consisting of:
     "all persons and entities who purchased or acquired the
     publicly traded common stock of Lannett Company, Inc.
     during the period from July 15, 2014, and Oct. 31, 2017,
     inclusive, and who were damaged thereby."

     Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Individual
     Defendants, each of the Individual Defendants' Immediate
     Family Members, Lannett, the officers and directors of the
     Company, at all relevant times, their Immediate Family
     Members and their legal representatives, heirs, successors,
     or assigns and any entity in which the Individual Defendants
     or Lannett have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded
     from the Settlement Class are those Persons who would
     otherwise be Settlement Class Members but who timely and
     validly exclude themselves therefrom in accordance with the
     requirements set by the Court.

  3. The Court schedules the Settlement Hearing to be held before
     the Court for April 16, 2026, at 12:30 p.m.

Lannett is a pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing
organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LCVyOp at no extra
charge.[CC]




LANZATECH GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Business Combination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LanzaTech Global 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 Business Combination
class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

In May 2024, a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint")
was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against LanzaTech
f/k/a/ AMCI, AMCI Sponsor II LLC ("AMCI Sponsor") and the
individual directors of AMCI (the "Director Defendants") for
purported damages arising from the Business Combination. The
Company was subsequently voluntarily dismissed from the case in
July 2024, before it was required to respond to the Complaint.

The Complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty
against the Director Defendants; and (ii) unjust enrichment against
AMCI Sponsor and the Director Defendants. The parties have not yet
engaged in any discovery in connection with the litigation and the
Director Defendants have not yet been required to respond to the
Complaint. The Company and the Director Defendants believe the
allegations and claims made in the Complaint are without merit.

As the surviving entity following the merger at issue, the Company
has certain indemnification obligations to the Director Defendants
in connection with the defense of the litigation. The Company has
notified the relevant D&O insurance carriers of the litigation and
while the Director Defendants are covered for such costs by
directors' and officers' insurance, such coverage is subject to a
retention of $5,000.

LanzaTech Global, Inc. -- https://lanzatech.com/ -- is the carbon
recycling company transforming waste carbon into sustainable fuels,
chemicals, materials, and protein. Using its biorecycling
technology, LanzaTech captures carbon generated by energy-intensive
industries at the source, preventing it from being emitted into the
air. LanzaTech then gives that captured carbon a new life as a
clean replacement for virgin fossil carbon in everything from
household cleaners and clothing fibers to packaging and fuels.


LENS.COM INC: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case
No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting joint motion to amend class certification
briefing schedule:

The Plaintiff Martin and Lens.com request a brief enlargement of
the briefing schedule related to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on Nov. 13,
20225.

Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jK6T8M at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
          Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS &
          MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
                  rgm@mtattorneys.com
                  cgipson@mtattorneys.com

                - and -

          Joshua A. Migdal, Esq.
          LEVIN MIGDAL & GIBBS
          7301 SW 57th Ct., Suite 515  
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 374-6617
          E-mail: josh@lmgllp.com

                - and -

          Matthew Herman, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 N. Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 797-6333
          E-mail: mh@meyers-flowers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James W. Lee, Esq.
          Laselve E. Harrison, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 539-8400
          E-mail: jwlee@bsfllp.com
                  lharrison@bsfllp.com

                - and -

          Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq.
          Jed H. Hansen, Esq.
          Joseph M. Harmer, Esq.
          THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP
          The Walker Center
          175 S. Main Street, Suite 900
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 566-6633
          E-mail: mark.bettilyon@tnw.com
                  hansen@tnw.com
                  joseph.harmer@tnw.com

LIFE CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
KRISTY JOHNSON; and JESSICA JONES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00364 (E.D. Tenn., Dec.
1, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as nurses.

Life Care Centers of America Inc. operates nursing homes for the
elderly. The Company offers life care physician services,
Alzheimer's care, rehabilitation, assisted living, home care,
nursing care, retirement centers, and other services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
          THE ADKINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (615) 370.4099
          Email: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com

               - and -

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Olivia Lanctot, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
          Email: crodriguez@bergermontague.com
                 olanctot@bergermontague.com

               - and -

          Mariyam Hussian, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (773) 666-4316
          Email: mhussain@bergermontague.com

LINCOLN BENEFIT: PHT Balks at Cost Insurance Rate Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PHT HOLDING I LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00132-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, November 26,
2025) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated owners of LBL life insurance policies, seeking
to represent a class of LBL policyholders who have been subjected
to unlawful cost of insurance (COI) rate overcharges.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other class members
have paid premiums to LBL and have otherwise performed all their
obligations under the LBL life insurance policies.

As a direct result of LBL's actions, the Plaintiff and the other
members of the class have been required to pay and have paid
exorbitant and unjustified COI charges. The Plaintiff seeks relief
for the COI overcharges that LBL has wrongly imposed and continues
to impose on its policyholders.

Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance Company provides life insurance and
annuity services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Weinhardt, Esq.
          Jason R. Smith, Esq.
          WEINHARDT & LANTZ, P.C.
          2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 244-3100
          E-mail: mweinhardt@weinhardtlantz.com
                  jsmith@weinhardtlantz.com

               - and -

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Zachary Savage, Esq.  
          Jacob Levin, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
                  zsavage@susmangodfrey.com
                  jlevin@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Glenn Bridgman, Esq.
          Halley Josephs, Esq.
          Michael Adamson, Esq.
          Kim Page, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
                  hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com
                  madamson@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpage@susmangodfrey.com

LOCANUT INC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOCANUT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09878 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.locanut.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on May 24, 2025, to access
Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that
denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and
services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to place an online
food order.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Locanut, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of dishes
including protein-packed entrees, plant-based meals, and low-carb
sides.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

MARINER WEALTH: $25.5MM Settlement in "Tobler" Gets Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Jakob Tobler and Michelle McNitt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, 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, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-CV-02068-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren of the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted
final approval of a class action settlement and awarded attorneys'
fees, expenses, and service awards.

The Settlement Class consists of approximately 4,410 individuals
with a Settlement Fund of $25,500,000. The gross per-head recovery
is just north of $5,700. The Court noted that this relief compares
favorably to other no-poach common fund settlements, especially
considering the procedural posture of the action. The size of the
Settlement Fund also towers the $2.5 million victims' compensation
fund secured from some of the Defendants by the Department of
Justice in exchange for non-prosecution agreements.

The Court found that the Settlement satisfies each of the Rule
23(e)(2) factors. First, the Settlement Class Representatives and
Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class. The Settlement
Class Representatives are former employees of one of the Defendants
and, like the Class Members, would have been affected by the same
alleged misconduct resulting in artificially deflated
compensation.

Second, the Settlement is the product of arm's-length negotiations.
The parties engaged an experienced and skilled mediator, Hon. Layn
R. Phillips (Ret.), who conducted a full-day mediation session on
February 18, 2025. Although the parties were unable to reach a
resolution on that day, they continued negotiations over the next
several months, arriving at a settlement in principle on June 17,
2025.

Third, the Court found that the relief provided to the Class
through the Settlement is adequate. The notice plan reached an
estimated 99.3% of the Class. Because there is no claims-made
process, settlement payments will be delivered directly to
Settlement Class Members.

Fourth, the Court found that the Settlement treats Class Members
equitably relative to one another. Settlement payments will be made
on an objective basis, factoring their compensation during the
Settlement Class Period.

The Court granted an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
one-third of the $25,500,000 Settlement Amount, together with any
interest earned on that amount. The Court applied the
percentage-of-the-fund method, as preferred by the Tenth Circuit,
and analyzed the reasonableness under the Johnson factors.

The Court found that Class Counsel secured a substantial result for
the Class. As courts within the District have recognized, class
actions have a well-deserved reputation as being most complex, and
an antitrust class action is arguably the most complex action to
prosecute. The claims asserted involved complex issues of class
certification and substantive law requiring highly skilled and
experienced attorneys.

The Court recognized the significant risk Class Counsel assumed in
prosecuting this complex and relatively novel no-poach antitrust
class action on a wholly contingent basis. Class Counsel invested
over $390,000 in out-of-pocket costs, primarily expert fees, on a
contingent basis. In contingent fee cases, a one-third fee is
customary and represents the market rate.

The Court approved payment of $396,212.51 in total expenses and
costs incurred by Class Counsel in prosecuting the case. The Court
found that the award of these expenses is fair and reasonable.

The Court awarded service awards in the amount of $15,000 each to
Mr. Tobler and Ms. McNitt. Class Representatives were instrumental
to this litigation. According to Class Counsel, while Class Members
contacted them, these Class Members would only provide information
confidentially for fear of professional retaliation. Despite this
fear, Mr. Tobler and Ms. McNitt stepped forward to publicly
challenge their former employer's alleged conduct.

Mr. Tobler devoted about 65 hours in total and Ms. McNitt about 50
hours in total to the prosecution of the case, including pre-suit
investigation, working with class counsel, reviewing court filings,
participating in discovery, and being available for mediation and
settlement negotiations.

The Court found that two individuals timely requested exclusion
from the Settlement Class. These individuals are excluded from the
Rule 23 Class previously certified, are not bound by the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, do not release Defendants and all other
Released Parties from the Released Claims, and are not entitled to
participate in the monetary portion of the Settlement.

No Class Member submitted any objection to the Settlement. The
Court therefore ordered that the Motion for Final Approval of
Proposed Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Service Awards is granted.

A copy of the Court's settlement order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aEnjXB from PacerMonitor.com

MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cusick Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY CUSICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.; and NORWAY
SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01314 (E.D. Tex., Dec.
2, 2025) is a class action on behalf of all persons who entrusted
Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that
was impacted in a data breach experienced by Defendants on August
14, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach").

According to the complaint, on August 14, 2025, an unauthorized
actor accessed Marquis's computer network and exfiltrated
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from the
Defendants' systems. In response, cybersecurity experts were
engaged to conduct a detailed review to determine the nature and
scope of the Data Breach, and to determine if the Defendants'
customer information may have been included.

The Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all
reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information
collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendants
solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from their
Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to
implement or maintain adequate security practices.

The Defendants, despite having the financial wherewithal and
personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed
to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to
the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they collected
and maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the
exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information,
says the suit.

Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. provides marketing solutions. The
Company offers marketing and compliance software, and other related
solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 lloginov@shamisgentile.com

MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Geoffrey Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA GEOFFREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.; and
COVANTAGE CREDIT UNION, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01311-ALM
(E.D. Tex., Dec. 2, 2025) is a class action arising from the
Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants had no
effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of
their systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted
access to their current and former customers' PII.

The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because
Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on
cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards
or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendants'
failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position --
rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit.

Because of Defendants' alleged failure to prevent the Data Breach,
Plaintiff and Class Members suffered -- and will continue to suffer
-- damages.

Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. provides marketing solutions. The
Company offers marketing and compliance software, and other related
solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
                 raina@straussborrelli.com

MCCORMICK COUNTY, SC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Coker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MCCORMICK COUNTY, MCCORMICK COUNTY SHERIFF CHAD COX, in
his individual and official capacity, Case No. 8:25-cv-13692-TMC
(D.S.C., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought seeking recovery against the
Defendants for Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended (the "FLSA") and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act ("SCPWA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and all other K-9 Deputies were required to board and
care for their K-9s during off-duty hours without any compensation,
in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and similarly situated K9
Deputies were not paid their regular rate for the off-duty time
they spent caring for their canine when they worked less than 171
hours in a 28-day work cycle in violation of the SCPWA.

The Defendants were aware that Plaintiff and similarly situated K-9
Deputies performed uncompensated work caring and boarding their
canines. The Defendants have acted intentionally and in bad faith
by not compensating Plaintiff and similarly situated K-9 Deputies
for the off-duty hours they worked caring for and boarding their
canines, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a McCormick County Sheriff Deputy from 2020 to
2025.

The Defendant County is a government entity which consists of
numerous agencies and is located within the State of South
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          4900 O'Hear Avenue, Suites 100 & 200
          North Charleston, SC 29405
          Phone: (843) 588-5587
          Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

META PLATFORMS: Class Certification Deadlines Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Araceli
Martinez-Olguin entered an order denying the joint stipulation
regarding deadlines for amending pleadings, class certification,
and discovery.

First, the parties' request is untimely. The parties' stipulation
was filed on Dec. 8, 2025, and requests an extension of the
Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification,
which is set for Dec. 12, 2025.

Further, the stipulation and declaration submitted do not show that
good cause exists to extend the deadlines, as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).

The parties are welcome to agree amongst themselves to an amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The
Court, however, will not amend any deadlines previously set absent
a showing of good cause. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Meta is an American multinational technology company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=25lyni at no extra
charge.[CC] 


MISTER WRIGHT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jones Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MISTER WRIGHT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-09872 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.misterwrightfinewines.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on June 14, 2025, to access
Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that
denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and
services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase an
alcoholic beverage, specifically a 375ml bottle of peach soju.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Mister Wright, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of
wines, spirits, and specialty drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

MVM INC: Must Face Amended Class Action with New Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Padre (alias) and Junior (alias), on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. MVM, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 24cv1265 DMS (AHG) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

At oral argument, Plaintiffs' counsel requested leave to amend if
the Court decided the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts
to support equitable tolling and leave to amend to add different
plaintiffs if the Court found the named Plaintiffs' claims were
time-barred. The Court asked counsel if they had different
plaintiffs in mind, and counsel stated they had talked to numerous
plaintiffs and believed they would be able to add a plaintiff who
was 20 years or younger at the time of filing. On March 3, 2025,
the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to
dismiss. The Court found the Section 1985, Section 1986, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were
time-barred and Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts to support
equitable tolling. Those claims were dismissed, but the Court gave
Plaintiffs until March 14, 2025, to file an amended complaint that
cured the pleading deficiencies on equitable tolling.

The March 14 deadline lapsed with no action on Plaintiffs' part.
Thereafter, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint and the
parties attended a Case Management Conference with Magistrate Judge
Goddard. Following the conference, the Court issued a Scheduling
Order for the case, including a July 9, 2025 deadline for the
parties to file a motion to join other parties, amend the
pleadings, or file additional pleadings. In that Order, Magistrate
Judge Goddard stated that Plaintiffs shall not construe this
deadline as a reopening of the Court's already passed March 14,
2025 deadline to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the
pleading deficiencies concerning equitable tolling.

On July 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the present motion. The proposed
First Amended Complaint does not allege any additional facts on
equitable tolling. Instead, Plaintiffs added different plaintiffs
on the Section 1985, Section 1986, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress claims. They also added an entirely new claim
for interference with constitutional rights under California Civil
Code Section 52.1 on behalf of the newly added plaintiffs.

The Court turned to the substance of Plaintiffs' motion, which is
governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. This Rule provides
that leave to amend a party's pleading shall be freely given when
justice so requires. The Court addressed four factors: undue delay,
bad faith, prejudice, and futility of amendment.

On undue delay, the Court noted Plaintiffs' counsel knew on
November 12, 2024, there was a possibility they would have to find
different plaintiffs for the Section 1985, Section 1986, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Although
counsel had apparently started talking with some potential
plaintiffs prior to the December 2024 hearing, there is no evidence
they promptly followed up with those individuals. Given the record,
the Court found counsel's undue delay weighs against granting leave
to amend.

On the bad faith factor, Defendant argued Plaintiffs engaged in bad
faith by seeking leave to file an amended complaint that includes
claims that have already been dismissed. The Court disagreed with
Defendant's interpretation and found this factor weighs in favor of
granting leave to amend.

The Court found that while the addition of new plaintiffs will
cause some prejudice to Defendant, the addition will not change the
underlying facts of the case or the fundamental nature of the
claims. Furthermore, given the parties' numerous discovery
disputes, there is currently no cut-off date for class
certification discovery. Under these circumstances, the Court found
Defendant has not shown the prejudice factor weighs against
granting leave to amend.

Finally, on futility, Defendant argued the Court's dismissal of the
civil rights conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional
distress claims operates as an adjudication on the merits and
Plaintiffs' proposed claim under California Civil Code Section 52.1
is unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss. The Court disagreed
that dismissal of the civil rights conspiracy claims as to Padre
and Junior operates as a dismissal of the same claims on behalf of
the newly proposed plaintiffs. Defendant failed to cite any
authority to support this argument. The Court also found
Defendant's assertion about the newly asserted claim was conclusory
and lacks any analysis of the elements of the claim.

Considering all factors, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file their proposed First Amended Class Action Complaint.
Plaintiffs were ordered to file the amended complaint on or before
December 8, 2025.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=31XuUw from PacerMonitor.com

NAKED WHEY: Livingston Sues Over Mislabeled Vegan Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LIVINGSTON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAKED WHEY, INC. d/b/a NAKED NUTRITION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10284 (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and for unfair and unlawful business acts and
practices, deceptive advertising practices, breach of express
warranty, and quasi-contract.

According to the complaint, Defendant Naked Whey, Inc. doing
business as Naked Nutrition violates California consumer protection
law in the labeling of its "Naked" vegan supplements, including but
not limited to its Naked Shake Vegan Protein Powder, Naked Vegan
Mass Products, and Naked Pea Products.

On the front label of all of the products, the Defendant
prominently states that the such products are "NAKED" and "VEGAN"
and/or "PREMIUM." In addition, on the back or side label, the
Defendant prominently states "LOOK AT US NAKED WE'VE GOT NOTHING TO
HIDE" along with statements that the products contain no artificial
flavors, sweeteners, or colors and/or no additives.

However, the label representations are misleading based on the lead
contained in the products, which is not disclosed anywhere on the
labels, the complaint asserts. Consumers, including Plaintiff, pay
a price premium to purchase Defendant's product because they
believe the Products are a premium, naked supplement, without
potentially harmful additives or ingredients. By making the
Representations and failing to disclose that the products contain
lead, Defendant deprives consumers of the opportunity to make an
informed purchasing decision, adds the complaint.

Naked Whey, Inc. doing business as Naked Nutrition is a Florida
corporation with its principal place of business in Miami.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naomi Spector, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          3451 Via Montebello, Ste. 192-212
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (310) 400-1053
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com

NASIR HAMEED: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Hernandez and Kelin Rosales on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. NASIR HAMEED and FARMERS MARKET
SELDEN, INC. d/b/a HOUSE OF SPICE, Case No. 2:25-cv-06671
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for unpaid wages
for overtime work performed, unpaid spread of hours wages for each
day Plaintiffs worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements
associated with this action.

While Plaintiffs, and Collective and Class plaintiffs, worked in
excess of forty hours a week, Defendants willfully failed to pay
them overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked. The
Defendants never paid Plaintiffs, and Collective and Class
plaintiffs, wages with a pay statement containing the following
information: employer's name, address and phone number, employee's
name, dates covered by payment, basis of payment, hours worked,
regular rates of pay, overtime rates of pay, gross and net wages,
itemized deductions, and/or itemized allowances.

The Defendants failed to post or keep posted a notice explaining
the minimum wage and overtime pay rights, and employee rights by
the NYLL. During all relevant times, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate and sufficient records of those hours Plaintiffs worked
and those wages paid to them. The Defendants knew that nonpayment
of overtime would economically injure Plaintiffs, the FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and violated State
and Federal laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a supermarket that is located in Selden, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Phone: (516) 280.4600
          Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
          Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com

NAVAL CONTINUING: Willcock Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON WILLCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAVAL CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FOUNDATION,
INC. d/b/a FLEET LANDING, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01480 (M.D.
Fla., December 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach between September 11, 2024 and September 12, 2024. 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.

Naval Continuing Care Retirement Foundation, Inc., doing business
as Fleet Landing, is a provider of skilled nursing and
rehabilitation, long-term care, outpatient therapy, home health
care, and physician services, with its principal place of business
in Atlantic Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
         14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

NEBULA GENOMICS: Continues to Defend Portillo GIPA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ProPhase Labs 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
Nebula Genomics Inc., the Company it purchased in 2025, continues
to defend itself from the Portillo GIPA class suit in the United
States District Court for District of Massachusetts.

In October 2024, a putative class action lawsuit, Portillo v.
Nebula Genomics, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Illinois's Genetic Information
Privacy Act ("GIPA") alleging that Nebula improperly shared
customers' genetic information with third parties without written
consent. The action named Nebula along with Meta Platforms, Google
and Microsoft.

The dispute was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts in accordance with Nebula's Terms of
Use, which mandated that claims be brought in Massachusetts.

The complaint remains at the pleading stage. In addition to the
motion to change venue, Nebula filed a motion to dismiss. While the
allegations raise reputational and legal risks, no judgment or
settlement has been entered and potential liability is not
reasonably estimable at this time. Accordingly, management does not
consider this litigation to be material to the consolidated
financial statements as of the date of this prospectus.

Nebula Genomics -- https://nebula.org/ -- is a personal genomics
company based in San Francisco, California.[BN]


NEW JERSEY: Devericks Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA JAMES DEVERICKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY;
SOUTH JERSEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; NEW JERSEY E-ZPASS CUSTOMER
SERVICE CENTER; CON DU ENT STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC.; XEROX
CORPORATION; CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES; NEW JERSEY GARDEN STATE
PARKWAY AUTHORITY; JOHN DOE CORPORATE POLICYMAKERS 1-1 0; JOHN DOE
IT SYSTEM ARCHITECTS 1-1 0; JOHN DOE COLLECTIONS AGENTS 1-10; and
JOHN DOE TRANSPORTATION SUPERVISORY OFFICIALS 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-18090-ESK-SAK (D.N.J., Dec. 2, 2025) seeks to
challenge the Defendants' E-ZPass system as an engineered
penalty-generation trap built on predatory enrollment, silent
account modifications, a one-try debit rule with no overdraft use,
and automated fifty-dollar "administrative" penalties imposed
without timely mailed notice, without meaningful pre-deprivation
safeguards, and without neutral review.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants designed
and maintained a system that converts minor toll issues and
short-term account mismatches into avalanche penalties, routinely
stacking hundreds or thousands of dollars in $50 fines before a
driver ever receives a physical notice or any real chance to cure.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' practices, the
Plaintiff suffered significant monetary loss, emotional distress,
and ongoing risks to his license, credit, and livelihood, says the
suit.

New Jersey State Turnpike Authority operates as an authority based
in the Township of Woodbridge. The Authority accounts for the
operations of the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway,
as well as maintaining, constructing, repairing, inspecting, and
operating the parkway, turnpike, and their bridge structures. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented pro se.

NEW YORK CITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Z.Q. Due March 16, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q., et al., v. New York
City Department of Education, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tarnofsky entered
an order

                   Event                             Deadline

  The Defendants' expert report to be served by:   Jan. 16, 2026  

  Expert depositions to be completed by:           Feb. 16, 2026

  The Plaintiffs' class certification motion:      Mar. 16, 2026

  Oppositions to the class certification motion,   Apr. 30, 2026
  Daubert motions, and the Defendants' motion
  for summary judgment to be filed by:

  Replies in further support of the Plaintiffs'    May 15, 2026
  class certification motion, Daubert motions,
  and the Defendants' motion for summary
  judgment to be filed by:

New York City Department of Education manages the city's public
school system.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H8OsZY at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


NEW YORK: Dunne Sues Over Illegal Tolling Program
-------------------------------------------------
DENISE DUNNE; TAMARA LASHCHYK; and RICHARD C. MANJARRES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; and TRIBOROUGH
BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-18105
(D.N.J., Dec. 2, 2025) seeks recovery and relief on behalf of the
class of all drivers who have been, or will be, improperly charged
"congestion pricing" tolls since Defendants launched their illegal
tolling program on January 5, 2025.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have
taken hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal tolls from drivers
under the improper "congestion pricing" tolling program that they
began operating earlier this year in violation of federal law. This
class action seeks the return of those illegal tolls and
discontinuance of the illegal tolling program. the Defendants'
tolling program violates federal law in at least three separate
respects.

The Defendants' "congestion pricing" tolling program unlawfully
conditions Plaintiffs' ability to drive in the Central Business
District on payment of illegal tolls. The "congestion pricing"
tolls provide for the unauthorized taking from Plaintiffs and the
other Class members of money not validly due and owing to
Defendants. Such tolls constitute illegal exactions.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is responsible for
operating, maintaining and improving public transportation in the
Metropolitan Commuter. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Lavery, Esq.
          James F. Moscagiuri, Esq.
          LAVERY, SELVAGGI & COHEN, P.C.
          1001 Route 517
          Hackettstown, NJ 07840
          Telephone: (908) 852-2600
          Email: mlavery@lsaclaw.com
                 jmoscagiuri@lsaclaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Cyrulnik, Esq.
          Paul Fattaruso, Esq.
          Steven Magnusson, Esq.
          CYRULNIK FATTARUSO LLP
          55 Broadway, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 844-2466
          Email: jcyrulnik@cf-llp.com
                 pfattaruso@cf-llp.com
                 smagnusson@cf-llp.com

               - and -

          Daniel Huff, Esq.
          DANIEL HUFF, ESQ.
          65 Arboro Drive
          Sharon, MA 02067
          Telephone: (617) 299-0594
          Email: danhuff1776@gmail.com

NUCOR WAREHOUSE SYSTEMS: Bennett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nucor Warehouse
Systems Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brianna Elizabeth
Bennett, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Nucor Warehouse Systems Inc., Flag Solutions LLC, Case
No. 25STCV35205 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 3, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Nucor Warehouse Systems -- https://nucorwarehousesystems.com/ --
offers everything necessary to build a warehouse from
end-to-end.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          William Tran, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 962-6465
          Fax: (818) 962-6469
          Email: alindsay@d.law
                 w.tran@d.law

OGLETHORPE INC: Scott Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oglethorpe, Inc. The
case is styled as Lauren Scott, Jessica Aden, Anne Del Castillo,
Katheryn Tracy, Maria Applauso, Matthew Field, Melissa Schmidt,
Amanda Newton, Cynthia Emrich, Christine Cafiero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oglethorpe, Inc.,
Case No. CACE25018319 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Dec. 2, 2025).

The case type is stated as "Negligence."

Oglethorpe, Inc. -- https://www.oglethorpeinc.com/ -- provides
management solutions for health centers, wellness clinics and
hospitals that specialize in psychiatric services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

PACIFIC TO CENTRAL: King Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW KING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC TO CENTRAL UNION COMPANY (d/b/a
Shiro and d/b/a Shiro Sushi) AND RYORI, LLC (d/b/a Ryori Sake &
Wine Bar and d/b/a Yozora Sake and Wine), Defendants, Case No.
5:25-cv-01582 (W.D. Tex., November 26, 2025) is a civil action
brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, against Defendants pursuant to the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
November 2024 to October 2025 as a server. The Defendants paid
Plaintiff on an hourly tip credit basis. In addition to hourly pay,
Plaintiff received tips.

Allegedly, the Defendants violated the FLSA because they made
Plaintiff and the putative collective action members pay for
uniforms, uniform accessories, replacement uniforms, and
replacement uniform accessories. Those uniforms and uniform
accessories were required for work at Defendants' restaurants.

The Defendants further violated the FLSA because they did not pay
Plaintiff and the putative collective action members time and
one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked
over 40 per seven-day workweek.

The Plaintiff asserts individual and collective action FLSA claims
against Defendants for tip payment, minimum wage, and overtime wage
violations.

Pacific to Central Union Company and Ryori, LLC are restaurants
located in San Antonio, Texas that are each owned by an individual
named Wonyoung Hwang.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (972) 707-7816
          Facsimile: (972) 920-3933
          E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com

PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Martinez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ismael Diaz Martinez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS, INC.,
Case No. 25-CA-010666 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
13th Judicial Circuit of Hillsborough County, Florida, to the
United States Middle District of Florida on Dec. 3, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-03306.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that PeopleGuru failed to
secure and protect the personally identifiable information ("PII")
and protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and Class
Members as a result of an alleged "data security incident" and
alleged "data breach" "perpetrated against PeopleGuru," which
Plaintiff refers to as the "Data Breach."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua Brian, Esq.
          MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
          3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Phone: (267) 930-2405
          Email: jbrian@mullen.law

PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Zapotocky Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Casey Zapotocky, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS, INC., Case
No. 25-CA-010716 was removed from the Circuit Court of the 13th
Judicial Circuit of Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for Middle District of Florida on Dec. 3,
2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-03308.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the sensitive personal
information ("SPI") of Plaintiff and Class Members were compromised
due to PeopleGuru's failure to protect their SPI as a result of a
"hack and exfiltration" announced by PeopleGuru on or around
October 16, 2025, which Plaintiff refers to as the "Data Breach."
The Plaintiff asserts the following cause of actions: negligence,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust
enrichment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua Brian, Esq.
          MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
          3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Phone: (267) 930-2405
          Email: jbrian@mullen.law

PERSANTE HEALTH: Faces Rudek Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD RUDEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERSANTE HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-18143 (D.N.J., December 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory
relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach between January 23 and 28, 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.

Persante Health Care, Inc. is a health care provider, with its
principal place of business in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
         One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 332-4200
         Email: maccarone@kolawyers.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Crowell Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Crowell, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC., Case No. 6:25-cv-02301-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., Dec.
2, 2025).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA Group, Inc.) --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is a publicly traded global
debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq.
          Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          1515 NE 26TH Street
          Wilton Manors, FL 33305
          Phone: 813-340-8838
          Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com
                 gerald@jibraellaw.com

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Smallwood Sues Over False Consumer Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY SMALLWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, doing business together as
"Progressive Insurance," Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02639 (N.D.
Ohio, December 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants obtained one or more
consumer reports of the Plaintiff from LexisNexis, a consumer
reporting agency, without a permissible purpose under the FCRA. The
Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's consumer reports to determine
whether to change the auto policy with the Plaintiff's roommate,
Ricardo Zanin, (Zanin Policy) to add the Plaintiff as an additional
insured to the Zanin Policy and to increase the premium of Mr.
Zanin accordingly. After the Plaintiff obtained a copy of his
credit file from Lexis, he learned that the Defendants had also
falsely and inaccurately reported to Lexis that he had a policy of
insurance with the Defendants. This was false. The Plaintiff did
not have a policy of insurance with the Defendants. As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts as to the credit files of the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff and the
Class suffered invasion of privacy and other damages.

Progressive American Insurance Company is an insurance company in
Ohio.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company in
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
         440 Premier Circle, Suite 240
         Charlottesville, VA 22901
         Telephone: (434) 328-3100
         Facsimile: (954) 763-8660
         Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

                 - and -

         John A. Love, Esq.
         LOVE CONSUMER LAW
         2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
         Alpharetta, GA 30009
         Telephone: (404) 855-3600
         Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com

PROSPERITY GROUP: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Garcia, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
PROSPERITY GROUP INVESTMENTS OF HOUSTON, L.P., Case No.
4:25-cv-05783 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 2, 2025), is brought based upon
Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access 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 once before as a customer
and advocate for the disabled. The 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 Ocean Crawfish, 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
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.

WILCREST VILLAGE WEST CENTER, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership
that transacts business in the State of Texas and within this
judicial district.[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

ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART, and JUAN
CARLOS VAZQUEZ, v. ROBERT LUNA, SHERIFF, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-04641-ODW-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order allowing them to file under seal exhibits in support
of their motion for class certification.

Exhibits 1-10 reference documents and/or information that has been
designated as confidential by the Defendant County of Los Angeles
according to the terms of the protective order in this case.

  Exhibit                 Description

    1         Video Dorm 711 (center) 04/21-22/2022 23:22:06 -
              00:49:55, COLA (STEWART) 000417

    2         Video Dorm Drs 711/712 04/21-22/2022 23:36:00 –
              00:50:28, COLA (STEWART) 000418

    3         Video Dorm 711 (left) 04/21-22/2022 23:22:06 –
              00:49:55, COLA (STEWART) 000419

    4         Video Dorm 711 (right) 04/21-22/2022 23:22:04 –
              00:49:55, COLA (STEWART) 000420

    5         Video SS 710+714 04/21-22/2022 23:36:00 - 00:47:41,
              COLA (STEWART) 000421

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dr6wRD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Dominic Price, Esq.
          JEFF DOMINIC PRICE JDP PC
          23465 Civic Center Wy.
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (310) 451-2222
          E-mail: jdp@jdpfirm.com

 


ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART, and JUAN
CARLOS VAZQUEZ, v. ROBERT LUNA, SHERIFF, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-04641-ODW-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will request the
Court on Feb. 2, 2026, for an Order granting class certification
and appointment of class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for
the following proposed class:

Unit 711 Chemical Weapons Area Saturation Class A:

    "Pretrial detainees in Unit 711 on April 21-22, 2022, who were

    subjected to the use of area saturation with chemical agents
–
    – tear gas, Clear Out and pepper balls."

    or

Unit 711 Chemical Weapons Area Saturation Class B:

    "Pretrial detainees in Unit 711 on April 21-22, 2022, who were

    subjected to the use of area saturation with chemical weapons
    –– tear gas and Clear Out."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yrn75B at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Dominic Price, Esq.
          JEFF DOMINIC PRICE JDP PC
          23465 Civic Center Wy.
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (310) 451-2222
          E-mail: jdp@jdpfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin Clark, Esq.
          LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC
          150 S. Los Robles Ave., Ste. 660
          Pasadena, CA 91101

ROBINSON ECONOMIC: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINSON ECONOMIC SERVICES, LLC D/B/A CLEAR
AIR LENDING; ROBINSON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; CT2022 FIN
1 LLC; BORROWWORKS FINANCIAL, INC.; BORROWWORKS DECISION SCIENCE,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00166-DJH (W.D. Ky., December 4,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Kentucky Revised Statutes and the Kentucky Consumer Protection
Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' engagement in a rent-a-tribe
scheme wherein non-tribal payday lenders use a Native American
tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all amounts paid on her
and other Class members' loans, as well as their costs and
attorneys' fees.

Robinson Economic Services, LLC, doing business as Clear Air
Lending, is a company that operates an online lending website based
in California.

Robinson Economic Development Corporation is a company that
operates an online lending website based in California.

CT2022 Fin 1 LLC is a limited liability company based in Arizona.

BorrowWorks Financial, Inc. is a financial technology company based
in Fort Worth, Texas.

BorrowWorks Decision Science, Inc. is a data-driven financial
technology company based in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq.
       Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq.
       Abigail C. Wearden, Esq.
       LOCKABY PLLC
       476 East High Street, Suite 200
       Lexington, KY 40507
       Telephone: (859) 263-7884
       Facsimile: (859) 406-3333
       Email: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com
              alockaby@lockabylaw.com
              aweardenlockabylaw.com

                 - and -

       Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
       ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
       849 W. Webster Avenue
       Chicago, IL 60614
       Telephone: (773) 554-9354
       Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com

SCHERTZ, TX: Ashby Alleges Senate Bill No. 10 "Unconstitutional"
----------------------------------------------------------------
ODULIA ASHBY; and KEVIN ASHBY, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of their minor child, N.A.; VON MARIE RIVERA, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of her minor child, F.A.D.R.; CAITLYN BESSER,
on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor children, S.B. and
V.B.; MARISSA GOTTLIEB, on behalf of herself and on behalf of her
minor children, H.G., L.G., and B.G.; KASEY MALONE, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of her minor child, E.M.; VERONICA MCKAY, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor child, A.M.; BRIANA
PASCUAL-CLEMENT, on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor
children, A.P., E.I.P., N.P., and E.L.P.; NALLELY SAUCEDA, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor child, M.S.; EMILY
BIRTWISTLE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor child,
D.B.; MATTHEW FOSTER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of his two
minor children, J.F. and A.F.; WHITNEY KELTCH GREEN, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of her minor child, Z.G.; HELEN HANKS AND
MADISON HANKS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their minor
child, O.H.; KENNETH HAYES, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
his minor children, D.H. and S.H.; ANDREW KIRK, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of his minor child, J.K.; ANN-MARIE LELEK, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor children, B.L. and
A.L.; JOYCE MASTERS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of her
minor child, J.M.; RANDY MYERS, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of his minor children, Q.M. and M.M.; and JESSICA SALYERS AND
JOSHUA SALYERS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their
minor child, M.S., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCHERTZ-CIBOLO-UNIVERSAL CITY
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and a class of all
Texas independent school districts similarly situated; MEDINA
VALLEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and a class
of all Texas independent school districts similarly situated;
HURST-EULESS-BEDFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and a class of all Texas independent school districts
similarly situated; CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf
of itself and a class of all Texas independent school districts
similarly situated; KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and a class of all Texas independent school districts
similarly situated; WYLIE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and a class of all Texas independent school districts
similarly situated; PROSPER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf
of itself and a class of all Texas independent school districts
similarly situated; DEER PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on
behalf of itself and a class of all Texas independent school
districts similarly situated; ARGYLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
MAGNOLIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT; CLEAR CREEK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SAM HOUSTON
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; LIBERTY HILL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT; PEARLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; and BIRDVILLE
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01613
(W.D. Tex., Dec. 2, 2025) is an action seeking a declaratory
judgment that Senate Bill No. 10 ("S.B. 10" or "the Act") is
unconstitutional, seeking a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, as well as permanent injunctive relief, to
prevent Defendants and other independent school districts similarly
situated from complying with the Act.

According to the complaint, Senate Bill No. 10 ("S.B. 10" or "the
Act"), requires public schools to post a state-approved, Protestant
version of the Ten Commandments in a "conspicuous place" in every
classroom, all of these students will be forcibly subjected to
scriptural dictates, day in and day out.

The state's main interest in displaying the Ten Commandments in
public schools under S.B. 10 is to impose specific religious
beliefs on public-school children, ignoring the numerous objections
from Texas families and faith leaders from across the religious
spectrum.

Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District is a
public school district that serves nearly 16,000 students in
Schertz, Cibolo, Universal City. [BN]

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 Lussier, Esq.
          Victoria Wang, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Email: 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.
          Thomas Buser-Clancy, Esq.
          Sarah Corning, Esq.
          Chloe Kempf, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          OF TEXAS FOUNDATION, INC.
          P.O. Box 8306
          Houston, TX 77288
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          Email: apinon@aclutx.org
                 tbuser-clancy@aclutx.org
                 scorning@aclutx.org
                 ckempf@aclutx.org

               - and -

          Daniel Mach, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION, INC.
          915 15th Street, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 675-2330
          Email: dmach@aclu.org

               - and -

          Arijeet Sensharma, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION, INC.
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2500
          Email: 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
          Email: 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
          P.O. Box 750
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 256-8900
          Email: patrick@ffrf.org
                 sgrover@ffrf.org
                 noetn@ffrf.org

SONG 'E NAPULE: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONG 'E NAPULE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-06588 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.songenapule.us, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when he
attempted multiple times, most recently on April 15, 2025, to
access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers
that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content
and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff sought out to find a
Neapolitan-style pizza and while browsing, also became interested
in the Mokavit Capri 3 Cups.

The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Song 'E Napule, Inc. operates the website that offers Neapolitan
cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

STATE FARM: Concealed Threats Facing Insurance Policies, Jason Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GORDON JASON, JENNIFER NAPPO, and PATRICK MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Unnamed Affiliates &
Associates 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14507 (N.D. Ill.,
November 26, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and all persons in the United States who were solicited, induced,
and/or targeted by State Farm agents to purchase life insurance
policies or annuity contracts offered by The Phoenix Companies,
Inc.

According to the complaint, Defendant State Farm occupied and
assumed a unique position of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs
and Class Members concerning their Phoenix Products, including
those related to estate planning. The Defendant targeted Plaintiffs
and Class Members in connection with these Phoenix Products and
represented the Products as safe and secure investments.

The complaint alleges, however, that the Defendant abused its
position of trust. For more than a decade, the Defendant concealed
real and imminent threats facing Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
policies and contracts and associated benefits. The Defendant knew
the financial risk facing Phoenix and chose to keep silent so it
could quietly pocket millions of dollars in compensation, to the
detriment of Plaintiffs and Class Members.

By the time Plaintiffs and Class Members became aware of their
financial injury, it was too late. The Defendant failed to warn and
concealed material facts from Plaintiffs and Class Members. Today,
PHL Variable Insurance Company is in rehabilitation, and Plaintiffs
and Class Members are unable to receive the full benefits due under
their policies and contracts. Neither can they exchange or
surrender their Phoenix Products for a suitable alternative, says
the suit.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is the largest
property and casualty insurance provider and the largest auto
insurance provider in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com

               - and -

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          50 Main St., Ste. 475
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 874-0710
          Facsimile: (914) 206-3656
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          Edward S. Stone, Esq.
          EDWARD STONE LAW P.C.
          205 East 42nd Street, Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (203) 504-8425
          Facsimile: (203) 348-8477
          E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Soliz Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARI SOLIZ and DENISE RICO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10043 (D. Ariz., December 4,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, 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 Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach detected on or about November 21,
2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

The University of Phoenix, Inc. is a private for-profit university
in Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
         THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
         11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2
         Scottsdale, AZ 85259
         Telephone: (602) 388-8898
         Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
         Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

                 - and -

         Christian Levis, Esq.
         Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
         Email: clevis@lowey.com
                afiorilla@lowey.com

                 - and -

         Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
         One Tower Bridge
         100 Front Street, Suite 520
         West Conshohocken, PA 19428
         Telephone: (215) 399-4770
         Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
         Email: achristina@lowey.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Pressley Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case UNIQUE PRESSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES 1-20, Case
No. S-CV-0056256, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
California for the County of Placer to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on December 4, 2025.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-03514-DJC-CKD to the proceeding.

The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of
California Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, California
Public Policy, California Unfair Competition Law, and California's
Private Attorney General Act.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a retail company located in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
      Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
      400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 239-9800
      Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
      Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com

                 - and -

      Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
      Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
      695 Town Center Drive
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (714) 800-7900
      Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
      Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com

WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Fabrikant Sues Over Unsecured Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FABRIKANT, Plaintiff v. WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS, P.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-03850 (D. Colo., November 26, 2025) is a class
action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendant for
failing to properly secure and safeguard personal and sensitive
information.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collected without
limitation, Plaintiff and other patients' full names, dates of
birth, gender, residential addresses, phone numbers, personal email
addresses, social security numbers, insurance policy numbers, and
detailed clinical records that includes medical histories,
diagnostic images, medication lists, types of surgeries performed,
diagnoses, and confidential medical notes.

The Plaintiff also alleges the failure of the Defendant to provide
timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff that their
personal information had been exposed and precisely what types of
information was unencrypted and in the possession of unknown third
parties.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
personal information was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the personal information of
Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members
of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii)
ensure that the personal information of Plaintiff and Class Members
would be adequately safeguarded from misuse or exposure to
unauthorized individuals whenever Defendant shared it with third
parties.

Western Orthopaedics, P.C. is a medical provider that treats and
manages a wide variety of musculoskeletal conditions, including
sports injuries and spinal conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore A. Corless, Esq.  
          5235 Old Stage Road
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (813) 318-1535
          E-mail: mountaintime1967@gmail.com

[] ClaimScore Rebrands as Covalynt, Expands Data Science Platform
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimScore, the legal technology company behind the only data
science and AI-driven fraud detection solution for class action
settlements, announced on Dec. 16, 2025, that it has rebranded as
Covalynt. The new brand reflects the company's evolution from a
single anti-fraud product into a full-service data science platform
purpose-built for complex litigation.

Under the Covalynt name, the company now offers an integrated suite
of products -- ClassResolution, DeepValidation, ClaimScore by
Covalynt, and Bespoke Data Solutions—designed to solve the most
difficult data problems in high-stakes cases, from early discovery
through settlement distribution.

"Complex litigation has become fundamentally data-driven, but the
industry hasn't kept pace with the data-science rigor these matters
now require," said Don Beshada, CEO and co-founder of Covalynt.
"ClaimScore showed us that fraud detection was just one piece of a
much larger problem: fragmented class records, unreliable notice
data, and identity-resolution challenges that traditional tools
simply can't handle. Covalynt is our answer to that broader
mandate—the bond between complex litigation and data science."

Originally launched as ClaimScore, the company pioneered
bank-level, data-driven backend fraud analysis to help settlement
administrators, attorneys and companies detect and prevent
sophisticated class action claim fraud in real time.

"Our clients started coming to us with questions that went far
beyond 'Is this claim fraudulent?'" said Bryan Heller, co-founder
of Covalynt. "They needed defensible class datasets, reliable
notice strategies, and transparent models that could survive legal
challenges. Covalynt's platform is built to meet that
reality—engineered by data scientists, proven in high-profile
cases, and designed to stand up under expert and judicial
scrutiny."

Covalynt's platform now includes four core offerings that bring
scientific structure and defensibility to the entire litigation
lifecycle:

   * ClassResolution - Guides discovery toward the data that
matters and builds a unified, audit-ready class dataset. Covalynt
helps legal teams request the right fields, reconcile fragmented
records across sources, and apply engineered identity-resolution
methods so that class membership can be defended under intense
judicial and expert scrutiny.

   * DeepValidation - Transforms incomplete or inconsistent class
contact data into actionable intelligence. DeepValidation enriches
and validates addresses, emails, and other contact points,
maximizing direct deliverability and sharpening indirect notice
strategies while documenting each step in a reproducible,
transparent process.

   * ClaimScore - Retains and extends the original ClaimScore
fraud-detection capabilities. The product uses multi-factor,
AI-driven scoring to identify fraudulent or suspicious
claims—including synthetic identities and phone-farm
submissions—while preserving legitimate claims and providing
objective, evidence-backed documentation to courts and settlement
stakeholders.

   * Bespoke Data Solutions - For challenges that don't fit a
standard pattern, Covalynt builds custom engineered workflows and
applied data science solutions tailored to the specific facts,
systems, and risks of a case. These bespoke engagements address
root-cause data issues—such as complex identity graphs,
multi-defendant data feeds, or unusual notice channels.

Covalynt's methodology has been deployed in a wide range of
privacy, consumer, and antitrust matters, including federal and
state cases involving some of the world's largest technology, data,
and consumer brands. The company's tools and testimony have been
used in cases such as Lopez v. Apple, Inc., Katz-Lacabe et al. v.
Oracle America, Inc., Mackmin et al. v. Visa Inc. et al., and
Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., Google LLC, and Meta Platforms, Inc.,
among others.

Across these matters, Covalynt's role has expanded from fraud
detection and claim validation to broader responsibilities such as
class data engineering, notice optimization, and ongoing analytics
that support negotiations, fee petitions, and post-distribution
reporting.

"We built Covalynt for the data reality of modern cases," Beshada
added. "That means transparent, reproducible logic, rigorous
security, and solutions that make litigation fairer and more
efficient for courts, class members, and counsel on all sides."

                    About Covalynt

Covalynt is a technology company dedicated to solving the hardest
data problems in complex litigation. Combining decades of trial and
settlement experience with advanced systems engineering and applied
data science, Covalynt delivers structured, defensible solutions
across the litigation lifecycle—from class data engineering and
notice optimization to AI-driven fraud detection and bespoke
analytics. Covalynt's products and methodologies have been deployed
in some of the highest-profile privacy, consumer, and antitrust
cases in U.S. and international courts. For more information, visit
covalynt.com.

[] Paul Boehm Joins Sidley as Partner in D.C.
---------------------------------------------
Sidley announced on December 18, 2025, that Paul Boehm has joined
the firm as a partner in its Product Liability and Mass Torts group
in Washington, D.C. Mr. Boehm will become a global co-leader of
Sidley's Product Liability and Mass Torts practice alongside Heidi
Levine and Jennifer Saulino. He joins Sidley from Williams &
Connolly, where he was a litigation partner.

Mr. Boehm is a nationally recognized trial lawyer and national
litigation counsel, focused on product liability and mass tort
litigation. He has more than two decades of experience in
representing large pharmaceutical companies and multinational
corporations in complex multidistrict litigation and high-profile
trials. Mr. Boehm is the trusted go-to counsel for many of his
clients, leading the strategy for their complex multidistrict
litigations (MDL) and coordinated state court litigation, as well
as coordinating and overseeing trials for them, providing
significant strategic advice throughout the course of their trial.
He is recognized in Product Liability & Mass Torts in both Chambers
USA and Legal 500.

"Paul is a formidable and accomplished lead coordinating counsel
and trial lawyer with whom we already share a number of clients and
we are excited to have him join our litigation platform," said
Yvette Ostolaza, chair of Sidley's Management Committee. "Paul is
well-known to many of our colleagues and clients, so we expect a
seamless integration into our firm."

"Paul's decades of experience representing some of the largest
multinational corporations will fit in nicely with our outstanding
Product liability and Mass tort practice," said Kristin Graham
Koehler, managing partner of Sidley's Washington, D.C. office and
member of the firm's Management and Executive Committees. "His
addition will add significant strength to the D.C. office as we
look to consolidate clients onto our litigation platform following
the arrival of a number of leaders in recent months."

Mr. Boehm joins Sidley's Chambers-ranked Product Liability and Mass
Tort practice on the heels of a string of Sidley high-profile full
defense jury verdicts in mass tort and product liability trials.
Sidley also has achieved a series of wins on dispositive motions
and plays a leading role in several of the largest mass torts
pending today over pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food and
nutrition, and environmental toxic torts. Mr. Boehm’s experience
and talent will expand and enhance the team's capacity to take on
Sidley clients' most difficult matters.

Mr. Boehm is the eighth new partner to join Sidley's Washington,
D.C. office this year. The Washington, D.C. office welcomed Maura
Rezendes, John Foote, Barbara Stettner, Molly Lovedale, Alana
Genderson, Michael Hochman, and Lisa Miller since the beginning of
the year.

Sidley is "Built to Win(R)" at each stage of the litigation process
and counts more than 750 litigators worldwide. With true geographic
reach, the firm can field winning litigation teams in virtually any
forum where its clients find themselves facing a dispute.

Sidley is an elite global law firm. With approximately 2,300
lawyers and nearly 160 years of experience, we have established a
reputation for deploying innovative legal strategies to achieve
powerful results for our clients in complex transactional,
restructuring, crisis management, investigation, regulatory, and
litigation matters.

Our perspective and reach are truly global, supported by 21 offices
strategically situated in key commercial, regulatory, and financial
centers across the world. Our lawyers and business professionals,
fluent in more than 75 languages, possess the cultural awareness
and cross-border legal acumen needed to bring clarity to a dynamic
business landscape.


                            *********

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 ***