251226.mbx

251226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 26, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 258 Headlines 1ST ORLANDO REAL ESTATE: Kunzman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida 1ST ORLANDO: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines in Kunzman 3M COMPANY: Peleski Comunidad Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Pike Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Zache Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 536 J AND J: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages 9049 SONOMA HIGHWAY: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. A+ STAFFING: Class Settlement in Vasquez Suit Gets Final Nod ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Class Cert Discovery in Hulse Due Oct. 30, 2026 ADJ PRODUCTS LLC: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AIR SYSTEMS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to N.D. California AIRGAS SPECIALTY: Brown Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ALBERT CORP: $5.2MM Settlement Fund in Feeman Gets Initial Nod ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida AMBITRANS MEDICAL: Desruisseux Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages AMN HEALTHCARE: Franklin Suit Removed to S.D. California ARCHERY TRADE: Tapia Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ARIZONA PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ARSTRAT LLC: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed AYYAN INC: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BAYSIDE NY HOMES: Class Settlement in Nicorta Gets Final Nod BELLA PROFESSIONALS: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BELVEDERE NRDE: Valencia Suit Seeks to Certify Class Claims BETTER MORTGAGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Wilson" Text Message Case BIOHM HEALTH INC: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLACK ENTERPRISE: Barajas Sues Over Unlawful Use of Software BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Alhaj Suit Removed to C.D. California BNSF RAILWAY: Faces Vandermeulen Suit Over FMLA Leave Violations BOSCH HEALTH: Finley Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages BRAUN MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 28, 2026 BRAVOCARE: Wilson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: 2nd Amended Case Management Order Entered BRUNCH HOLDINGS: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BUBBA GUMP SHRIMP: Portillo Suit Removed to C.D. California BUD'S GOODS: Faces Whooley Wage-and-Hour Suit in Mass. Super. C&W FACILITY SERVICES: Villa Suit Removed to N.D. California CARNIVORE SNAX: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CCL TUBE INC: Matute Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Michaud CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Zapata Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CERNER CORPORATION: Wright Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHERRY HILL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kennard Due July 24, 2026 CHOCTAW NATION: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response CITIBANK NA: Letidas Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal CITIBANK NA: Letidas Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CITIBANK NA: LLL Bid to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal Tossed CLEVELAND CLINIC: Aids Third Parties to Intercept Data, Suit Says COCHRAN INC: Yelenick Suit Removed to W.D. Washington COFFEE BEAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Alleges CONDUENT BUSINESS: Alexander Files Suit in D. New Jersey CONIFER REVENUE: Brackens Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime CONSERVICE LLC: Jolicoeur-Louis Seeks to Certify Four Classes CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING: Alvarez Suit Removed to N.D. California CORNER PUB: Zavala Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Ramos Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages CSI COMPANIES INC: Rivera Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida CSI COMPANIES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines DANIELLE OUTLAW: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed DARREN K. INDYKE: Ward Files Suit in N.D. New York DATA TECHNICIANS: Benson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DAUNNO REALTY SERVICES: Jensen Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey DCS ALL AMERICAN: Birdwell Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation DELTA AIR LINES: McMillan Suit Removed to C.D. California DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fisher Says DEXCOM INC: Grisoli Suit Transferred to S.D. California DIGNITY HEALTH: Tsiatsos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ECSTASE INC: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Yanovitch Sues Over Oven's Glass Window Defect ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: More Time to File Class Cert Sought EQT CORPORATION: Seeks to Exclude Davis' Opinions in Ross Suit EQT CORPORATION: Seeks to Exclude Haney's Opinions in Ross Suit EXPEDIA GROUP: Mata Suit Seeks Leave to File Exhibits EXPEDIA INC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FANDUEL INC: Criswell Sues Over Illegal Gambling Websites FAVORITE WORLD: Class Settlement in Minor Gets Final Nod FCA US: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Thompson" Settlement FEDERICI BRANDS: Cerkezoglu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FIRE APPARATUS: Roseland Sues Over Conspiracy and Fixed Prices FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Duverger Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida FLORIDA CREDIT: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Seecharran Alleges FOLEY CARRIER: Newell Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut FORD MOTOR: Fails to Compensate Dealers Based on Parts Retail Value FORGEN LLC: Dodson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FOUNDATION RISK: Charton Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid Wages FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Diuguid Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FREEWAY INSURANCE: Lazan Sues Over Unlawful Debiting GENIE RETAIL ENERGY: Fitzpatrick Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey GIFTED YOUTH: Yearwood Suit Removed to C.D. California GLOBAL LENDING: Ward Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection GOLDEN BRIGHT: Munoz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages GRILEY AIR FREIGHT: Schirmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GXO LOGISTICS SUPPLY: Arredondo Suit Removed to C.D. California HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Protect Data HOLLISTER-WHITNEY ELEVATOR: Faces Trapini Suit Over Unpaid Wages HOME WET BAR: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HOPE HEALTH: Aman Files Suit Over Data Breach HUEL INC: Settecasi Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Protein Powder HYATT CORPORATION: Hasty Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH: Nedved Suit Removed to S.D. California IGLOO PRODUCTS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 5, 2027 JCRB INC: Acosta Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation JEFF RUBY: Lamb Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Shoemake Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection JENNINGS FRUITS: Camano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages JOYCE CAMPBELL: $1.2MM Settlement Fund in Caddell Gets Initial Nod KAHNALYTICS INC: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website KAISER FOUNDATION: Gets Prelim OK of Settlement KANSAS CITY LIFE: $40MM Settlement in Va Zanten Gets Final Nod KROGER CO: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Tomassian Suit LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Burrell Seeks to Certify Four Classes LAKEVIEW LOAN: More Time to File Settlement Prelim Approval Sought LARGO PIPING: Genevish Collective Action Conditionally Certified LAWRENCE GENERAL: Valliere Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts LEAD COMPANY: Fitzgerald Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida LEWIS BLUM TOWING: Jain Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIMESTONE BANK: Wins Preliminary Nod of "Cooper" Settlement LIVE NATION: Court Initially Certifies Class in Heckam Suit LIVE NATION: Wu Wins Bid for Class Certification LOVELY SKIN: Argueta Sues Over Unlawful Advertising Prices LOVEPOP INC: Evans Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Hern Suit Removed to W.D. Washington M.G.R. CLEANUP: Alvarado Sues Over Wage and Hour Laws Violations MALA TOWN LLC: Li Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MANAGED CARE: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal MANAGED CARE: Seeks to Exclude Nelson's Opinions in Crowe Suit MARATHON REFINING: Arroyo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS: Hillmon Files Suit in E.D. Texas MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Baroni Files Suit in E.D. Texas MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Copeland Alleges MC CHINA GARDEN: McCrae Sues Over Unpaid Tip and Minimum Wages MDL 3154: Bid for Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit Due Oct 29, 2026 MDL 3167: Haff Poultry V. Peco Transferred to Utah Court MDL 3168: Centralization of 17 Video Game Addiction Suits Denied MDL 3169: Centralization of 4 Eligo Contract Breach Suits Denied MEHRI & SKALET: Budzinski Sues Over Data Breach MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 26, 2026 META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Nieves Suit Removed to N.D. California MISSOURI: Seeks More Time to File Darrington Class Cert Response MUSTANG MOTORCYCLE: Russell Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. MUTUAL HOUSING: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATERA INC: Class Cert Bid in Petersen Due Sept. 25, 2026 NEBRASKA: Denies Free Public Education to Disabled, Suit Says NELLIS AUCTION: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Reply Deadline NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for Jan. 6, 2026 NEWREZ LLC: Spoerl Files Suit in N.D. Illinois NORLITE LLC: Oxaal Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes NORMS RESTAURANTS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OLUKAI LLC: Barco Sues Over Unsolicited Calls OPTUMRX INC: Lackie Drug Seeks More Time to File Response ORACLE CORP: Faces Volsky Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info ORACLE CORPORATION: Daly Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ORTHO MATTRESS INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OUTER INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PABST BREWING: Aldape Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation PARKING REVENUE: Dell Sues Over Data Privacy Violations PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California PERELLA WEINBERG: Watts Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices PERSANTE HEALTH CARE: James Files Suit in D. New Jersey PHARMERICA DRUG: Carr Sues Over Minimum and Overtime Wage PICIS CLINICAL SOLUTIONS: Gibson Files Suit in D. Massachusetts PIERRE FABRE: Vales Sues Over Avene's Preservative-Free Advertising PLANNED PARENTHOOD: N.B. Files Suit in S.D. New York PORTLAND GENERAL: Pearson Sues Over Water Contamination in Oregon PRIMO BRANDS: City of Miami Sues Over Drop in Share Price PRIORITY GROUP MULTI: Sherba Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California PTT LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Larsen Due Jan. 22, 2026 RDO EQUIPMENT: Settlement in Munoz Gets Final Nod RELATION INSURANCE: Terriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RESOLVION LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Due May 11, 2026 RITTER FOODS: Jara Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ROADRUNNER DRYWALL: Phelps Seeks to Certify Manual Labor Class ROYAL MADERA VINEYARDS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROYAL UNITED: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid SANDISK SSDS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Documents Under Seal SEC: Sutherland Sues Over Price Manipulation SECURITY CREDIT: Brooks Files Suit Over Data Breach SHARP HEALTHCARE: Saucedo Sues Over Unlawful Conversation Recording SMOKY ROSE: Savage Suit Seeks Approval of Tipped Workers Notice SPRINGER NATURE: Settles Video Privacy Suit for $900K ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Richard Suit Removed to C.D. California STATE FARM: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barbato Due Feb. 14, 2026 SWEETKIWI HOLDINGS: Chavis Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deprivation TEAM COMPANIES: Vyver Balks at Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Pennington Suit Transferred to D. Kansas TIMOTHY HORNER: Espinosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TLB DELAWARE: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store TRIUMPH CONSTRUCTION: Lamarco Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective TROVEC SERVICES: Villarreal Seeks Field Supervisors' Unpaid OT UNITED AUTO: Northern District Seeks to Certify FLSA Claims UNITED STATES: Class Cert Hearing in Bourque Due May 14, 2026 UNITED STATES: Court Partly Grants Immigrant Injunction in "Molina" UNITED STATES: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 2, 2026 UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Curlee Says UNIVISTA INSURANCE: McClain Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida UPPER RESTORATION: Alvarez Files Suit Over Labor Law Violations US BANK NATIONAL: Jimenez Suit Removed to C.D. California VALEX CORP: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VICVIC CORP: Faces Tito Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. VONS COMPANIES: Sandoval Bid to Continue Discovery Deadline Tossed WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Grout Files Suit in D. Montana WELLQUEST LIVING: Soto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLS FARGO BANK: Valencia-Chavez Suit Removed to N.D. California WEST PAW: Youngren Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ZUMPER INC: Installs Data Broker Software on Website, Pham Claims Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Orders J&J to Pay $40MM in Talc Powder Case ********* 1ST ORLANDO REAL ESTATE: Kunzman Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1st Orlando Real Estate Services, Inc. The case is styled as Anita Kunzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1st Orlando Real Estate Services, Inc. doing business as: Premium Properties Real Estate Services, Case No. 6:25-cv-02397 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 1st For Orlando Realty -- https://www.1stfororlandorealty.com/ -- specializes in Real Estate, representing both Home Buyers and Home Sellers in Florida.[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 1ST ORLANDO: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines in Kunzman ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kunzman v. 1st Orlando Real Estate Services, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-02397 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec. 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).[CC] 3M COMPANY: Peleski Comunidad Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Irvin Peleski, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DowDupont); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company); JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX Corporation); and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Case No. 2:25-cv-13778-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 8, 2025), is brought for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, a moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF and/or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions regarding the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease in 1995. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, the effects of his illness, which were caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's Firefighting Activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used and was exposed to Defendants' AFFF containing PFAS chemicals and/or their precursory chemicals during his career as a firefighter. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF productio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 Email: wmcafff@wmclaw.com 3M COMPANY: Pike Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Ervin Pike, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.); CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DowDupont); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company); JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX Corporation); and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Case No. 2:25-cv-13824-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish extremely hot fires involving materials like alcohol, petroleum greases, and other flammable or combustible liquids and gases ("Class B Fires"). AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B Fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, a moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants, individually and collectively, designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, promoted, sold, handled, used, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals that were added to AFFF or TOG, with knowledge that the AFFF or TOG or underlying chemicals contained highly toxic and biopersistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF and/or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions regarding the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products caused Plaintiff significant and devastating injury. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease in 1995. Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, the effects of his illness, which were caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF and/or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's Firefighting Activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and/or TOG in training and to extinguish fires throughout multiple decades in his work as a civilian firefighter. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promoters, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF or TOG products or underlying PFAS-containing chemicals used in the production of AFFF or TOG products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 499-7900 Facsimile: (202) 478-1795 Email: wmcafff@wmclaw.com 3M COMPANY: Zache Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jerelyn Zache, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00648 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 1, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13649-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. 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: John Bradley Agnetti, Esq. Michel Reyes, Esq. HOFFMAN, LARIN & AGNETTI, PA 909 N. Miami Beach Blvd., Suite 201 Miami, FL 33162 Phone: (305) 653-5555 Fax: (305) 940-0090 Email: john@hlalaw.com mreyes@hlalaw.com 536 J AND J: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Rigoberto Bautista Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 536 J AND J CORPORATION f/d/b/a 86TH CORNER WINE & LIQUOR CO, and HOWARD SHIM, Case No. 1:25-cv-10169 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, due to Defendants' failure to pay the correct overtime rate, unpaid overtime wages, due to timeshaving, unpaid overtime wages, due to improper rounding, statutory penalties, liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members the correct overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a workweek during their employment. For the overtime hours, Defendants compensated Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members at an incorrect overtime rate. Similarly, at all relevant times FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but did not receive overtime premiums at the correct rate for hours worked in excess of 40 a week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the proper overtime rate for all hours worked to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members in violation of FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work for their liquor store in March 2000. 536 J AND J CORPORATION is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 9049 SONOMA HIGHWAY: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 9049 Sonoma Highway, LLC. The case is styled as Hector Gomez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 9049 Sonoma Highway, LLC doing business as Stella, Case No. 25CV08475 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., Dec. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Employment." 9049 Sonoma Highway, LLC doing business as Stella -- https://www.stellakenwood.com/ -- nestled in Kenwood, CA, is a cozy neighborhood Italian restaurant known for its wood-fired cuisine that highlights seasonal ingredients and vibrant flavors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Chuman, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 213-239-9800 Email: ryanc@protectionlawgroup.com A+ STAFFING: Class Settlement in Vasquez Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL VASQUEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. A+ STAFFING LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02306-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting final approval of the settlement reached by the Parties; 2. Certifying the following settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in connection with the settlement process: a. are all persons employed as subway cleaners by the Defendants at any time between April 22, 2019, and Jan. 31, 2024; and 3. certifying the following settlement collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in connection with the settlement process: a. are all persons employed as subway cleaners by same period as above, as well as all Plaintiffs who have already opted into this case. A+ Staffing is a provider of recruitment solutions, as well as home care and skilled nursing services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nJjvCP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. WORKING SOLUTIONS LAW FIRM 80 Broad St, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 ACADIAN AMBULANCE: Class Cert Discovery in Hulse Due Oct. 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA ROBERTSON HULSE, V. ACADIAN AMBULANCE SERVICE INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-01011-DCJ-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Whitehurst entered an order setting the deadline for class certification-related discovery for Oct. 30, 2026. The Court further entered an order that a telephone conference is set for Nov. 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. to establish further deadlines and to set a class certification hearing. Counsel shall access the conference via 1-650-479-3207, access code 2315 350 5623. Acadian provides emergency medical care and transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LUwIYx at no extra charge.[CC] ADJ PRODUCTS LLC: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADJ Products, LLC. The case is styled as Danny Castillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ADJ Products, LLC, Case No. 25STCV36215 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ADJ Products, LLC -- https://www.adj.com/ -- is a global manufacturer of entertainment lighting, LED video and atmospheric effects equipment with an expansive portfolio of products.[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 AIR SYSTEMS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Pierce, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AIR SYSTEMS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV153390 was removed from the Superior Court for the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10609-AGT. The Complaint lists nine causes of action alleging: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua D. Kienitz, 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: jkienitz@littler.com - and - P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. Alejandra Gallegos, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: dbodaghi@littler.com agallegos@littler.com AIRGAS SPECIALTY: Brown Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Larry Brown, Gary Albert, Staci Albert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Airgas Specialty 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-25-00149 was removed from the Custer County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Dec. 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01473-SLP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Airgas Specialty Products -- https://airgasspecialtyproducts.com/ -- is the premier North American supplier of ammonia for industrial applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clayton B. Bruner, Esq. 222 W. Tom Stafford Weatherford, OK 73096 Phone: (580) 774-5363 Fax: (580) 772-1116 Email: clay@claybruner.com The Defendants are represented by: J. Todd Woolery, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT-OKC 211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-9621 Fax: (405) 235-0439 Email: todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com ALBERT CORP: $5.2MM Settlement Fund in Feeman Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Feeman et al., v. Albert Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03605-MWC-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Court preliminarily approves the settlement, appoints Plaintiffs Robert Feeman and Bradley Bailey as Class Representatives, appoints Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC and Jacobson Phillips PLLC as Class Counsel, and appoints Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. The Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: "All Albert Instant customers who from Dec. 1, 2024, through the date an order granting preliminary approval is entered received any Albert Instant advance in connection with which they paid a transfer fee and were active-duty servicemembers or were spouses or eligible dependents of such servicemembers at the time they took such Albert Instant advance." Under the Agreement, the Defendants agree to pay $5,200,000 (the "Settlement Fund") into an Escrow Account, in exchange for the Releases set forth in the Agreement and the dismissal of the Action with prejudice upon Final Approval. Albert operates as an application software company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QZx69R at no extra charge.[CC] ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alexander & Associates Real Estate Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Norman Knoche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alexander & Associates Real Estate Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-14434-DMM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alexander & Associates Real Estate Solutions LLC -- https://alexanderassociatesrealty.com/ -- is an up and coming real estate firm in the Chicagoland area specializing in high end rentals, residential & commercial sales, and property management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. 1650 SE 17th, Street 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com AMBITRANS MEDICAL: Desruisseux Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Desruissaux, individually and for others similarly situated v. AMBITRANS MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01137-KCD-DNF (M.D. Fla., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to properly calculate into these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (The Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA 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 workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed Desruisseaux as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) from October 2021 to January 2025. Ambitrans touts that it is "the largest provider of private ambulance transportation in Southwest Florida operateing across Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota and Manatee counties."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com AMN HEALTHCARE: Franklin Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Heather Franklin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. AMN HEALTHCARE LABOR DISRUPTION INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU056700C was removed from the Superior Court for the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Dec. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03527-WQH-VET. The Complaint asserts class claims for relief arising out of Plaintiff's alleged employment with AMN LD to replace striking healthcare workers at healthcare facilities in California. Plaintiff asserts class claims for: failure to pay all wages owed under Labor Codes and the applicable California Industrial Welfare Wage Orders; failure to pay overtime for all overtime hours worked under Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Orders; failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked under Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Orders; breach of contract; failure to authorize and/or permit meal periods under Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Orders; failure to authorize and/or permit rest periods under Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Orders; failure to reimburse all business-related expenditures under Labor Code; failure to furnish complete and accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Orders; failure to timely pay all final wages under Labor Code; and unfair competition under Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Brian S. Fong, Esq. Amanda E. Beckwith, Esq. Victoria B. Ayeni, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com bfong@sheppardmullin.com abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com vayeni@sheppardmullin.com ARCHERY TRADE: Tapia Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Tapia, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Archery Trade Association, Inc.; BowTech Inc.; BPS Direct LLC; Cabela's LLC; Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.; Hoyt Archery, Inc.; Jay's Sports, Inc.; Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc.; Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc.; Matthews Archery, Inc.; NeuIntel LLC; Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc.; Trackstreet Inc.; Case No. 5:25-cv-01462 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Dec. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03996-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. The Archery Trade Association (ATA) -- https://archerytrade.org/ -- is the trade group representing manufacturers, retailers, distributors, sales representatives and others working in the archery and bowhunting industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sommer Kaitlyn Hazel, Esq. Francisco Guerra, IV, Esq. WATTS GUERRA, LLP 875 E Ashby PI Suite 1200 San Antonio, TX 78212 Phone: (210) 447-0500 Fax: (210) 447-0501 ARIZONA PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvia Garcia, an individual, and other similarly situated employees v. Arizona Pediatric Dentistry & Orthodontics, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Usha Kapur, an individual, Aman Kapur, an individual, and John Doe, as Trustee of the Kapur Trust, Case No. 2:25-cv-04562-CDB (D. Ariz., Dec. 5, 2025), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and related Arizona wage laws as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendants routinely required Plaintiff and other hourly employees to work more than 40 hours in a workweek but paid only the regular hourly rate and no time-and-a-half premium for hours worked in excess of 40-hours in a week. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Plaintiff was not paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants paid Plaintiff only her regular hourly rate of $27.00 for all hours worked, including those hours over 40 in a workweek. the Defendants employed other hourly employees who, like Plaintiff, regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but were not paid overtime wages as required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from July 7, 2006 to July 19, 2025. Arizona Pediatric Dentistry & Orthodontics, LLC is an Arizona limited liability corporation operating within the state of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Green, Esq. Quarracy L. Smith, Esq. SMITH & GREEN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.L.L.C. 3101 N. Central Ave., Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602)-812-4600 Email: qsmith@smithgreenlaw.com jgreen@smithgreenlaw.com ARSTRAT LLC: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVELYN CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARSTRAT, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01681-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order denying first stipulation to amend scheduling order. ARstrat is a Houston-based debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qcKKP7 at no extra charge.[CC] AYYAN INC: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- Leshawn Young, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. AYYAN, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10183 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.ayeya.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. AYYAN, INC., operates the Ayeya online retail store, as well as the Ayeya interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal BAYSIDE NY HOMES: Class Settlement in Nicorta Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY NICOTRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYSIDE NY HOMES LLC D/B/A KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY LANDMARK, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-04459-FB-SDE (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The settlement agreement, including the Claim Form and Notices attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibits A, B, and C are preliminarily approved. 2. The Settlement Class is provisionally certified as a class of: "All persons (1) associated with 1,019 unique telephone numbers in records produced by Follow Up Boss in connection with the Litigation (2) that were registered on the National Do Not call Registry for at least 30 days and (3) to which more than one text message was sent by Deirdre Folan on behalf of Defendant within any 12 month period between June 24, 2020 and the date of preliminary approval." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judges presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, Defendant's respective subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest and its current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded person(s). 3. The Plaintiff is conditionally certified as the class representative to implement the Parties' settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Avi R. Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. and Stefan Coleman of Coleman PLLC are conditionally appointed as Class Counsel. 4. On April 15, 2026, at 3:00 pm, this Court will hold an in person Fairness Hearing to determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vxMwq1 at no extra charge.[CC] BELLA PROFESSIONALS: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Ford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bella Professionals, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-14981 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Bella Professionals provides to their non-disabled customers through https://sleekshop.com (hereinafter "Sleekshop.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Sleekshop.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Bella Professionals's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Bella Professionals provides to the public a website known as Sleekshop.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide range of hair and skin care products, cosmetics, styling tools, brushes, false lashes, and professional salon products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BELVEDERE NRDE: Valencia Suit Seeks to Certify Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CAMILA VALENCIA RIOS, AQUARIUS FILALI, and NADJI FILALI, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. BELVEDERE NRDE, LLC, PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL, LLC, and GLENMOOR OAKS NRDE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00474-REP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying their class claims against the Defendants, for the reasons stated in their concurrently filed Memorandum in Support. Belvedere is a real estate entity involved in apartment management (like The Belvedere in DC) that is currently facing a significant class-action lawsuit in Virginia for allegedly charging mandatory, undisclosed fees (pest control, community services) violating consumer protection laws, arguing these services are part of the basic "warranty of habitability" landlords must provide, leading to claims of unfair practices. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3R7h90 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com BETTER MORTGAGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Wilson" Text Message Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Better Mortgage Corp., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25 Civ. 5503 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court directed counsel to revise the case management plan to provide expressly for class discovery, due December 10, 2025. This putative class action arises from alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant, a mortgage lending company, sent unsolicited text messages to his personal cellphone number to induce him to apply for a home loan, despite the Plaintiff's number being listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The Plaintiff brings a single claim under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA and 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c). Since at least 2020, the Plaintiff has used the same cellphone number for personal purposes only, such as communicating with friends and family. He registered the cellphone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days before receiving the text messages at issue. In 2022, the Defendant delivered, or caused to be delivered, text messages to the Plaintiff's cellphone number. On April 2, 2022, a phone number sent the following text message: Hi Joseph, this is Chloe from Better Mortgage. I see that you are only a few steps away from getting pre-approved. Looks like the next step for you is to provide information on your assets. How can I help? NMLS #330511. Reply STOP to end. Two days later, on April 4, 2022, a different phone number sent: Hi Joseph! This is Joshua with Better Mortgage. Congrats on getting pre-approved for a home loan! I just tried giving you a call to discuss the recent application and to learn more about your home buying journey. Let us know if there is a better time to connect! Looking forward to speaking soon! The Plaintiff has never applied for a loan with the Defendant or provided his financial information to it. He did not consent to receiving text messages from the Defendant; request any information or promotional materials from the Defendant; or have a business relationship with it. The Plaintiff does not know the identity of Joseph, the individual to whom the text messages were ostensibly addressed. The Defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on two main grounds: (1) Section 227(c) does not apply to text messages; and (2) the Amended Complaint does not adequately plead that the text messages the Plaintiff received were telephone solicitations under the TCPA. The Defendant also sought dismissal of the prayer for treble damages, arguing that the facts pled do not allege a willful or knowing violation of the TCPA. As an alternative to dismissal, the Defendant sought to strike the class allegations, arguing that common issues of fact and law were insufficiently pled. The Court held that Section 227(c) of the TCPA applies to text messages. The ordinary public meaning of telephone call when the TCPA was enacted in 1991 was a communication made by telephone. The contemporary definition of telephone call was therefore not limited to oral or vocal communications. It encompassed any communication made using a telephone. Text messages fit easily within that broad definition. It is undisputed that text messages are communications sent by telephone. They therefore fall within the ordinary public meaning of telephone call as that term was used when the TCPA was enacted. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the TCPA's reference to telephone calls cannot apply to text messages because such technology did not exist when Congress passed the statute. The fact that text messages had not yet been invented when Congress wrote the TCPA does not foreclose that it intended for the statute to cover future technology. The Second Circuit has recognized that the nuisance and privacy invasion attendant on spam texts are the very harms with which Congress was concerned when enacting the TCPA. The Court further noted that numerous federal courts of appeals have held that Section 227(b) applies to text messages, or assumed so without deciding the issue. Identical words used in different parts of the same statute are generally presumed to have the same meaning. Nothing indicates that Congress intended for the same term in Section 227(c) to cover fewer modes of telephonic communications than that in Section 227(b). The FCC has long recognized that the TCPA's protections extend to technologies that did not exist when it was enacted. As early as 2003, it issued an order affirming that Section 227(b) covered any call encompassing both voice calls and text calls including, for example, short message service (SMS) calls. In January 2024, the FCC issued a final rule codifying that the National Do-Not-Call Registry's protections under Section 227(c) extend to text messages. Effective March 26, 2024, the FCC amended the regulations for both Section 227(b) and (c) to apply unequivocally to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages. The Court found that the Amended Complaint adequately pleads that the Plaintiff received prohibited telephone solicitations within the meaning of Section 227(c). The regulations implementing Section 227(c) define telephone solicitation as the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person. The Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to support an inference that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff text messages for the purpose of encouraging him to apply for a home loan from the lender. The Plaintiff never applied for a mortgage loan with the Defendant, nor requested any information from it. He nonetheless received a text message from the Defendant ostensibly addressed to an unknown Joseph that prompted the recipient to provide information on his assets because he was only a few steps away from getting pre-approved for a home loan with the Defendant. The second text message received two days later, again addressed to Joseph congratulated the recipient on pre-approval for a home loan. It requested a phone call to discuss the recent home loan application and to learn more about your home buying journey. These allegations easily support the inference that the Defendant referenced another person's ostensibly successful home loan application as a pretext with the goal of inducing the Plaintiff to engage with, and apply for a home loan from, the lender. That the Plaintiff had never applied for a loan with or sought information from the Defendant supports that the references in the text messages to a pending home loan application were pretextual and intended to prompt the Plaintiff to engage with the Defendant. The Court denied as procedurally premature the Defendant's motion to dismiss the prayer for treble damages. Motions to dismiss are ordinarily not properly directed at species of damages, save where such relief is categorically unavailable. Treble damages are not an independent cause of action. Whether the record can support such damages requires an as-yet undeveloped factual record. The Court also denied as procedurally premature the Defendant's motion to strike the Amended Complaint's allegations related to class-wide relief. Under Rule 23, a court must determine whether to certify a class at an early practicable time after a person sues as a class representative. Absent circumstances where resolution is clear, motions to strike class claims are strongly disfavored because class certification under Rule 23 typically requires a more complete factual record. The Defendant's fact-intensive arguments for striking the class allegations underscore why its motion is premature. There is not yet a factual record that would enable the Court to assess whether Rule 23's requirements are met. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5YQzwM from PacerMonitor.com BIOHM HEALTH INC: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Leshawn Young, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. BIOHM HEALTH INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10184 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.biohmhealth.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. BIOHM HEALTH INC., operates the BIOHM Health online retail store, as well as the BIOHM Health interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal BLACK ENTERPRISE: Barajas Sues Over Unlawful Use of Software ------------------------------------------------------------ Mariela Barajas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLACK ENTERPRISE, a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 1:25-cv-10174 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2025), is brought for the Defendant's violation of the California Trap and Trace Law as a result of the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent. The Defendant uses data broker software on its website--https://www.blackenterprise.com/ (the "Website")--to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. The Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website on February 23, 2025. Black Enterprise owns and operates https://www.blackenterprise.com/ which offers the public content concerning business, investing, finance, careers, technology, entrepreneurship and leisure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 90 Broad St., Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 702-8670 (New York office) Phone: (213) 927-9270 (Main Office (L.A.)) Email: eshapiro@taulersmith.com rtauler@taulersmith.com BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Alhaj Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ahmed Alhaj, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BLACKSTONE CONSULTING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2530326 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Nov. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03265-SSS-DTB. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action: failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay all wages due upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages, failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs, and violations of the Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Pankit Doshi, Esq. Danielle Cummins, Esq. Nicholas Neathamer, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 415 Mission St., Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105-2616 Phone: +1 628 218 3800 Facsimile: +1 628 877 0107 Email: pdoshi@mwe.com Dacummins@mwe.com nneathamer@mwe.com BNSF RAILWAY: Faces Vandermeulen Suit Over FMLA Leave Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH VANDERMEULEN and JON CARAWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BNSF RAILWAY CO., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03274 (C.D. Cal., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. According to the complaint, BNSF does not allow employees to take FMLA leave in increments of one hour and often forces employees to mark off for far more FMLA leave than they need. Further, BNSF fails to allot all the leave that employees are entitled to receive by failing to account for prior periods of leave. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Plaintiffs Josh Vandermeulen and Jon Caraway worked for BNSF as a train conductor and a train engineer for 11 and 14 years, respectively. BNSF Railway Co. is a freight rail operator doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 Email: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW 323 N. Washington Ave., Ste. 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (757) 477-0991 Email: nthompson@caseyjones.law BOSCH HEALTH: Finley Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Finley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BOSCH HEALTH LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-18505-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") unsolicited marketing call or text messages. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA and by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing call or text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without prior express invitation or permission as required by the TCPA. The Plaintiff registered his number on the National Do Not Call Registry on July 8, 2023, at least 30 days prior to receiving the text messages at issue. Despite this, Defendant sent at least four text messages to Plaintiff on November 3, 4, and 13, 2025, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the subscriber to and customary user of his cellular telephone number. The Defendant is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business located in Anna, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 267-587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com BRAUN MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 28, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA ANTIPORTA, v. B BRAUN MEDICAL INC., et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-01457-SRM-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Murillo entered an order granting joint amended and corrected case management schedule: Class Certification – Motion for Class July 28, 2026 Certification Deadline: Class Certification – Opposition Deadline: Aug. 11, 2026 Class Certification – Reply Deadline: Aug. 18, 2026 Class Certification Motion Hearing: Sept. 16, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 17, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Dec. 1, 2026 Braun is a global, family-owned German healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R9psBT at no extra charge.[CC] BRAVOCARE: Wilson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shakira Wilson, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated v. BRAVOCARE, et al., Case No. CU-25-00290 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06995. The Complaint alleges BravoCare violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance ("PWTO") by misclassifying Plaintiff and the putative class as independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime for the hours they worked over forty hours per week.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul C. Lantis, Esq. Tanner McCarron, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Three Parkway, 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321 Phone: 267.402.3000 Facsimile: 267.402.3131 Email: plantis@littler.com tmccarron@littler.com BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: 2nd Amended Case Management Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATHEW CAUGHEY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, BRIDGECREST CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00264-DSC-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Brown entered a second amended case management order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete fact discovery related to class certification by March 16, 2026. 2. The Plaintiff's expert report(s) related to class certification are due on or before April 27, 2026. The Defendants' expert report(s) related to class certification are due on or before May 27, 2026. Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be completed on or before June 29, 2026. 3. Motions for class certification or for summary judgment shall be filed on or before July 28, 2026. Bridgecrest is a licensed motor vehicle sales finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4WRPxT at no extra charge.[CC] BRUNCH HOLDINGS: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Constance Henry, and all others similarly situated v. Brunch Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-14983 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Brunch Holdings provides to their non-disabled customers through https://brunch.us (hereinafter "Brunch.us" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Brunch.us, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Brunch Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Brunch.us is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BUBBA GUMP SHRIMP: Portillo Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zulma Yanira Portillo, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BUBBA GUMP SHRIMP CO. RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; LANDRY'S, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MIGUEL GUZMAN, an individual California resident; corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV24290 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11711. The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint contains 20 causes of action. These causes of action are for: sex discrimination; sexual battery – assault; sexual harassment; failure to prevent, remedy, and investigate sexual harassment; retaliation, Cal. Labor Code section 1102.5; retaliation, Cal. Labor Code section 98.6; retaliation, FEHA; constructive wrongful termination; disability-based associational discrimination; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; failure to pay all wages including minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures; failure to pay waiting time penalties; unfair business practices; and violation of the Private Attorneys General Act under Labor Code Sections 2698 et seq. ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew M. Sonne, Esq. Lauren J. Blaes, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: msonne@sheppardmullin.com lblaes@sheppardmullin.com BUD'S GOODS: Faces Whooley Wage-and-Hour Suit in Mass. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- TESS WHOOLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUD'S GOODS & PROVISIONS CORP., BUD'S GOODS & SERVICES MA CORP., and ALEXANDER MAZIN, Defendants, Case No. 2582CV01353 (Mass. Super., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for tip pooling violations and unpaid wages under Massachusetts General Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at a cannabis dispensary as a budtender in Massachusetts. Bud's Goods & Provisions Corp. is a cannabis dispensary operator based in Worcester, Massachusetts. Bud's Goods & Services MA Corp. is a cannabis dispensary operator based in Worcester, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Walz, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 Email: ewalz@rflawyers.com C&W FACILITY SERVICES: Villa Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Anthony Villa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC.; CUSHMAN &WAKEFIELD U.S., INC.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD WESTERN, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CU-25-00290 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bentio, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-10646. On October 31, 2025, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant wherein he alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Authorize and Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of Business and Professions Code Section (hereinafter the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. David H. Danning, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP 3646 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 203 Long Beach, CA 90807 Phone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 Email: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com ddanning@gleasonfavarote.com CARNIVORE SNAX: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Constance Henry, and all others similarly situated v. Carnivore Snax, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-14984 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Carnivore Snax, provides to their non-disabled customers through https://carnivoresnax.com (hereinafter "Carnivoresnax.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Carnivoresnax.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Carnivore Snax's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Carnivoresnax.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale and allows the user to view meat snacks, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law CCL TUBE INC: Matute Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCL Tube, Inc. The case is styled as Cesar Alexander Andino Matute, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. CCL Tube, Inc., Case No. 25STCV36219 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." CCL Tube Inc. -- https://ccllabel.com/market/tubes/ -- is the leading manufacturer of plastic tube packaging solutions for the Americas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Michaud ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michaud v. Center for Transitional Living L.L.C. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00481 (D. Conn., Filed March 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order granting the Defendants' Consent Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Postpone Settlement Conference. All discovery shall be completed on or before July 31, 2026, and all interim discovery deadlines are incorporated by reference. All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by agreement of the parties without the court's approval provided those amendments do not delay the deadline for completion of all discovery. If the case does not settle, a schedule for dispositive motions shall be established after this court rules on Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification. If no motions for class certification, or summary judgment are filed, the joint trial memorandum required by the court's standing order on trial memoranda will be filed by September 31, 2026. If any such motions are filed, the joint trial memorandum will be filed within 60 days of the court's decision on any such motion(s), or within the period set by the court upon its disposition of any dispositive motions that are filed. The court thereafter will set a jury selection date and a trial date. The parties' settlement conference, currently set for January 9, 2026, shall be postponed to a later date that is convenient for Judge Joan G. Margolis. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a home care agency.[CC] CENTRAL CALIFORNIA FACULTY: Zapata Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central California Faculty Medical Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Wendy Rodriguez Zapata, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central California Faculty Medical Group, Inc., DOES 1-10, Case No. 25CV030028 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Central California Faculty Medical Group doing business as Inspire Health Medical Group -- https://www.inspirehealth.org/ -- is an independent, multi-specialty group comprised of more than 300 physicians and over 90 advanced practice providers who deliver care in the Central Valley across 85 specialties and sub-specialties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com CERNER CORPORATION: Wright Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Tracy Wright, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., LifeBridge Health, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03613 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00963-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Srauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas Bredar, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 295-6343 Email: thomas.bredar@wilmerhale.com CHERRY HILL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kennard Due July 24, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN KENNARD, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-00652-BTM-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valerie E. Torres entered a scheduling order regulating putative class discovery and setting deadline for motion for class certification: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by Jan. 9, 2026. 2. Counsel shall appear for a video Status Conference before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres on March 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Instructions for remote appearances will be provided two (2) business days prior to the conference. 3. No later than April 10, 2026, the parties shall designate their respective experts for class certification in writing. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts for class certification shall be no later than April 24, 2026. 4. No later than May 22, 2026, each party shall comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions regarding experts for class certification. 5. No later than June 5, 2026, the parties shall supplement their disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence for class certification under Rule 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e). 6. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery related to class certification must be completed by June 12, 2026. 7. The Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification by July 24, 2026. Cherry provides photography services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p9pS8G at no extra charge.[CC] CHOCTAW NATION: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bayles, et al., v. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00370 (E.D. Okla., Filed Oct. 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ronald A. White entered an order granting County Jail's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition and Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act. The moving Defendant shall respond to the First Amended Petition and the Motion to Certify Class no later than Jan. 8, 2026. Choctaw is the third-largest Indian Nation in the United States with nearly 212000 tribal members and more than 12000 employees.[CC] CITIBANK NA: Letidas Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETIDAS LOGISTICS, LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITIBANK, N.A., and ROYAL BENGAL LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61469-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file under seal the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for class certification and memorandum of law. The action arises out of a massive fraud scheme orchestrated by Nominal Defendant Royal Bengal Logistics, Inc. ("RBL") and aided and abetted by Defendant Citibank, N.A. Specifically, the operative Complaint alleges that RBL operated a multi-million-dollar Ponzi scheme and that Citi maintained the account that RBL used to facilitate the scheme (the "Account"). Citibank offers a wide range of financial services like accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=julVPY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary D. Ludens, Esq. Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Lauren N. Palen, Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 361-3633 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@shawlewenz.com zludens@shawlewenz.com lpalen@shawlewenz.com CITIBANK NA: Letidas Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETIDAS LOGISTICS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITIBANK, N.A., and ROYAL BENGAL LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61469-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying defined as follows: "All (i) persons or entities in the United States, including all States, territories, protectorates, and federal districts (ii) who entered into an agreement with RBL of the same form or substantially similar form as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the First Amended Class Action Complaint (iii) whose investment was deposited into the Citi Account (iv) during the Relevant Period." For purposes of the relief requested in this Motion, the "Relevant Period" is defined as Feb. 3, 2022, through June 27, 2022. The Plaintiff also moves to be appointed representative of the Class and for the appointment of Shaw Lewenz as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Accordingly, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Class is ascertainable, as well as the satisfaction of the elements of Rule 23(a) and b(3). The class action mechanism is not only the best and most efficient way to adjudicate the Class Members' claims in this case, but it is also the only viable method of doing so. The action arises out of a massive fraud scheme orchestrated by Nominal Defendant Royal Bengal Logistics, Inc. ("RBL") and aided and abetted by Defendant Citibank, N.A. ("Citi"). Specifically, the operative Complaint alleges that RBL operated a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme and that Citi maintained the account that RBL used to facilitate the scheme (the "Citi Account"). Citibank offers a wide range of financial services like accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JiCnQP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary D. Ludens, Esq. Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Lauren N. Palen, Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 361-3633 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@shawlewenz.com zludens@shawlewenz.com lpalen@shawlewenz.com CITIBANK NA: LLL Bid to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETIDAS LOGISTICS, LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 0:24-cv-61469-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an order denying the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file motion for class certification under seal. By Dec. 23, 2025, the Plaintiff must deliver unredacted versions of the Motion, memorandum, and exhibits for in camera review. Plaintiff is directed to contact Sarah Montgomery at Sarah Montgomery@flsd.uscourts.gov to arrange for delivery. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks leave to seal its entire filing related to its motion for class certification. Upon due consideration of the Motion, Plaintiff fails to make the required showing to obtain the requested relief Citibank, a subsidiary of Citigroup Inc, is a provider of banking and related financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9IIDen at no extra charge.[CC] CLEVELAND CLINIC: Aids Third Parties to Intercept Data, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA WEATHERLY and PAMELA CHARNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION and CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA HEALTH SYSTEM NONPROFIT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-62530-AHS (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Florida Security of Communications Act, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Cleveland Clinic aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties, including Adobe, Google, Amazon, Magnite, Index Exchange, and OpenX, to intercept patients' and website visitors' sensitive information and electronic communications on its website, www.clevelandclinic.org, without prior consent. Cleveland Clinic allowed third parties to intercept these communications by installing their tracking technologies on its website, suit says. As a result of Cleveland Clinic's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Cleveland Clinic Foundation is a nonprofit corporation, with its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland Clinic Florida Health System Nonprofit Corporation is a nonprofit corporation, with its principal place of business in Weston, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Parafinczuk, Esq. Jason B. Wolf, Esq. Rachel Cowen Lucuara, Esq. Steven D. Resnick, Esq. PARAFINCZUK WOLF, PA 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 462-6700 Facsimile: (954) 462-6567 Email: pleadings@parawolf.com clevelandclinic@parawolf.com jparafinczuk@parawolf.com jwolf@parawolf.com rlucuara@parawolf.com sresnick@parawolf.com COCHRAN INC: Yelenick Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Johnathan Yelenick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COCHRAN, INC., a Washington corporation, Case No. 25STCV24290 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02524. The Complaint asserts nine claims for relief: Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled; Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Sick Leave; Unlawful Deductions and Rebates; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; Willful Refusal to Pay Wages; and Failure to Pay All Compensation Owed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com stavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Randall T. Thomsen, Esq. Shane P. Cramer, Esq. Elisabeth Read, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-600-6650 Email: randall.thomsen@bclplaw.com shane.cramer@bclplaw.com elisabeth.read@bclplaw.com COFFEE BEAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Coffee Bean Direct, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14917 (N.D. Ill., December 9, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://coffeebeandirect.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff DUSTIN YOUNGREN has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Coffeebeandirect.com. On May 9, 2025, Plaintiff wanted to purchase coffee to restock his home supply. He searched Google using terms "coffee order online" and came across the Defendant's website, Coffeebeandirect.com, in the search results. While exploring their offerings, he decided to purchase the Salted Caramel Macchiato Flavored Coffee. However, as he tried to navigate the website and complete his purchase, he encountered many accessibility barriers. The navigation submenu automatically opened and could not be skipped, forcing him to move through every category within the submenu before accessing other parts of the site. Furthermore, the complementary navigation menu contained many interactive elements that were announced as "blank," leaving Plaintiff unaware of their purpose and function. Additionally, when he selected a product and added it to the cart, the focus shifted away from the cart dialog interface. As a result, he was unable to review the cart contents and proceed to checkout, further obstructing his ability to complete the purchase. These access barriers have caused Coffeebeandirect.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons. Because of Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Coffeebeandirect.com, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct, says the suit. Dustin Youngren is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Coffee Bean Direct, LLC operates the website Coffeebeandirect.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of roasted coffee including espresso, flavored, and half-caffeinated, unroasted green coffee beans, and loose-leaf teas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law CONDUENT BUSINESS: Alexander Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent Business Services, LLC. The case is styled as Andrea-Oliver Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conduent Business Services, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-18006-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., Nov. 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Conduent Inc. -- https://www.conduent.com/ -- is an American business services provider company headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, PC 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: (201) 391-7000 Fax: (201) 307-1086 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com CONIFER REVENUE: Brackens Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Kendra Brackens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04604-GMS (D. Ariz., Dec. 9, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees all overtime pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant has a wage and hour policy and practice that rounds Plaintiff's and similarly situated hourly employees' clock in and clock out times to the advantage of Defendant and to the detriment of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated hourly employees. The Defendant's time clock rounding policies violate the FLSA, and result in the underpayment of overtime and regular wages. The Defendant's wage violations will be shown from, among other things, a comparison of the face of the pay stubs Defendant issued to employees and Defendant's own time records for those same employees. The Defendant's rounding practices are perfectly suitable to collective action treatment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant located in Goodyear, Arizona. The Defendant provides healthcare support services to health systems and other clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. Illinois State Bar No. 620268 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 201-0575 Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. Illinois State Bar No. 6273422 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 726-3400 Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com - and - Michelle R. Matheson, Esq. MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C. 15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (480) 889-8951 Email: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com CONSERVICE LLC: Jolicoeur-Louis Seeks to Certify Four Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA JOLICOEUR-LOUIS and SOPHIE PHILIPS, v. CONSERVICE, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-03253-HDV-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 9, 2026, will move the Court for an Order granting Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs seek entry of an Order: 1. Certifying the following proposed Classes under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3): Business & Professions Code section17200 Class (Unlicensed Fee Collection): "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who, within the applicable statute of limitations, paid any service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a residential lease and associated with a utility bill, during a period when Conservice was not licensed per Financial Code section100001 as required to lawfully engage in the business of debt collection." Rosenthal Subclass (Rosenthal Unauthorized Fee Collection): "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who paid a service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a lease that did not authorize such fees and associated with a utility bill during the period when Conservice was unlicensed as a debt collector, during the applicable statute of limitations through the date the class is certified." Business & Professions Code section 17500 False Advertising Class: "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who paid any service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a residential lease and associated with a utility bill, during a period when Conservice was not licensed under Financial Code section100001 as required to engage in debt collection activity lawfully." Rosenthal Mini-Miranda Class: "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who, within the applicable statute of limitations, received an initial billing communication or outreach in which Conservice, acting as a debt collector on behalf of the property owner or manager, attempted to collect utility charges owed to the landlord, and who did not receive the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(11). Excluded from the foregoing Classes are the assigned Judge(s), Conservice, its officers and directors, its affiliated entities, their officers and directors, and members of their immediate families. 2. Appointing Plaintiffs Amanda Jolicoeur-Louis and Sophie Philips as Class Representatives; and 3. Appointing The Law Office of Kenneth Townsend and The Law Office of Daniel M. O'Leary as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Conservice is a utility management & billing services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6fFMnt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth Townsend, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH TOWNSEND 1001 Gayley Avenue, Suite 105 #24514 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 997-0386 E-mail: townsend1994@lawnet.ucla.edu - and - Daniel O'Leary, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. O'LEARY 2300 Westwood Boulevard, Suite105 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 481-2020 E-mail: dan@danolearylaw.com CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING: Alvarez Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Alvarez, Eddie E. Moses, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C25-02619 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10576. On September 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages asserting 10 causes of action for Unpaid Overtime, California Labor Code; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums, Labor Code; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums, Labor Code; Unpaid Minimum Wages, Labor Code; Final Wages Not Timely Paid, Labor Code; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment, Labor Code; Non-Compliant Wage Statements, Labor Code; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records, Labor Code; Unreimbursed Business Expenses, Labor Code; and Unfair Business Practices, California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.830.7200 Facsimile: 916.561.0828 Email: njenkins@littler.com - and - Na Rae Kim, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: nakim@littler.com CORNER PUB: Zavala Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Mario Bonilla Zavala, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CORNER PUB ENTERPRISES, INC. (D/B/A MACARTHUR PARK RESTAURANT & PUB), THOMAS MAHONEY SR, and THOMAS MAHONEY JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-06838 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff routinely worked between 50–65 hours per week but was paid only his straight hourly rate for all hours worked and not the required overtime premium for hours above forty in a workweek. Plaintiff also regularly worked more than ten hours in a day without receiving the additional hour of pay required by the New York spread-of-hours wage regulations. The Defendants willfully failed to pay all legally required wages and willfully failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked as required by law. The Defendants subjected other non-exempt employees to the same unlawful policies and practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at MacArthur Park Restaurant & Pub in Rockville Centre, New York as a non-exempt cook. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Fax: 718-679-9660 Email: ctucker@saccofillas.com CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Ramos Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Abelardo Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRUNCH HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 236757707 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Dec. 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA and a resident of Osceola County, Florida. The Defendant is a Limited Liability Company with its headquarters located in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com CSI COMPANIES INC: Rivera Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CSI Companies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Vargas Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The CSI Companies, Inc., Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-02373-GAP-LHP (M.D. Fla., Dec. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The CSI Companies -- https://csicompanies.com/ -- is a staffing and recruiting company that provides professional staffing and consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA PA 1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 640 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 379-2560 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com CSI COMPANIES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vargas Rivera v. The CSI Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-02373 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for: (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). CSI is a staffing and recruiting company that provides professional staffing and consulting services.[CC] DANIELLE OUTLAW: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, WINTON SINGLETARY v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, CHARLES RAMSEY, RICHARD ROSS, JR., KEVIN BETHEL, MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT D'ATTILIO, JOHN STANFORD, JR., CANDI JONES, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA Case No. 2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bjD6jg at no extra charge.[CC] DARREN K. INDYKE: Ward Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darren K. Indyke, et al. The case is styled as Allyson Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Darren K. Indyke, Richard D. Kahn, Case No. 1:25-mc-00031-ECC-PJE (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash. Darren K. Indyke -- https://parlatorelawgroup.com/team/darren-indyke/ -- served as general counsel to family offices, serial entrepreneurs, investors, and other ultra-high-net-worth clientele.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenna C. Smith, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER LAW FIRM-ALBANY OFFICE 30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 694-4257 Fax: (518) 434-0665 Email: jsmith@bsfllp.com DATA TECHNICIANS: Benson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin Benson, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. DATA TECHNICIANS, LLC, A Texas Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-03122 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff and Potential Plaintiffs typically worked 40 or more hours per week for Defendant during all times material to this action. The Defendant has had a common policy, plan and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and Potential Plaintiffs for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the applicable FLSA overtime rate of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material to this Original Complaint. The Plaintiff and Potential Plaintiffs performed work in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to this lawsuit without being paid the applicable FLSA overtime rate of pay for such overtime work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a wire technician/cable installer. Data Technicians, LLC is a cable installation contractor serving the cable, broadband and telecommunications industry.[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 DAUNNO REALTY SERVICES: Jensen Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daunno Realty Services, LLC. The case is styled as Marilyn Jensen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Daunno Realty Services, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-18492 (D.N.J., Dec. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Daunno Realty -- https://www.daunnorealty.com/ -- is an independently owned and operated New Jersey Real Estate Brokerage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com DCS ALL AMERICAN: Birdwell Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Birdwell, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. DCS ALL AMERICAN, LLC and KAYDEN INDUSTRIES (USA), INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-05968 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers. The Defendants employ dozens of Day Rate Employees. The Plaintiff and other Day Rate Employees like him regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours each week. However, Defendants did not pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a solids control hand from March 2021 to March 2025. DCS All American, LLC is a Domestic Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town & Country Blvd., Suite 500, Houston, TX 77024 Phone: (713) 223–8855 Email: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com DELTA AIR LINES: McMillan Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William McMillan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV32552 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. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11775. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action, which is an alleged failure to provide compliant wage statements in violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fisher Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION D/B/A DEVEREUX ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06849 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and personal health information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, Devereux assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that they were responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI from disclosure. Devereux knew, or should have known, the importance of safeguarding PII and PHI entrusted to them and of the foreseeable consequences if their data security systems were breached. This includes the significant costs that would be imposed on Plaintiff and Class Members because of a breach. Devereux failed, however, to take adequate cybersecurity measures to prevent the Data Breach from occurring, says the suit. The Devereux Foundation operates as an non-profit organization providing services for children and adults with special needs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com - and - Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 499-1476 Email: panderson@baileyglasser.com DEXCOM INC: Grisoli Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kelly Grisoli, Kevin Parks, Stuart Cutler, Oliver Ivy, Jason Scanga, Abby Farber, Ben Steckly, Lauren Calvert, Ashley Sheldon, Laura Stafford, Brandon Whitlow, Jason Feinberg, John Allen, Jesse Perez, Brian Lowe, Joyce Cameron, Jenna Charlton, Tonya Miller, Eboni Scott, Spencer Sawicki, Danielle Perschau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DexCom, Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-02333 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Dec. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03488-RSH-KSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Dexcom, Inc. -- https://www.dexcom.com/en-us -- is an American healthcare company that develops, manufactures, produces and distributes a line of continuous glucose monitoring systems for diabetes management.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Moze Cowper, Esq. Paige Catherine Miller, Esq. COWPER LAW LLP 12301 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 303 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (877) 529-3707 Email: pmiller@cowperlaw.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Fax: (312) 253-1443 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com The Defendant is represented by: Renata Ortiz Bloom, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 696-6700 Fax: (619) 696-7124 Email: rbloom@grsm.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Tsiatsos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health, et al. The case is styled as Athena Tsiatsos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Dignity Health, Total Professional Network Inc. d/b/a Core Medstaff, Case No. 25STCV36101 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Dignity Health -- https://www.dignityhealth.org/ -- was a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that operated hospitals and ancillary care facilities in three states.[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 ECSTASE INC: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Tazinique Echols, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ecstase, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-14992 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://thisisaday.com (hereinafter "Thisisaday.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Thisisaday.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Ecstase provides to the public a website known as Thisisaday.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a selection of minimalist wardrobe essentials, including tops, pullovers, pants, leggings, shorts, dresses, outerwear, suiting, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: chan@ealg.law ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Yanovitch Sues Over Oven's Glass Window Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA YANOVITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROLUX CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01474-UNA (D. Del., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranties, unjust enrichment/restitution, fraudulent omission or concealment, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of ovens under the Frigidaire brand. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that the ovens' glass window has a propensity to explode spontaneously and without external impact or misuse by the consumer. This defect creates a serious safety issue and renders the ovens unusable after manifestation. As a result of Electrolux's conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers have suffered an ascertainable loss of money, and/or property, and/or loss in value, suit says. Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of electronic appliances, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford DeLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: More Time to File Class Cert Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS LIGHT, individually and behalf of all those similarly situated, v. ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION INC., and FLEETMASTER EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00102-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing deadline to move for class certification to Dec. 29, 2025. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is currently due on Dec. 15, 2025. The Parties have conferred and have agreed to a brief extension of the class certification deadline in order to allow them to explore early dispute resolution. This extension is not sought for purposes of delay, and will not impact the remaining deadlines in this case, the suit says. Englander offers refrigerated transportation of temperature controlled commodities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5WIk94 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com EQT CORPORATION: Seeks to Exclude Davis' Opinions in Ross Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to exclude and strike the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert Atty. Cara Davis. Ms. Davis opines regarding the identification of unleased heirs and cotenants who may be members of the proposed class. Davis's opinions are inadmissible because they fail every requirement of Rule 702 and Daubert. Her opinions do not assist the trier of fact, are not based on sufficient facts and data, lack reliable principles and methodology, and do not reliably apply to the facts of this case. Moreover, her opinions regarding the Pennsylvania Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act are not tethered to statutory language and constitute impermissible legal advocacy that should also be stricken. In support of its Motion, Defendants refer to their Brief in Support that more fully details the grounds for excluding Ms. Davis's opinions and testimony. EQT requests a hearing on the admissibility of Ms. Davis’s opinions and report. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EVgqrc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James L. Rockney, Esq. Justin H. Werner, Esq. Allison L. Ebeck, Esq. Thomas J. Galligan, Esq. Daniel P. Wolfe, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3131 E-mail: JRockney@reedsmith.com JWerner@reedsmith.com AEbeck@reedsmith.com tgalligan@reedsmith.com dwolfe@reedsmith.com - and - Christopher J. Haselhoff, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI, LLP 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 577-7400 E-mail: chaselhoff@grsm.com EQT CORPORATION: Seeks to Exclude Haney's Opinions in Ross Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to exclude and strike the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert Christopher L. Haney. Mr. Haney is a statistician who opines regarding alleged damages for "Unleased Owners" (as he defines them). Haney's opinions are inadmissible because they fail every requirement of Rule 702 and Daubert. His opinions are unreliable for purposes of identifying class members, do not "fit" this case, and are unhelpful to the trier of fact. Moreover, his opinions should be excluded because they are based on misleading characterizations of EQT's records. In support of its Motion, Defendants refer to their Brief in Support that more fully details the grounds for excluding Haney’s opinions and testimony. EQT requests a hearing on the admissibility of Mr. Haney’s opinions and report. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b3mTBQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James L. Rockney, Esq. Justin H. Werner, Esq. Allison L. Ebeck, Esq. Thomas J. Galligan, Esq. Daniel P. Wolfe, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3131 E-mail: JRockney@reedsmith.com JWerner@reedsmith.com AEbeck@reedsmith.com tgalligan@reedsmith.com dwolfe@reedsmith.com - and - Christopher J. Haselhoff, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY & MANSUKHANI, LLP 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 577-7400 E-mail: chaselhoff@grsm.com EXPEDIA GROUP: Mata Suit Seeks Leave to File Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARICELA MATA, JOSE RAMON LOPEZ REGUEIRO, and MARIO ECHEVARRIA, v. EXPEDIA GROUP INC., EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, ORBITZ, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22529-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file exhibits in support of their motion for partial class certification under seal. The Plaintiffs request leave to file Exhibits 1 through 12 to their motion for class certification under seal. Exhibits 13 through 17 to the motion will be publicly filed. The Plaintiffs Maricela Mata, José Ramón López Regueiro, and Mario Echevarría request the Court to permit the filing of exhibits 1 to 12 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Class Certification under seal. The exhibits consist of documents produced by the defendant and designated as confidential under the Feb. 7, 2020 Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order. Expedia is an American travel technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pUgCou at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andres Rivero, Esq. Jorge A. Mestre, Esq. Ana C. Malave, Esq. Sylmarie Trujillo, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com jmestre@riveromestre.com amalave@riveromestre.com strujillo@riveromestre.com - and - Manuel Vazquez, Esq. MANUEL VAZQUEZ, P.A. 2332 Galiano St., Second Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2344 Facsimile: (305) 445-4404 E-mail: mvaz@mvazlaw.com EXPEDIA INC: Milito Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Milito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXPEDIA, INC., a Washington profit corporation doing business as AARP TRAVEL CENTER, AARP TRAVEL CENTER POWERED BY EXPEDIA, EXPEDIA, EXPEDIA LOCAL EXPERT, EXPEDIA PARTNER SERVICES, EXPEDIA TRAVEL, EXPEDIA.COM, HDM INTERNET SERVICES, INC., HOTELS.COM, HOTELS.COM GP, HOTELS.COM LP, HOTWIRE, HOTWIRE.COM, HRN HOLDINGS, HRN, INC., INTERACTIVE AFFILIATE NETWORK, LP, JOURNEYPULSE, JOURNEYPULSE.COM, LOCAL EXPERT, METROPOLITAN TRAVEL, TRAVELNOW.COM, TRAVELOCITY.COM, and WWTE TRAVEL LIMITED; EXPEDIA TRAVEL PARTNER SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-18706-3 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02507. The Plaintiff seeks $5,000 in statutory damages based on the alleged failure to disclose wage or salary ranges on job postings for positions in Washington, purportedly in violation of RCW. Additionally, the Complaint seeks a statutory award of attorney fees under RCW.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Damon C. Elder, Esq. Andrea Delgadillo Ostrovsky, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com andrea.ostrovsky@morganlewis.com FANDUEL INC: Criswell Sues Over Illegal Gambling Websites --------------------------------------------------------- GILBERT CRISWELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANDUEL, INC.; FANDUEL LIMITED; FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT PLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-10473 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 5, 2025) seeks to stop the unlawful gambling that occurs on FanDuel's Gambling Websites in California and to recover the money that FanDuel has unlawfully taken from them. According to the complaint, if FanDuel had honestly and accurately disclosed the unlawful nature of its gambling operations in California, the Plaintiff would not have created an account with FanDuel in California and would not have placed bets while in California through FanDuel's Gambling Websites. If FanDuel had not solicited bets and wagers from Plaintiff while representing that such activities were legal, when, unknown to Plaintiff at the time, they in fact were not legal, he would not have made any of those bets or wagers and would not have paid any money to FanDuel, the suit further alleges. FanDuel Inc. develops and publishes an online daily fantasy sports game. The Company offers players the ability to draft a new team at any time. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Margot P. Cutter, Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 E-mail: mcutter@cutterlaw.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com - and - James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com FAVORITE WORLD: Class Settlement in Minor Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA AYANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement, and for approval of attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards: 1. The Settlement Class, which was provisionally certified by the Court in its July 31, 2025, Order Granting Preliminary Approval, is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for purposes of settlement only. The Settlement Class includes: "All California consumers who purchased Class Products from www.shapermint.com at a listed discount from the MSRP during the Class Period of April 19, 2020, through July 31, 2025"; 2. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement. 3. In addition, the request for the Class Representatives service award payment of $5,000.00 to each of the two Class Representatives is granted. The Court further approves payment of $58,950.00 to the Settlement Administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, for services rendered and to be rendered in administering the Settlement. 4. Concurrently with the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, the Plaintiffs moved for an attorneys' fees award of $381,051.78, plus litigation costs in the amount of $24,998.22 to be deducted from the Settlement Costs Fund pursuant to the Settlement. The amounts requested are granted. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NGqYoG at no extra charge.[CC] FCA US: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Thompson" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ebony Thompson and Juvenal Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 21-9815 FMO (MBKx), United States District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Fernando M. Olguin granted the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on December 2, 2025. The Court preliminarily certified the settlement class, defined as all individuals who, as confirmed by FCA US's records, purchased a model-year 2015-2017 Chrysler 200 vehicle that was originally sold as a PZEV vehicle in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Washington. The class includes approximately 47,000 current and former owners of these vehicles. Plaintiff Thompson filed this putative class action against Defendant on December 20, 2021. After the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, the Second Amended Complaint was filed on April 4, 2023, asserting a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq. The complaint alleged that Defendant failed to properly identify and pay for issues with MultiAir Actuators that should be covered for 15 years or 150,000 miles pursuant to the California Emissions Warranty, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 1962.1, 2035, 2037, 2038, which applies to Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles and Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle. As a result of FCA not providing proper coverage, Thompson and the class members paid out of pocket for repairs that should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty. The parties engaged in settlement discussions and deferred briefing on motions to dismiss. On August 27, 2024, based on the parties' stipulation, the Court stayed all deadlines to allow the parties to finalize the settlement. The operative Third Amended Complaint added Rodriguez as a named plaintiff and allegations that FCA failed to cover Fuel Injectors as required by the California Emissions Warranty. Pursuant to the settlement, FCA will extend its existing warranty obligations applicable to the Class Vehicles to cover the costs of all parts and labor to replace a failed MultiAir Actuator or Fuel Injector component for the earlier of fifteen years from the Class Vehicle's in-service date or 150,000 miles driven. FCA will not impose any fees or charges related to the warranty service. All terms and conditions of the Basic Limited Warranty will apply, and all applicable rights and conditions under pre-existing warranties will remain. Class members will not be required to present any settlement-related documents to receive warranty service at an authorized FCA USA dealership. The Warranty Extension follows the Class Vehicles. In addition, any class member who previously paid for a repair relating to a failed MultiAir Actuator or Fuel Injector component entitled to warranty coverage under the Settlement may submit a claim to the Settlement Administrator for reimbursement upon proof of a paid repair. The Settlement Agreement provides for up to $980,000 in attorney's fees and costs, and incentive awards of $7,500 for each named plaintiff, though the Court tentatively found that an incentive payment of no more than $5,000 is appropriate. FCA will be responsible for all Administrative Expenses including Notice. The Settlement Administrator, Kroll Settlement Administration, will be responsible for disseminating Notice to class members. The Court found that the proposed class satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a). Regarding numerosity, the settlement class includes approximately 47,000 vehicles, which easily exceeds the threshold for numerosity. The Court found commonality satisfied, noting the main common question is whether the MultiAir Actuators and Fuel Injector components should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty. The Court found typicality satisfied because Plaintiffs were subject to the same conduct that applies to all class members - FCA's failure to identify and cover MultiAir Actuators and Fuel Injection components in the Class Vehicles under the California Emissions Warranty. The Court found adequacy of representation satisfied, noting the proposed class representatives have no individual claims separate from the class claims and do not appear to have any conflicts of interest with the absent class members. The Court found the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. The Court found common questions predominate over individual questions. The Court found the superiority requirement satisfied, noting there is no evidence that class members have any interest in controlling prosecution of their claims separately nor would they likely have the resources to do so, and no indication that any class member is involved in any other litigation concerning the claims in this case. The Court found the settlement is the product of arm's-length negotiations. Class counsel represented that the parties engaged in three full day mediation sessions, and that settlement is the product of non-collusive arms' length negotiations that was finalized with the assistance of a seasoned mediator. The parties engaged in discovery, including production and review of documents produced by FCA, and numerous written discovery requests. The Court found the amount offered in settlement falls within a range of possible judicial approval and is a fair and reasonable outcome for class members. According to Plaintiffs, the relief achieved as part of the settlement directly targets the root of this class action and achieves an outcome that is identical to the best possible outcome that could be achieved at trial. Class members who do not exclude themselves from the settlement will release claims under the UCL, as well as any and all claims relating to the facts, acts, events, transactions, occurrences, courses of conduct, representations, omissions, circumstances, or other matters based on malfunction of the MultiAir Actuator and the Fuel Injector in the Class Vehicles as alleged in the Action. The Released Claims do not include claims for death, personal injuries, damage to tangible property other than a Class Vehicle, or subrogation. The Court preliminarily certified the class for the purposes of settlement. The Court preliminarily appointed Plaintiffs Thompson and Rodriguez as class representatives for settlement purposes. The Court preliminarily appointed Pomerantz LLP and The Law Offices of Robert L. Starr as class counsel for settlement purposes. The Court approved the form, substance, and requirements of the Class Notice. The Court appointed Kroll as settlement administrator. Kroll shall complete dissemination of class notice no later than February 16, 2026. A final approval hearing is set for June 4, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 2 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iV2Skm from PacerMonitor.com FEDERICI BRANDS: Cerkezoglu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deborah Cerkezoglu, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FEDERICI BRANDS LLC, Case No. 25-2-00639-14 was removed from the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02499. The Plaintiff brings this case as a proposed class action and seeks certification of the putative class under Washington Superior Court Civil Rule ("CR").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Goldmark, Esq. Caitlyn Courtney, Esq. Ardie Ermac, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Email: johngoldmark@dwt.com caitlyncourtney@dwt.com ardieermac@dwt.com FIRE APPARATUS: Roseland Sues Over Conspiracy and Fixed Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- Borough of Roseland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 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, Case No. 2:25-cv-18312 (D.N.J., Dec. 9, 2025), is brought arising from a years-long conspiracy by the nation's dominant fire apparatus manufacturers to fix prices, suppress competition, and restrict the supply of critically needed firefighting apparatus. 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. The Defendants accumulated control of approximately 70–80% of the U.S. fire apparatus market through an aggressive acquisition strategy that eliminated independent competitors and consolidated the industry into three dominant manufacturer groups. Rather than compete, the Defendants coordinated with one another, both directly and through their industry organization, FAMA, to exchange confidential sales, order, and pricing data; align pricing strategies; avoid competitive bidding; and restrain production despite soaring demand. As a result, 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 complaint. The Plaintiff purchased fire apparatus directly from Pierce. The Defendants are the largest fire apparatus manufacturers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor A. Afanador, Esq. Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Email: vafanador@litedepalma.com 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 Phone: (267) 314-7980 Email: lmummert@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Duverger Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Margarette Duverger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62565-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Firstsource -- https://www.firstsource.com/ -- is a leader in business process management (BPM) services and a trusted outsourcing partner to the world's leading brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com FLORIDA CREDIT: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Seecharran Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANITA SEECHARRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA CREDIT UNION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01355-ALM-BD (E.D. Tex., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on August 14, 2025. The Defendants 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. Florida Credit Union is a state-chartered credit union with its principal place of business in Gainesville, Florida. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. is a software provider, with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: service@eksm.com FOLEY CARRIER: Newell Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foley Carrier Services, LLC. The case is styled as Jourey Newell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foley Carrier Services, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02043 (D. Conn., Dec. 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Foley -- https://www.foley.io/ -- is a leading-edge software for transportation risk, DOT compliance, and employee screening.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com FORD MOTOR: Fails to Compensate Dealers Based on Parts Retail Value ------------------------------------------------------------------- 440 JERICHO TURNPIKE AUTO SALES LLC; and PATCHOGUE 112 MOTORS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13909-JJCG-EAS (E.D. Mich., Dec. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the New York's Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act. According to the complaint, without explanation or justification, the Defendant is violating New York's dealer franchise statute by not compensating dealers based on a markup of the retail value of the parts. The Plaintiffs was entitled to a retail markup, but neither the Plaintiff received it. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, and services cars and trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com - and - Leonard Bellavia, Esq. BELLAVIA COHEN P.C. 200 Old Country Road, Suite 400 Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 873-3000 Facsimile: (516) 873-9032 Email: lbellavia@dealerlaw.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com FORGEN LLC: Dodson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FORGEN, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Timothy Dodson, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. FORGEN, LLC, Does 1-25, Case No. 25CV028553 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Forgen, LLC -- https://forgen.com/ -- provides technology solutions and offers an environmental remediation and infrastructure technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com FOUNDATION RISK: Charton Sues Over Retaliation and Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Charton, an individual v. FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS CORP., a Delaware corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-11738 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for claims that are for discrimination, retaliation against a whistleblower and wrongful termination for having complained about Defendants' failure and refusal to pay wages that were due and owing, not just to himself, but to Plaintiff's coworkers as well. The Plaintiff's class and collective claims revolve around nonpayment of minimum and/or overtime wages, along with relevant wage and hour penalties, and the systematic utilization of patently unlawful contracts with dozens, if not hundreds of California-based FRP employees, which contracts purport to prohibit these employees from, among other things, competing against Defendants in any future employment and from soliciting former coworkers employed by Defendants to work for competitors of Defendants herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by FRP from January 1, 2022, until he was wrongfully terminated on September 18, 2025. FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS CORP. ("FRP") is a Delaware corporation doing business in California, including operating the former Gaspar Insurance Services, LLC, in the Los Angeles area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC 9800 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite D, PMB 325 Chatsworth, CA 91311-4057 Phone: 818-360-2529 Fax: 866-794-5741 Email: paul@cullenlegal.com FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Diuguid Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Financial Network, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Diuguid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11698 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Freedom Financial Network -- https://www.freedomfinancialnetwork.com/ -- is a leading digital personal finance company, built to help people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com FREEWAY INSURANCE: Lazan Sues Over Unlawful Debiting ---------------------------------------------------- Larry Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FREEWAY INSURANCE SERVICES AMERICA, LLC, and DOES 1-20, Case No. 8:25-cv-02714 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") as a result of the Defendants debiting without obtaining a written authorization signed. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' bank accounts without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating Section 907(a) of the EFTA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contacted Defendant to purchase insurance for his automobile during early February 2025. The Defendant was a company engaged in the business of providing car insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: 323-306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com GENIE RETAIL ENERGY: Fitzpatrick Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genie Retail Energy, Inc. The case is styled as Kelly Fitzpatrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genie Retail Energy, Inc., a Delaware registered corporation; Town Square Energy, LLC, a Delaware registered company, Case No. 2:25-cv-18500 (D.N.J., Dec. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Genie Energy Ltd. -- https://genie.com/ -- is a domestic retail provider of green and conventional electricity and natural gas supply, on-site and community solar energy solutions, with a focus on deregulated markets across the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com GIFTED YOUTH: Yearwood Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ricardo Yearwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GIFTED YOUTH, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; MICHAEL SAGOL, an individual; KENNETH SHAW, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 25STCV28432 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11733. The Plaintiff alleges the following eight causes of action: Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201.3,201.5, 201.6, 203 and/or 204--continuing wages; Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a)--wage statements; Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7 and 512--meal breaks; Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7--rest breaks; Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 515, and 1194--overtime; Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194 and 1198--minimum wage; Cal. Lab. Code Section 2802--business expenses; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.--restitution; and breach of implied employment contract (the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ben D. Whitwell, Esq. Ryan M. Andrews, Esq. Jeffrey A. Brand, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.229.9900 Facsimile: 310.229.9901 Email: bdwhitwell@venable.com rmandrews@venable.com jabrand@venable.com GLOBAL LENDING: Ward Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------- Ebony Monique Ward, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GLOBAL LENDING SERVICES LLC, Case No. CACE-25-018890 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unlawful debt collection. Between August 13, 2025, and August 18, 2025, Defendant placed 9 phone calls to Plaintiff (the "Subject Communications"), all in an attempt to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. Specifically, in collecting consumer debts and pursuant to the FCCPA, no person shall: "willfully communicate with the debtor or any member of her or his family with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family." Between August 13, 2025, and August 18, 2025, Defendant placed the Subject Communications in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. Upon information and belief, Defendant has communicated with other members of the Class in a similar harassing frequency. In doing so, Defendant willfully communicated with Plaintiff and members of the Class in such a way that can be reasonably expected to harass or abuse Plaintiff and members of the Class. As such, by and through the Subject Communications, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida. The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business located in Greenville, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com GOLDEN BRIGHT: Munoz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Ariel Salazar Munoz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GOLDEN BRIGHT LLC (d/b/a ROYAL JET HAND CAR WASH & DETAIL CENTER), JOHANN WU, BING LIU, BIZHONG LIU, and LI WONG YU,, Case No. 2:25-cv-06830 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and at all relevant times failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked long days as a hand car washer at the hand car wash & detail center. Royal Jet Hand Car Wash & Detail Center is a hand car wash & detail center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GRILEY AIR FREIGHT: Schirmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Counties Terminals, et al. The case is styled as Tim Schirmer, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Southern Counties Terminals d/b/a Griley Air Freight, Case No. 25STCV36079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 9, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Southern Counties Terminals doing business as Griley Air Freight -- https://grileyair.com/ -- is a premium transportation service that specializes in air freight and trucking services, catering to shippers and freight forwarders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com GXO LOGISTICS SUPPLY: Arredondo Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Arredondo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GXO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2531323 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Dec. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03312. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for: failure to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to permit rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.; failure to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation of employment, and unfair and unlawful business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: tim.johnson@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Protect Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04065-ELH (D. Md., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") about its current and former clients and their employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach 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 Private Information. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's Private Information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, HCIactive's clients' employees' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a Maryland-based technology provider that develops AI-powered software solutions for insurance enrollment and benefits administration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com HOLLISTER-WHITNEY ELEVATOR: Faces Trapini Suit Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN TRAPINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLLISTER-WHITNEY ELEVATOR CO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03384-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., December 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a maintenance employee from approximately December 5, 2022, until April 10, 2024. Hollister-Whitney Elevator Co, LLC is a manufacturer of elevator components and systems, with its principal place of business in Quincy, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Fletcher, Esq. Andrew Fullett, Esq. THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60642 Email: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com andrew@garfinkelgroup.com HOME WET BAR: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Home Wet Bar, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-14996 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://homewetbar.com (hereinafter "Homewetbar.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Homewetbar.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Home Wet Bar provides to the public a website known as Homewetbar.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of personalized barware and gifts, including engraved glassware, cocktail accessories, whiskey smokers, decanters, flasks, bar signs, leather drink accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: chan@ealg.law HOPE HEALTH: Aman Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------- CHARLES AMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOPE HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-13842-JD (D.S.C., December 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that as part of its business, Defendant receives and maintains the highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") -- together "Private Information" -- of thousands of its current and former patients. In collecting and maintaining the Private Information, Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The Defendant recently sent Plaintiff and Class Members notice of data breach letters providing them with notification of the Data breach. The Defendant revealed that between March 19, and March 20, 2025, it was hacked in the Data Breach. However, Defendant waited until December 4, 20205 to notify impacted individuals about the Data Breach. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. The complaint alleges that the Defendant kept the Class in the dark by not promptly notifying them thereby depriving the Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner. And when the Defendant did notify Plaintiff and the Class of the Data Breach, the Defendant acknowledged that the Data Breach created a present, continuing, and significant risk of suffering identity theft, warning Plaintiff and the Class. In addition to injunctive relief, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Charles Aman is a citizen of Effingham, South Carolina. Defendant Hope Health, Inc. provides integrated health services to its patients across Georgia and South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC 32 Ann Street, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: 803-222-2222 Facsimile: 843-494-5536 E-mail: Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com HUEL INC: Settecasi Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Protein Powder ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA SETTECASI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-62507 (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of protein powder products. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products as "Crafted using the finest ingredients in nature, we meticulously choose only the highest quality sources, never settling for anything less," "Over 160 health benefits," "A formula you can trust," and "Third-party tested" in its marketing material. The Defendant's representations omit and fail to disclose to consumers on its packaging that the products are contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, which is a dangerous neurotoxin that is known to cause cognitive deficits, mental illness, dementia, and hypertension. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Huel Inc. is a manufacturer of protein powder products, with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com HYATT CORPORATION: Hasty Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY J. HASTY, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION dba HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02662-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for class certification by approximately 120 days. The Plaintiff requests that all certification-related deadlines also be continued by approximately 120 days. Despite the Plaintiff's best efforts, he will not be able to obtain the discovery and expert analysis needed before the January 30, 2026, deadline to file his motion for class certification. The case is a putative wage and hour class action. The Plaintiff Bradley Hasty alleges that Hyatt Corporation committed various wage and hour violations against Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with California’s wage and hour laws by, inter alia, requiring Plaintiff and the employees he seeks to represent to work off the clock without compensation despite being subject to the Defendant's control. Further, the Plaintiff alleges Defendant unlawfully rounded hours worked to the employees' detriment. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to provide meal and rest breaks, furnish accurate wage statements, maintain accurate records, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Feb. 6, 2025, in the San Francisco Superior Court. The Defendant removed this action to this Court on March 19, 2025. Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qZkLy4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Andrea A. Amaya Silva, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: n.haritoonian@d.law a.amaya@d.law ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH: Nedved Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Nedved and Kyrstin Harvey, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ICON CLINICAL RESEARCH LLC, and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive; Case No. 25CU060979C was removed from the Superior Court for the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Dec. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03541-WQH-VET. The Complaint alleges seven causes of action on behalf of Plaintiffs and a putative class under California law: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay all wages timely; failure to timely pay all final wages (i.e., waiting time penalties); failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and unlawful and unfair business acts and practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com IGLOO PRODUCTS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 5, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re Igloo Products Cooler Recall Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00298-JLH-EGT (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before Oct. 26, 2026. -- The initial Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert testimony by both sides is due on or before Nov. 30, 2026. Any supplemental disclosure to contradict or rebut evidence on the same matter by both sides is due on or before Feb. 1, 2027. -- All expert discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before March 16, 2027. -- Any motion for class certification must be filed on or before April 5, 2027. Igloo is an American manufacturer of ice chests, drink containers, and supporting accessories.\ A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wnvMgq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick Brian Rosner, Esq. Zhao (Ruby) Liu, Esq. THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC 824 Market Street, Suite 810 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-1111 E-mail: rosner@teamrosner.com liu@teamrosner.com - and - Christina Tusan, Esq. Adrian Barnes, Esq. TUSAN LAW, PC 680 E. Colorado Blvd. #180 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 418-8203 Facsimile: (626) 619-8253 E-mail: ctusan@ctusanlaw.com abarnes@ctusanlaw.com - and - Matthew B. George, Esq. Laurence D. King, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. Walter Howe, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison St, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: mgeorge@kaplanfox.com lking@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com whowe@kaplanfox.com The Defendant is represented by: Hugh J. Marbury, Esq. Kaan Ekiner, Esq. Erica Rutner, Esq. Michael Puretz, Esq. John A. Bertino, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1201 North Market St, Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-2046 E-mail: kekiner@cozen.com erutner@cozen.com mpuretz@cozen.com jbertino@cozen.com JCRB INC: Acosta Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Camilo Blanco Acosta, and all others similarly situated v. JCRB INC. D/B/A BISTRO CAFE, JAN KARLO RUIZ ORTIZ, and TAMARA PEREZ FELICIANO, Case No. 1:25-cv-25762-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 9, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff proper compensation. The Defendants for violated the FLSA, including breaches of the prohibition against tipped employees sharing their tips with traditionally non-tipped employees, the requirement to pay at least a minimum wage of $7.35 per hour, and the requirement to pay overtime wages to non-exempt employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a server by the Defendants at their restaurant. JCRB Inc., is a sui juris Florida for-profit company that was authorized to conduct and actually conducted its for-profit business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Phone: 305.230.4884 Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com JEFF RUBY: Lamb Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNATHAN LAMB and JIM BELMONT, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. JEFF RUBY CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., THE PRECINCT, INC., CARLO & JOHNNY'S, LTD., JEFF RUBY STEAKHOUSE, LLC, JEFF RUBY’S COLUMBUS, LLC, JEFF RUBY’S STEAKHOUSE LEXINGTON, LLC, JEFF RUBY’S LOUISVILLE, LLC, and JEFF RUBY'S NASHVILLE, LLC, d/b/a JEFF RUBY CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT, Case No. 3:25-cv-00949 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order approving the collective FLSA settlement, granting Rule 23 class certification for settlement purposes, and preliminarily approving the parties' proposed Rule 23 class settlement. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek an order granting the following relief: First, Named Plaintiffs move for approval of the resolution of their FLSA claims as a fair and reasonable settlement of bona fide disputes under the FLSA, in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Second, Named Plaintiffs move for certification, for settlement purposes only, of settlement classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of two settlement classes. Specifically, the Rule 23 Classes include the following individuals: "All employes in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Ohio restaurants at any time from Sept. 12, 2021, to July 11, 2025"; (the "Rule 23 Ohio Class"); "All employees in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Kentucky restaurants at any time from Feb. 27, 2019, to July 11, 2025; (the "Rule 23 Kentucky Class")." All members of the Rule 23 Ohio Class and Rule 23 Kentucky Class, other than the Named Plaintiffs, are listed on REVISED EXHIBIT B to the Settlement. Third, Named Plaintiffs request that this Court appoint, for settlement purposes only: (a) Named Plaintiff Lamb as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Kentucky Class and (b) Named Plaintiff Belmont as Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Ohio Class. Fourth, Named Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint, for settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs’ attorneys, David W. Garrison, Joshua A. Frank, and Nicole A. Chanin of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC; and Robert E. DeRose of Barkan Meizlish DeRose Cox, LLP as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Classes. Fifth, Named Plaintiffs move this Court for preliminary approval of the parties' Settlement of the Rule 23 Classes’ claims, including approval of all aspects of the form and procedure for class notice and claims set forth therein. Sixth, Named Plaintiffs request that this Court set a Fairness Hearing for final approval of the Settlement, consistent with the timeframe set forth in the Proposed Order. Plaintiffs also request that this Court set a deadline for the filing of a motion for final approval and a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel. Jeff Ruby operates as a restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RKpCpF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com The Defendants are represented by: Mekesha H. Montgomery, Esq. Neal Shah, Esq. Tessa L. Castner, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 251-5550 Facsimile: (615) 251-5551 E-mail: mmontgomery@fbtlaw.com nshah@fbtlaw.com tcastner@fbtlaw.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Shoemake Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- ARIEL SHOEMAKE aka ARIEL MATOS and ELBA NIEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 251201180 (Pa. Comm. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful debt collection practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant communicated with third parties debt collection details without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs suffered damages. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collector with principal office location in Sartell, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, PC 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 Email: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com JENNINGS FRUITS: Camano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juanita Camano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JENNINGS FRUITS & VEGETABLES INC. (D/B/A JENNINGS FRUITS & VEGETABLES), MINERVA PENAFORT AND MAURO PENAFORT, Case No. 1:25-cv-10262 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a general assistant at the fruit and vegetable market. The Defendants own, operate, or control a fruit and vegetable market located in Bronx, New York City under the name "Jennings Fruits & Vegetables."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 JOYCE CAMPBELL: $1.2MM Settlement Fund in Caddell Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANSELM CADDELL, et al., v. JOYCE A. CAMPBELL, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00091-DRC-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Cole entered an order granting the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement. The class members shall have 60 days from when Rust Consulting, Inc. sends out notice to opt out of the class, to object to the proposed settlement, and to submit settlement claims. The settlement agreement proposes that Defendants collectively pay $1,215,000 into a Settlement Fund. After examining the proposed notice here, the Court finds that it satisfies due process requirements. The notice clearly provides a description of the class as: "Plaintiffs and those individuals subject to a warrantless arrest by City of Fairfield Police Officers from Feb. 1, 2017, until Feb. 28, 2019, and who were held by the Butler County Sheriff's office for more than 48 hours on charges pending in the Fairfield Municipal Court, if held without a post-arrest probable cause determination by a judicial officer and not otherwise subject to lawful detention for reasons unrelated to the warrantless arrest." A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yAqYK7 at no extra charge.[CC] KAHNALYTICS INC: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAHNALYTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10103 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://originalsprout.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Kahnalytics, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KAISER FOUNDATION: Gets Prelim OK of Settlement ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Doe, John Doe II, John Doe III, Jane Doe, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, Jane Doe IV, Jane Doe V, and Alexis Sutter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No.3:23-cv-02865-EMC Plaintiffs, v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, Defendants, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order preliminarily approving a class action settlement. The Parties determined to settle the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 13, 2025 and all exhibits thereto as amended by agreement of the Parties and Court Order. The Court found substantial and sufficient grounds exist for entering this Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Approving Notice of Proposed Settlement and Fairness Hearing. The Parties proposed certification of a Settlement Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Settlement Class includes any and all Kaiser members in the Kaiser Operating States who accessed the authenticated pages of Kaiser Permanente websites or mobile applications from November 2017 to May 2024. The websites include https://wa-member.kaiserpermanente.org, https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org, and https://mydoctor.kaiserpermanente.org. The mobile applications include Kaiser Permanente Washington App, Kaiser Permanente App, My Doctor Online (NCAL Only) App, My KP Meds App, and KP Health Ally App. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) the Judges presiding over the Action, Class Counsel, Sutter Counsel and immediate members of their families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and their current or former officers and directors; (3) Persons who properly execute and submit a request for exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline; (4) the successors or assigns of any such excluded Persons; and (5) the Kaiser Permanente Members Who Have Chosen to Arbitrate. Members Who Have Chosen to Arbitrate include 17 current and former Kaiser Permanente members represented by Potter Handy, LLP, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, LLC, and Bryson Harris Suciu & DeMay, PLLC law firms, and 4 current and former Kaiser Permanente members represented by Shay Legal, APC and Swigart Law Group, APC law firms. The Court found, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to certify the Settlement Class for purposes of the proposed Settlement. The Court found that each element required for certification of the Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been met or will likely be met: (a) the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that their joinder in the Action would be impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class that predominate over any individual questions; (c) the claims of Plaintiffs in the Action are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (d) Plaintiffs and their counsel have and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Settlement Class; and (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the Action. The Court also found it will likely be able to appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class and to appoint Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, PC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed Settlement as reflected in the Stipulation and all exhibits thereto was preliminarily approved. The Court found that the proposed Settlement is the product of informed arm's-length negotiation by counsel, contains no obvious deficiencies that would prevent preliminary Court approval, bears a reasonable relationship to the claims alleged by Plaintiffs and the litigation risks of Plaintiffs as well as Defendant, and does not improperly grant preferential treatment to the named Plaintiffs or segments of the Settlement Class. The Court approved the forms of notice and directed that notice shall be given to the Settlement Class as follows: (i) Short Form Notice disseminated by email to each Person's last known email address or by first-class U.S. mail to each Person's last known mailing address in the event an email address is not available, and (ii) Long Form Notice posted to the Settlement Website. The Court found that these notice procedures established by the Stipulation are appropriate and are reasonably calculated to apprise the members of the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action and the proposed Settlement. The Court ordered that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. provide to the Settlement Administrator the May 2024 Notice List, including Settlement Class Member email addresses or mailing addresses for any Settlement Class Members where email is unavailable, for the purpose of effectuating notice of the Settlement. This information shall be designated Highly Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only pursuant to the Protective Order entered in the Action. Strategic Claims Services was appointed as the Settlement Administrator and shall be responsible, under the direction and supervision of Class Counsel, for providing the Notices to the Settlement Class in accordance with the provisions of the Stipulation and this Order. Settlement Class Members must complete and submit a Claim in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Claims must be submitted by March 12, 2026, or no later than 55 calendar days after the Notice Date. Any eligible Settlement Class Member that does not negotiate their payment from the Net Settlement Fund within the time permitted shall be deemed to have waived his, her, or its right to share in the Net Settlement Fund, shall be forever barred from participating in any distributions therefrom, and shall be bound by the provisions of the Settlement. In order for a member of the Settlement Class to be excluded from the Settlement Class, the Settlement Class Member must request exclusion in writing or via the Settlement Website, and the request for exclusion must be received by the Settlement Administrator by March 12, 2026. Each request for exclusion must state the full name, residential address, telephone number, email address of the Person requesting exclusion, state "I request exclusion from the Settlement Class in Doe, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02865-EMC (N.D. Cal.)," include the Settlement Class Member's Unique ID as provided by the Settlement Administrator, and include a wet ink signature or electronically imaged written signature. To object to the Settlement, a Settlement Class Member must mail to or file with the Court an objection that includes specific information including the full name, address, telephone number, Unique ID provided by the Settlement Administrator, email address of the Person objecting, an explanation of why the commenter or objector believes he or she or they are a Settlement Class Member, and all reasons for the objection stated with specificity. Such objection must be postmarked or filed by March 12, 2026. The Court will determine whether to grant final approval of the Settlement following a Fairness Hearing to be held on May 7, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., at the Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 5 - 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Court will determine whether the proposed Settlement, including the Plan of Allocation, is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will rule on the Fee Application, including the amounts of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses that should be awarded to Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(h), and the service awards to be awarded to the named Plaintiffs, if any. Accordingly, pending the final determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, all proceedings and discovery in the Action are stayed, except as specifically provided for in this Order. A copy of the Court's decision https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gw8o4A from PacerMonitor.com KANSAS CITY LIFE: $40MM Settlement in Va Zanten Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER M. VAN ZANTEN, DWAIN E. VITTETOE, ROBERT R. FINE, and LARRY A. MCMILLAN, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00095-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Phillips entered an order granting: (1) the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action Settlement, and (2) the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, expense reimbursement, and service awards. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Members are permanently enjoined from filing, prosecuting, maintaining, or continuing litigation based on or related to the Released Claims. Each party shall bear their own costs except as provided in this Order. This Court retains jurisdiction over this Action and the parties to administer, supervise, interpret, and enforce the Settlement Agreement, this Order, and the Final Judgment. The Court found that, given the nature of the claims and the settlement amount ($40 million), "it would likely approve the Settlement as 'fair, reasonable, and adequate' under the relevant factors." After considering the Plaintiffs' Final Approval Motion and the supporting documents, the Court concludes that both rules are satisfied. The Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All persons or entities who own or owned one or more of approximately 88,000 Universal Life and Variable Universal Life policies issued or administered by the Defendant under the following plans that were active on or after Jan. 1, 2002: Better Life Plan, Better Life Plan Qualified, LifeTrack, AGP, MGP, PGP, Chapter One, Classic, Century II, Rightrack (89), Performer (88), Performer (91), Prime Performer, Competitor (88), Competitor (91), Executive (88), Executive (91), Protector 50, LewerMax, Ultra 20 (93), Competitor II, Executive II, Performer II, and Ultra 20 (96), except Century II policies issued in the State of Missouri." Excluded from the class are Defendant; any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; any of the officers, employees, or board of directors of the Defendant; the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of the Defendant; anyone employed with the Plaintiffs' law firms; and any Judge to whom this Action or a Related Action is assigned, and his or her immediate family. Given the amount of work required, the multi-jurisdictional nature of litigation, and the risk undertaken, the Court finds that the percentage requested here is reasonable and awards one-third of the settlement ($13,333,333.33) in attorney fees to be paid from the settlement fund. The Court notes that $185,063 of the reimbursement requested by Class Counsel is for unreimbursed costs and expenses they incurred while litigating a related case, Meek v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co., No. 4:19-cv-00472-BP (W.D. Mo.), on behalf of a class of Kansas policyholders. The Court also approves the Service Awards of $25,000 each for Plaintiffs Fine and McMillan and $10,000 each for Plaintiffs van Zanten and Vittetoe. The Defendant is a public insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XlLDeu at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Tomassian Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY TOMASSIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:25-cv-05608-JFW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to strike and strike the class allegations in the operative first amended class action complaint (FAC) or deny class certification. Ms. Tomassian failed to file a motion for class certification by the deadline set by both the Scheduling Order and Standing Order. The class allegations in the operative FAC should therefore be stricken, or, alternatively, class certification should be denied due to the untimeliness of any motion for class certification. Ms. Tomassian's failure to timely move for class certification has also prejudiced Kroger. Her delay has "necessarily prolong[ed] the litigation for many months," including by requiring Kroger to affirmatively move to strike the class allegations or to deny class certification, and Ms. Tomassian "ha[s] made zero progress gathering information to support [her] class allegations." Ms. Tomassian filed her initial "Class Action Complaint' on June 20, 2025, alleging that she purchased Rice from Kroger and Ralphs stores with a label that failed to disclose the potential or actual presence of heavy metals in the Rice and seeking to bring claims on behalf of a putative class. Ms. Tomassian served the Class Action Complaint on July 2, 2025. Ms. Tomassian filed a FAC on Aug. 29, 2025. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OZejqq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. James H. Moon, Esq. Michael S. Drell, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com jamesmoon@dwt.com michaeldrell@dwt.com LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Burrell Seeks to Certify Four Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM L. BURRELL JR., et al., v. LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01891-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The proposed classes are defined as follows: Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) Class "All civil child support debtors who were detained at Lackawanna County Prison and worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center after the entry of the May 3, 2006, Operating Agreement between LRCI and the Authority." Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) Class: "All civil child support debtors who were detained at Lackawanna County Prison and worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center after Dec. 6, 2009." Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Class: "All civil child support debtors who were detained at Lackawanna County Prison and worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center after Dec. 6, 2015. Unjust Enrichment Class: "All civil child support debtors who were detained at Lackawanna County Prison and worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center after Dec. 6, 2015." The Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint the undersigned law firms to serve as "Class Counsel.” The Plaintiffs also request that, if the Court grants the Motion, it direct the parties to meet and confer and submit a notice plan within fourteen days. Lackawanna is a wholesaler of recycled plastics & paper. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Um3htm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martha E. Guarnieri, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel E. Nadas, Esq. William A. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1727 Snyder Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19145 Telephone: (215) 422-3478 E-mail: mguarnieri@hfajustice.com mhandley@hfajustice.com wanderson@hfajsutice.com - and - Marielle Macher, Esq. Peter Zurflieh, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 118 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 236-9486, ext. 214 E-mail: mmacher@cjplaw.org pzurflieh@cjplaw.org - and - Juno Turner, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. Brianne Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 N Logan Street Ste 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO, 80203-1994 Telephone: (720) 239-2060 E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org brianne@towardsjustice.org LAKEVIEW LOAN: More Time to File Settlement Prelim Approval Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (RE: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING DATA BREACH LITIGATION)., Case No. 1:22-cv-20955-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order enlarging time to file motion for preliminary approval of settlement, and allowing until Jan. 28, 2026 to file their motion for preliminary approval. In light of the intervening holidays, the Parties require additional time to finalize the Settlement Agreement and related attachments, a necessary precondition to filing a motion for preliminary approval. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement, stating that the Parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation. The Parties sought to file a motion for preliminary approval within 45 days. Lakeview operates as a mortgage finance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CDJtCD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Braman Kane, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle – Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: julie@colson.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Mikaela Bock, Esq. Kristen Palumbo, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com kmacey@girardsharp.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com dlietz@milberg.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. Nicolle B. Brito, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 (fax) E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 North 11th Street, Suite 402 Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com - and - Terry R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, LLC 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com LARGO PIPING: Genevish Collective Action Conditionally Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND GENEVISH, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. LARGO PIPING & GAS, INC., a Florida Corporation, and AARON WORKMAN, Individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-02066-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone entered an order as follows: The action is conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). No later than Jan. 5, 2026, the Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiff a list containing the name and last known mailing address, personal email address, to the extent known, and telephone number of each Putative Collective Member. Notice and the Consent to Join form shall be sent to all such Putative Collective Members by U.S. mail, email, to the extent personal email addresses are available, and text, at the expense of Plaintiff's counsel, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the contact information from Defendants. The Reminder Notice, attached to the brief in support of Plaintiff's Motion as Exhibit B, shall be sent to all such Putative Collective Members by U.S. mail, email, to the extent personal email addresses are available, and text, at the expense of Plaintiff's counsel forty-five days after Notice is initially sent to the Putative Collective Members. The Plaintiff is designated as the representative of the Putative Collective Members. The Plaintiff's counsel, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., is designated as counsel for the Putative Collective Members. Largo provides comprehensive gas plumbing services, including installation, repair, and maintenance. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qpxjXJ at no extra charge.[CC] LAWRENCE GENERAL: Valliere Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Colleen Valliere, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAWRENCE GENERAL HOSPITAL, DIANA RICHARDSON, AND LAUREL SWEENEY, Case No. 2577CV01209-D was removed from the Essex County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on Dec. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13770. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 2 causes of action: Violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act; and Common Law Breach of Contract - Employment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony D. Rizzotti, Esq. Vanessa M. Cohn, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Phone 617.378.6000 Fax 617.737.0052 Email: arizzotti@littler.com vcohn@littler.com LEAD COMPANY: Fitzgerald Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lead Company, Inc. The case is styled as Angel Fitzgerald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Lead Company, Inc. doing business as: Insureit, Case No. 2:25-cv-14435-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Lead Company -- https://lead.co/ -- is a nationwide provider of quality real-time online insurance leads for auto, home, life and health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com LEWIS BLUM TOWING: Jain Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lewis Blum Towing Co. The case is styled as Nikhil Jain, for himself and others similarly situated v. Lewis Blum Towing Co. t/a Lew Blum Towing Co., Lewis A. Blum, Case No. 251200639 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Dec. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Class Action." Lew Blum Towing is a reputable towing company based in Philadelphia, PA, offering reliable and efficient towing services to the local community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert F. Salvin, Esq. Two Bala Plaza, Suite 300 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1573 Phone: 215-300-2388 Fax: 215-271-2820 Email: robert.salvin@outlook.com LIMESTONE BANK: Wins Preliminary Nod of "Cooper" Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Robin Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Limestone Bank, Inc., et al., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-00389-GNS-RSE (W.D. Ky.)Judge Greg N. Stivers of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Court certified the settlement class, appointed class representatives and counsel, and preliminarily approved the $950,000 settlement agreement. The class action arose from the imposition of certain overdraft fees by Limestone Bank. The suit challenged two types of overdraft fees: those from Authorize Positive, Settle Negative Transactions (APSN Fees), and those from merchant verifications (Verify Fees). APSN Fees were allegedly charged when a customer with a positive account balance used her debit card to make a purchase covered by the funds in her account. Limestone then set aside the amount of that transaction in the customer's checking account, making a corresponding deduction in that customer's available balance. The secret step in the posting process occurred when Limestone would release the funds it had set aside back into the customer's account for a split second before the funds were debited to settle the first transaction. If the customer's account was negative when the funds set aside for the first transaction were released and near-instantaneously debited from her account, those funds would first cover the overdraft fee for the subsequent transaction—only the remainder would go toward settling the first transaction. This would cause another overdraft because there were then insufficient funds to cover the first transaction. So, the customer would be charged an overdraft fee on the first transaction, despite Limestone's indication that the customer had enough funds to cover the transaction when it was initiated. Verify Fees were allegedly charged by Limestone following attempts by e-merchants to confirm the validity of Limestone customers' accounts. In order to verify a customer's account, various e-merchants would deposit and then immediately withdraw a token sum in the customer's account. This process involved no actual purchase or payment, but Limestone would charge an overdraft fee if the customer had a negative account balance when the verifications occurred. The named plaintiff, Robin Cooper, was charged both Challenged Fees while she held an account at Limestone. She brought this action against Limestone on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act and Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act. Cooper later added People's Bank as a defendant and dismissed Limestone because Limestone had merged with People's Bank. Following discovery, mediation, and many months of negotiation, Cooper and People's Bank reached a settlement agreement. The Agreement defined the Settlement Class as all persons who were charged one or more Challenged Fees by Limestone Bank during the Class Period. The Class Period was May 3, 2013, to April 30, 2023. The class specifically excluded Limestone Bank's current and former officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns, along with all judges who have presided over this matter and their immediate families and judicial staff. Under the settlement terms, class members will share in a settlement in the amount of $950,000. Limestone will also forgive the outstanding debts of its customers that are related to Challenged Fees. Current Limestone account holders will receive their share of the settlement as a credit to their accounts. Those without accounts will receive their share of the settlement via check. The Court found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b) have been met. The class was so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable, as there were thousands of Class Members. There were questions of law or fact common to the class based upon the claims raised in the lawsuit relating to the Challenged Fees. The claims of the Class Representative were typical of the claims of the Class because they arose from the same Challenged Fees practices. The Class Representative and Class Counsel would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class predominated over any questions affecting only individual members, as the claims centered on the Challenged Fees practices. A class action was superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The Court appointed Robin Cooper as Class Representative and appointed Cohen & Malad, LLP, and Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC, as Class Counsel. The Court found that the terms of the settlement were within the range of a fair, reasonable, and adequate compromise under the circumstances of this case. The Court approved the form and method of notice provided for in the Agreement and found that it complied with the applicable rules and the requirements of Due Process. The Court appointed Verita Global as Settlement Administrator. A final approval hearing was scheduled for 11:00 AM ET, on March 19, 2026, at the Gene Snyder U.S. Courthouse, 601 W. Broadway, Louisville, KY 40202. Members of the Settlement Class were afforded an opportunity to request exclusion from the Class or object to the terms of the Agreement. Any request for exclusion or objection must comply with the requirements for form and timing set forth in the Detailed Notice included in the Agreement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cukRt0 from PacerMonitor.com LIVE NATION: Court Initially Certifies Class in Heckam Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skot Heckman et al., v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of co-lead class counsel. The Court adopts its Tentative Ruling as its Final Ruling. The Court preliminarily certifies the proposed class, appoints Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp, and Jacob Roberts as Class Representatives, and appoints Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Keller Postman LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Court is not inclined to change its tentative finding that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show predominance. The Court had considered and rejected in its Tentative Ruling these same issues by reviewing the Plaintiffs' reply papers, Dr. Pathak's responsive declaration, and relevant case law. The Court still finds that the purported failures of Dr. Pathak's model have been sufficiently rebutted by these materials. To the extent that the Defendants require the Plaintiffs to show more at this stage, the Court disagrees. Because the Defendants still do not persuasively demonstrate to this Court the possibility that any individual issues would predominate over common ones, the Court finds it unnecessary to effectively make a choice between the parties' experts. Dr. Pathak's report provides a sufficient basis from which to conclude that Plaintiffs would adduce common proof concerning the effect of the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive practices. On Aug. 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel. On December 4, 2025, the Court heard oral argument from both parties and took the Motion under submission. Live produces live concerts and sells tickets to those events over the Internet. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oDCrWp at no extra charge.[CC] LIVE NATION: Wu Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skot Heckman, et al., v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court sets a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) scheduling conference for Jan. 15, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. The parties shall file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report by January 13. The parties will be required to discuss and disclose all of the matters included in Rule 26(f) but need not accomplish all of the exchanges of concomitant documents which can merely be scheduled for sometime thereafter. Live produces live concerts and sells tickets to those events over the Internet. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Op43VF at no extra charge.[CC] LOVELY SKIN: Argueta Sues Over Unlawful Advertising Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Argueta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOVELY SKIN, INC, a Nebraska corporation, d/b/a WWW.LOVELYSKIN.COM, Case No. 25CU066215C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's unlawful advertising prices. The Defendant advertises fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through its website at https://www.lovelyskin.com/ (the "Website"). This practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California law. The Defendant advertises fictitious prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on such products. This practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference" price, and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. On October 10, 2025, Plaintiff purchased a product called "DermaNail Nail Conditioner" (the "Product") from Defendant's Website for the allegedly discounted price of $36.09, which Defendant compared to a strike-through reference price of $37.99, after visiting a webpage advertising the Product. The Plaintiff read and relied upon the strike-through reference pricing advertising the Product that she purchased before completing his online purchase of the Product via the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a product from the Defendant's Website. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells skincare and beauty products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com LOVEPOP INC: Evans Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LovePop, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LovePop, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-11704 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LovePop, Inc. -- https://www.lovepop.com/ -- provides greeting cards. The Company offers birthday, anniversary, wedding, seasonal, animals, boats, floral, spring, and special cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Hern Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Hern, for himself, as a private attorney general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Case No. 25-00002-33016-8 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02502-GJL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS, LUKACS & CORRINGTON (WA) 11711 SE 8th St, Ste 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 233-8628 Email: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP (SF) 100 Pine St., Ste 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (628) 600-2250 Email: mbrooks@beneschlaw.com - and - Nicholas F. Aldrich, Jr., Esq. SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT (SEA) 1420 5th Ave., Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-2339 Phone: (503) 796-2494 Fax: (206) 292-0460 Email: naldrich@schwabe.com - and - Jason P. Evans, Esq. SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT (OR) 1211 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 1800 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 796-2908 Email: jevans@schwabe.com M.G.R. CLEANUP: Alvarado Sues Over Wage and Hour Laws Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Alvarado, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. M.G.R. CLEANUP INC., a California corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV156895 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Nov. 26, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of numerous wage and hour laws and the California Labor Code. The Defendant has violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; failing to pay minimum wage; failing to provide compliant meal breaks; failing to provide rest break; failing to reimburse for required busine expenses; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and violating record keeping requirements; failing to pay all wages due upon termination; and unlawful and unfair business practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a laborer from June 5, 2018 to October 17, 2024. M.G.R. CLEANUP INC., is a California corporation authorized to d business and doing business, in Alameda County, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 South Kenwood Street Glendale, CA 91205 Phone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com MALA TOWN LLC: Li Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mala Town, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Boheng "Brady" Li, Haiping Bie, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mala Town, LLC, Mala Town Milpitas, LLC, Mala Town Pleasanton, LLC, Mala Town San Mateo, LLC, Yang Gao, Case No. 25CV157784 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Dec. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Mala Town, LLC -- https://www.malatown.us/ -- is a customizable hot pot restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fernando Flores, Esq. VICUNA FLORES LAW 1376 N. 4th St., Ste. 102 San Jose, CA 95112-4768 Phone: 510-606-8252 Fax: 415-520-6576 Email: flores@vicunaflores.com - and - Virginia Reyes Villegas, Esq. THE VILLEGAS LAW FIRM, APC 1388 Sutter St., Ste. 903 San Francisco, CA 94109-5453 Phone: 415-989-8000 Fax: 415-989-8028 Email: virginia@e-licenciados.com MANAGED CARE: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for leave to file exhibits under seal The Defendants move for leave to file under seal the exhibits appended to Defendants' contemporaneously filed motion to exclude David Nelson's opinions in support of the Plaintiffs' class certification motion, and supporting memorandum, as well as to apply redactions to the limited portions of the motion to exclude that quote exhibits or other documents that the Court has previously determined could be filed under seal. The relevant exhibits contain information that was designated by Plaintiffs and Defendants as Highly Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order, and contain highly sensitive and nonpublic information regarding Defendants' response to the cyberattack at the heart of this litigation (the "Cyberattack"). Additionally, the proposed redactions in the motion quote from or reference material that the parties have designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order and that the Court has previously designated could remain sealed. Accordingly, the Defendants request, and Plaintiffs do not oppose, that the Court grant leave to file Exhibits A-B under seal and to apply redactions to the Motion to Exclude that quote Exhibits A-B or other documents that the Court previously has allowed to be filed under seal; and that this information should remain under seal and redacted through the conclusion of this case. Managed Care is a dental insurance provider. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PWBXoJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mark R. Cheskin, Esq. Allison M. Ryan, Esq. Alicia J. Paller, Esq. Abby Walter Gray, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6500 Facsimile: (305) 459-6550 E-mail: mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com abby.waltergray@hoganlovells.com MANAGED CARE: Seeks to Exclude Nelson's Opinions in Crowe Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE, et al., on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX, INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion to exclude David Nelson's data circulation, risk of harm, and PII opinions. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Defendants move to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs' proffered expert witness David Nelson in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, which are stated in Nelson's June 8, 2025, declaration, and his Aug. 29, 2025, supplemental declaration. Nelson attempts to opine on whether information from the cyberattack on MCNA has appeared on the dark web and if so, whether that information includes the Named Plaintiffs’ PII or PHI. Based on that information, Nelson proffers three primary opinions in his declarations in support of class certification that should be excluded because they are fundamentally unreliable, and indeed, he has recanted the basis for at least some of them in his Merits Report. Nelson's PII Opinion, which describes, should be excluded in determining Plaintiffs’ class certification motion because it depends on results derived using PII Tools that Nelson failed to meaningfully validate Managed Care is a dental insurance provider. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V3T2zz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mark R. Cheskin, Esq. Allen P. Pegg, Esq. Allison M. Ryan, Esq. Alicia J. Paller, Esq. Abby Walter Gray, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6500 Facsimile: (305) 459-6550 E-mail: mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com abby.waltergray@hoganlovells.com MARATHON REFINING: Arroyo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Refining Logistics Services, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel M. Arroyo, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marathon Refining Logistics Services, LLC, Case No. 25STCV36144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Marathon Petroleum Corporation -- https://www.marathonpetroleum.com/ -- is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company headquartered in Findlay, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS: Hillmon Files Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marquis Software Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Derwin Hillmon, Anterio Mayhew, Preston Holod, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc., Valley Strong Credit Union, Westerra Credit Union, Florida Credit Union, Case No. 4:25-cv-01375-ALM (E.D. Tex., Dec. 10, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Marquis is a leader in digital marketing and compliance solutions, CRM software and website design for banks and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff -- https://gomarquis.com/ -- is represented by: Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 73142 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Baroni Files Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marquis Software Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tina Baroni, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-01359 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Marquis -- https://gomarquis.com/ -- is a leader in digital marketing and compliance solutions, CRM software and website design for banks and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh Skye Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com MARQUIS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Copeland Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA COPELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.; and SECURITY CREDIT UNION, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01345-MJT (E.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for their failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data Breach on August 14, 2025, hundreds if not thousands of the Defendants' customers were impacted by the Breach. The Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives, says the suit. The Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private information and failed to ensure that its vendor Marquis would maintain adequate safeguards to protect the Defendants customers' Private Information, the suit added. Marquis Software Solutions, Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company offers marketing and compliance software, and other related solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica W. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com MC CHINA GARDEN: McCrae Sues Over Unpaid Tip and Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Majesty McCrae, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MC CHINA GARDEN, LLC (d/b/a Pier 18 Cajun Seafood & Bar, Bag O'Crab, and China Garden), Case No. 4:25-cv-01382-O (N.D. Tex., Dec. 8, 2025), is brought against Defendant pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively "FLSA"), asserting individual and collective action FLSA claims against Defendant for tip payment and minimum wage violations. The Defendant paid Plaintiff on an hourly tip credit basis of $2.13 per hour. In addition to hourly pay, Plaintiff received tips. The Defendant violated the FLSA because it kept and/or shared tips earned by Plaintiff and the putative collective action members with customarily non-tipped employees, such as cooks, dishwashers, and supervisors at Defendant's restaurants. The Defendant violated the FLSA because it made Plaintiff and the putative collective action members pay for required work uniforms. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks all damages available pursuant to the FLSA, including unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully kept tips, tip credit amounts, liquidated damages, reasonable legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 25, 2024 to September 16, 2025 as a server. The Defendant operates a restaurant named Pier 18 Cajun Seafood & Bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com MDL 3154: Bid for Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit Due Oct 29, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: Respimat Pharmaceuticals Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:25-md-03154 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order adopting the following schedule: Deadline to begin rolling production of documents in response to first set of document requests 45 days after the entry of the ESI/PO Order Deadline to begin rolling production of structured data August 1, 2025 Deadline to complete production of structured data March 1, 2026. Deadline for production of privilege logs 30 days after each rolling document production from which privileged materials have been withheld/redacted Filing of proposed deposition protocol Sept. 30, 2025. Deadline for Defendants to notify Plaintiff of waiver of privilege to support regulatory mandate defense April 1, 2026 Deadline for Plaintiff to make written settlement offer Oct. 14, 2025, Status conference set for Oct. 27, 2025, at 3:00PM. Deadline for production of otherwise privileged documents related to regulatory mandate defense May 1, 2026. Deadline for deposition of the Plaintiff May 15, 2026. Deadline for substantial completion of document production May 1, 2026. Deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend, joinder, substitution of Named Plaintiff June 15, 2026. Deadline to serve final privilege log June 30, 2026. Close of fact discovery: Sept. 5, 2026. Motion for class certification/Plaintiff's opening expert report (on both class certification and merits): Oct 29, 2026. Opposition to Motions for Class certification, Defendants' Daubert motions and opposition expert reports (on both class certification and merits): Feb. 4, 2027 Reply in support of motions for class certification, reply expert reports and Plaintiffs' Daubert motions April 1, 2027. Deadline for Defendants' opposition to Daubert motions and replies in support of defense Daubert motions: May 27, 2027. Deadline for Plaintiffs reply in support of Daubert motions June 24, 2027. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.[CC] MDL 3167: Haff Poultry V. Peco Transferred to Utah Court -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haff Poultry, Inc. et al., v. Peco Foods Inc. et al. (RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 3167), Case No. 1:25−11348 (D. Utah), the Hon. Karen K. Caldwell Judge entered an order that the following actions are transferred to the District of Utah and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert J. Shelby, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Northern District of California: "HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. FOSTER FARMS, LLC, Case No. 3:25−07996" Northern District of Illinois: "HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. PECO FOODS INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:25−11348" Eastern District of Oklahoma: "HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., ET AL., Case No. No. 6:25−00217" District of South Carolina: "HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:25−12629" Western District of Virginia: "HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. GEORGE'S INC., ET AL., Case No. 5:25−00099" Peco is a poultry products provider for industrial, retail and food service markets. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WXV4oz at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3168: Centralization of 17 Video Game Addiction Suits Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denies the transfer of 17 actions pending in seven districts for centralization of litigation under the case captioned "In re: Gateway Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3168. All actions are individual personal injury actions in which plaintiffs allege that, to increase profits from in-game purchases, defendants developed and sold video games with psychologically addictive features designed to cause minors to become addicted to video games. The products at issue are what plaintiffs term in their briefs the "gateway" video games Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft. Plaintiffs allege (1) defendants failed to warn minors and their parents about the risks associated with excessive use of their video game products or include available safeguards to curb excessive use; (2) defendants' marketing strategies specifically target minors; and (3) the products lack sufficient parental controls, including age verification. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, the panel concluded that centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The panel is concerned that the scope of this litigation may quickly grow too large, as plaintiffs who played different games on different platforms file new actions. There are now more actions before the panel than in the previous iteration of this litigation, and they are ostensibly more narrowly focused to just three groups of defendants. "But we are not persuaded that the litigation will not grow to encompass a large tangle of defendants and products, similar to what was before us in In re Video Game Addiction, which risks creating an MDL too unwieldy for any single judge to manage. We typically are 'hesitant to centralize litigation against multiple, competing defendants which marketed, manufactured and sold similar products,'" notes the panel. Where, as here, Plaintiffs do not allege that defendants acted in concert, proponents bear a heavier burden of proof that common allegations and discovery will outweigh the attendant case management complications of a multi-product, multi-defendant MDL, adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's December 10, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3168-Order_Denying_Transfer-12-25.pdf MDL 3169: Centralization of 4 Eligo Contract Breach Suits Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denies the transfer of one action each from the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland, Southern District of New York, Southern District of Ohio and the Western District of Pennsylvania for centralization of litigation under the case captioned "In re: Eligo Energy Litigation," MDL No. 3169. The panel rules that centralization is not warranted for this small group of actions as they appear to involve distinct contracts and likely will necessitate significant case-specific discovery. Moreover, Plaintiffs in each action assert their claims against a different state-specific Eligo entity. Plaintiffs are Eligo customers who allege that their contracts with Eligo cabined Eligo's discretion to set its variable rates for electricity and natural gas. According to plaintiffs, Eligo instead set its variable rates based on an assessment of how high a rate it could charge before experiencing too much customer attrition. All plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and seek compensatory and punitive damages. The actions likely will share some factual questions, as the complaints each include allegations that Eligo had a uniform practice for setting variable utility rates based on how much money it thought it could extract from customers rather than the formula set by its contracts with its customers. "We encourage the parties to explore all available avenues of informal coordination," the Panel states. "As we routinely state, "centralization under Section 1407 'should be the last solution after considered review of all other options.'" A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3169-Order_Denying_Transfer-12-25.pdf MEHRI & SKALET: Budzinski Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- Joseph Budzinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04292 (D.D.C., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought seeks to redress M&S's unlawful and negligent disclosure of Clients' personally identifiable information ("PII") in a massive data breach on December 17, 2024 ("Data Breach" or "Breach"), in violation of common law and in breach of express and implied contract. The Plaintiff and other Class Members are individuals and current and former clients of Defendant who either entrusted or had their PII held by M&S. Defendant betrayed Plaintiff's trust by failing to properly safeguard and protect his PII and by disclosing his PII to cybercriminals. For the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will bear an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action as a direct and/or proximate result of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a letter from M&S informing him of the Data Breach on November 19, 2025. Mehri & Skalet, PLLC is a law firm and professional limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business in Washington, DC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: 866.252.0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3281 Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 26, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER SOWA, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG f/k/a DAIMLER AG, Case No. 1:23-cv-00636-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Geraghty entered an order granting joint motion for an amended case-scheduling order: Event Date Substantial completion of document discovery April 27, 2026 (including production of electronically stored information): The Plaintiffs' motion for class Oct. 26, 2026 certification, and the Plaintiffs' class certification expert reports The Defendants' opposition to class Jan. 25, 2027 certification, deposition(s) of the Plaintiffs' experts, the Defendants' class certification expert reports, and the Defendants' Daubert motions regarding the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of April 23, 2027 class certification, deposition(s) of the Defendants' class certification experts, the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' Daubert motions, the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions regarding the Defendants' experts, and the Plaintiffs' rebuttal class certification expert reports: Summary judgment motions: Nov. 2, 2027 Mercedes-Benz is engaged in the wholesale distribution of new and used passenger automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vWxs7l at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases. Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal excerpts and quotations from documents containing information designated by Meta as either confidential or highly confidential -- Attorney's eyes only and submitted by the Plaintiffs in support of their reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons" standard applies. The Plaintiffs submit this request only to comply with their obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and the protective order issued in the case, and Plaintiffs take no position at this time on the propriety of Meta's confidentiality designations, or whether they meet the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pZdrxp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02216 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com mliskow@4-justice.com RPeterson@4-Justice.com eservice@4-justice.com - and - Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Nieves Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lana Nieves, Stacy Penning, Sunggil Hong, Laura Bonetti, and Jonathan Finestone, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. CGC-25-629612 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10557. On September 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Microsoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, alleging, intrusion upon seclusion under California common law, violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code Section 631(a) (wiretapping), violation of CIPA Section 638.51 (use of a pen register), unjust enrichment, and violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James G. Snell, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 Phone: 650.838.4300 Facsimile: 650.838.4350 Email: JSnell@perkinscoie.com - and - Nicola Menaldo, Esq. Jordan C. Harris, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000 Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com JordanHarris@perkinscoie.com - and - Justin Potesta, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 405 Colorado Street, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (737) 256.6137 Email: jpotesta@perkinscoie.com MISSOURI: Seeks More Time to File Darrington Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA DARRINGTON, as next Friend for M.R., et al. on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04268-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' Class action complaint, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the Plaintiffs' suggestions in support. The Defendants request that the Court grant this Motion, extend the Defendants' deadlines to respond to the Complaint a number of 45 days (Feb. 1, 2026) and to hold the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and suggestions in support in abeyance for six months from the date of the Court's order and an additional period of twenty-one days for Defendants to brief the issues, and grant such other and further relief as is just and proper. The breadth and complexity of Plaintiffs' allegations, the scope of the requested class relief, and the programmatic nature of the requested injunction warrant additional time so that Defendants may: (a) collect, verify, and analyze data from multiple DMH facilities and programs; (b) evaluate Plaintiffs' proposed class definitions and Rule 23 showings; and (c) prepare comprehensive, accurate, and efficient responses, which will assist the Court in the orderly management of this case and conserve judicial resources. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging systemic constitutional and statutory violations regarding competency evaluations and restoration services administered by the Missouri Department of Mental Health ("DMH") and contemporaneously filed a motion seeking certification of two statewide classes (an "Evaluation Class" and a "Restoration Class"), supported by extensive factual and legal submissions. Missouri Department of Mental Health serves citizens by working to prevent, treat and habilitate individuals with mental disorders. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xXQm7q at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Justin E. Davis, Esq. MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 615 E. 13th Street, Suite 401 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 889-5017 E-mail: Justin.Davis@ago.mo.gov MUSTANG MOTORCYCLE: Russell Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mustang Motorcycle Products, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kymberly Russell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mustang Motorcycle Products, LLC, Ryan Martin, Richard Sexton, Dennis Discawicz, William Brame, Case No. 2579CV00807 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Dec. 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business." Mustang Seats -- https://mustangseats.com/ -- specializes in high-quality, handmade motorcycle seats and accessories tailored for major motorcycle brands such as Harley-Davidson, Indian, and Honda.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. Melissa Auclair, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA AND DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 MUTUAL HOUSING: Green Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mutual Housing Management, et al. The case is styled as Kelli Green, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mutual Housing Management, Mutual Housing California, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25CV029890 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Mutual Housing -- https://www.mutualhousing.com/ -- offers a permanent solution to the housing needs of California's diverse families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com NATERA INC: Class Cert Bid in Petersen Due Sept. 25, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON PETERSEN, et al., v. NATERA, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-07062-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered a scheduling order as follows: The Court sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: Feb. 13, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 25, 2026 Class certification motion and the Sept. 25, 2026 Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the Oct. 27, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification reply and rebuttal Dec. 4, 2026 class certification expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 18, 2026 Natera is a clinical genetic testing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZwSlz3 at no extra charge.[CC] NEBRASKA: Denies Free Public Education to Disabled, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- A.R., by and through her parents and next friends TRISHA REIERSON; and SCOTT REIERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NEBRASKA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; and THE NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00697 (D. Neb., Dec. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant denied a free appropriate public education to disabled students between the ages of 21 and 22 while providing a free public education to nondisabled students in the same age range. The Nebraska State Board of Education is an elected executive agency of the Nebraska state government, responsible for managing the state's public K-12 education. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy K. Bonn, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF AMY K. BONN, LLC 2805 Leigh Lane Papillion, NE 68133 Telephone: (402) 387-7293 E-mail: amy@amybonnlaw.com - and - Ellen Marjorie Saideman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN SAIDEMAN 7 Henry Drive Barrington, RI 02806 Telephone: (401) 258-7276 E-mail: esaideman@yahoo.com NELLIS AUCTION: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Reply Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SCHAAF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NELLIS AUCTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; CRET LLC, a domestic limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION ARIZONA LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION NEW JERSEY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NELLIS AUCTION TEXAS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; SAC TRUST 2, a Nevada trust; SPENCER CHUPINSKY, individually and as trustee of SAC Trust 2; HALCYON THIRD MILLENIUM TRUST, a Nevada trust; KENNETH CHUPINSKY, individually and as trustee of Halcyon Third Millenium Trust; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00647-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for preliminary certification and circulation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Defendants timely responded to the Plaintiff's motion on Nov. 25, 2025. Due to his competing obligations and deadlines in other litigation matters, as well as the unexpected death of his first cousin the week before, the Plaintiff's counsel requires additional time to complete the Plaintiff's reply. As such, the Parties stipulate that the Plaintiff shall have an additional week, up to and including Dec. 23, 2025, to file his reply in support of his motion. This extension is sought in good faith and not for the purpose of undue delay. This is the Parties' second stipulated request for an extension of the briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion. On Oct. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary certification and circulation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Court granted the Parties' first stipulated request on Dec. 12, 2025. Nellis is a Nevada-based online auction company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GI0Su3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Ciara Alagao, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 E-mail: jason@rafiilaw.com ciara@rafiilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Bradley T. Austin, Esq. Swen Prior, Esq. Theresa C. Trenholm, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 1700 South Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 700 Las Vegas, NV 89135 - and - Eric D. Hone, Esq. Jennifer W. Arledge, Esq. Kelly B. Stout, Esq. HONE LAW 701 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074 E-mail: ehone@hone.law jarledge@hone.law kstout@hone.law NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for Jan. 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gould, et al., v. The City of New York, Case No. 1:24-cv-01263 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered a scheduling order regarding motion to certify class filed by the Plaintiffs Marianna Azar, Shalonda Curtis-Hackett, Jane Doe 1, Mathew Eng, Ebony Gould, Christopher Hackett, Zulima Lemus, Curtayasia Taylor, Shavona Warmington. Oral argument on the pending motion will be held on Jan. 6, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11-D South before Magistrate Judge James R. Cho. Adjournment requests will not be considered unless made in accordance with this Court's Individual Rules. The suit alleges Civil Rights Act.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Spoerl Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newrez, LLC. The case is styled as David Spoerl, Theresa Spoerl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newrez, LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Does 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-14496 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Newrez LLC (Newrez) -- https://www.newrez.com/ -- is a leading nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN. P.C. 555 Skokie Blvd., Suite 500 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0882 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Tammy L. Adkins, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60601-7567 Phone: (312) 849-8100 Email: tadkins@mcguirewoods.com NORLITE LLC: Oxaal Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORD OXAAL, DAVID OLIVENCIA JENNIFER MALINOWSKI, CHELSEA STURTEVANT, MARGARET FRANKLIN, JOHN MCGURN, KENNETH RYER, JR., EDWARD SOKOL SR., DONNA DURIVAGE, as Trustee of the EDWARD J. SOKOL, SR. AND SYLVIA J. SOKOL FAMILY TRUST, and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. NORLITE, LLC, TRADEBE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, AND TRADEBE TREATMENT AND RECYCLING NORTHEAST, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00439-ECC-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move on a date and time to be determined by this Court (Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe) for an Order to be entered for the relief as described more fully below: 1. An Order certifying the following three classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): (i) Abatement Class: "All individuals who reside within the contamination zone at the time that this class is certified, with the contamination zone being the area within one mile of the Facility to the northwest, north, northeast, east, southeast, and south from the finish plant." (ii) Property Remediation Class: "All individuals who reside or own property within the contamination zone at the time this class is certified, with the contamination zone being the area within which dispersion modeling and SEM testing prove the contamination, which is within one mile of the Facility to the northwest, north, northeast, east, southeast, and south from the finish plant." (iii) Biomonitoring Class: "All individuals who reside or have resided within the contamination zone for one continuous year at any point after March 11, 2018, and who meet health-based screening thresholds for medical monitoring as set forth in the accompanying memorandum." 2. An Order certifying the Property Remediation Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): 3. An Order certifying common liability issues pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) for the following two classes: (i) Quality of Life Damages Class: "All individuals who reside or have resided within the contamination zone at any time from March 11, 2018 until the time this class is certified, and who experienced emotional distress, anxiety, fear, annoyance, or other quality-of-life impacts as a result of exposure to or property contamination from fugitive dust emissions from the Facility." (ii) Saratoga Sites Class: "All individuals who resided at the Saratoga Sites public housing complex at any time from March 11, 2018 until the complex was closed, and who were forced to relocate due to contamination from fugitive dust emissions from the Facility." The following individuals and/or entities are excluded f rom these five classes: (i) Defendants, any entity or division in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (ii) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's staff; (iii) any class counsel or their immediate family members; (iv) any State or any of its agencies; (v) the City of Cohoes, the Town/Village of Green Island, and/or the City of Watervliet; and (vi) any individual who would otherwise be included under one or more of the class definitions above but who has filed a lawsuit for personal injury alleging an illness caused by exposure to fugitive dust emissions from the Facility. As referred to in the class definitions above, the "contamination zone" shall mean the area within a one- mile radius of the Facility to the northwest, north, northeast, east, southeast, and south from the finish plant. The contamination zone is based upon air dispersion modeling performed by Dr. Timothy McAuley and confirmed through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) testing demonstrating a unique morphological signature of the Facility's dust emissions. As referred to in the class definitions above, the "Facility" shall mean the Norlite/Tradebe aggregate production and hazardous waste incineration facility located at 628 South Saratoga Street in Cohoes, New York. 4. An Order appointing the following Plaintiffs as representatives of the classes: (i) Ford Oxaal, John McGurn, Maragaret Franklin, Ed Sokol, Sr., and Ken Ryer, Jr. as the class representatives for the Abatement Class; (ii) Ford Oxaal, John McGurn, Margaret Franklin, Donna Durivage, and Kenneth Ryer, Jr. as the class representatives for the Property Remediation Class; (iii) Ed Sokol, Margaret Franklin, David Olivencia, and Jennifer Malinowski as the class representatives for the Quality of Life Damages Class; (iv) Jennifer Malinowski and Chelsea Sturtevant as the class representatives for the Saratoga Sites Class; and (v) John McGurn, Ken Ryer, Jr., Ed Sokol, Sr., David Olivencia, Jennifer Malinowski, and Chelsea Sturtevant as the class representatives for the Biomonitoring Class. 5. Plaintiffs move for an Order appointing as class counsel Rupp Pfalzgraf LLC, with R. Anthony Rupp III and Phillip A. Oswald serving as co-lead trial counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TUo8wd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip A. Oswald, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 227 Washington Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Telephone: (518) 886-1902 E-mail: Oswald@RuppPfalzgraf.com NORMS RESTAURANTS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norms Restaurants LLC. The case is styled as Guadalupe Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Norms Restaurants LLC, Case No. 25STCV35676 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Norms Restaurants -- https://norms.com/ -- is a regional chain of diner-style restaurants in Southern California, plus one in Las Vegas.[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 OLUKAI LLC: Barco Sues Over Unsolicited Calls --------------------------------------------- William Barco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OLUKAI LLC, Case No. 2025 CA 000958 A (Fla. 5th Judicial Cir. Ct., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited calls to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received solicitations. The Defendant is a limited liability company with its headquarters located in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com OPTUMRX INC: Lackie Drug Seeks More Time to File Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACKIE DRUG STORE, INC., on Behalf of Itself and Arkansans Similarly Situated, v. OPTUMRX, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01515-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting second motion to extend time to respond to Defendant’s motion to: (i) deny class certification, and (ii) stay case pending arbitration. By prior Order of the Court, Plaintiff is scheduled to respond to the Motion by December 18, 2025. The Plaintiff needs additional time to respond to Motion under Local Rule 7.2 (d)(1), to sufficiently engage in arbitration-related discovery. As discussed in Plaintiff's original motion to extend time, Plaintiff subpoenaed Elevate, the PSAO for Lackie Drug and nearly 140 members of the Class, for documents related to its negotiation with Defendant of the arbitration agreements introduced by OptumRx in its motion, and all communications with Class members about these purported arbitration agreements that OptumRx seeks to enforce against the Class. Notice of Subpoena on Peter J. Kounelis, Elevate Provider Network, dated October 21, 2025. Thus far, Elevate has not provided any responsive documents; however, on December 5, 2025, they participated in a conference call with undersigned counsel to try and resolve a potential discovery dispute. Hopefully, we can work out our discovery issues with Elevate's attorneys, and motion practice will not be necessary. But thus far, Elevate has not produced any responsive documents. The Court will recall from 2023, Elevate was subpoenaed for arbitration related discovery and motion practice was necessary. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and enforced the subpoena directed to Elevate in November 2023. Doc. 193. Here, Plaintiff seeks the same kind of arbitration-related documents – just for the period of time since its last production in late-2023. Also, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel discovery from Defendant that impacts its ability to adequately address the Motion. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Plaintiff requests 15 days from OptumRx's production of responsive documents, if the Court grants the Motion to Compel as to Defendant and once Elevate serves its responsive documents to the subpoena. Optumrx operates as a pharmacy management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c4wwbC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Poynter, Esq. Clay Ellis, Esq. POYNTER LAW GROUP, PLLC 4924 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 Telephone: (501) 812-3943 E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com clay@poynterlawgroup.com - and - James C. Wyly, Esq. Sean F. Rommel, Esq. WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC 4004 Texas Boulevard Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 334-8646 E-mail: jwyly@wylyrommel.com srommel@wylyrommel.com - and - Michael Darren O'Quinn, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DARREN O'QUINN PLLC B. Ram Suri Professional Building 36 Rahling Circle, Suite 4 Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 817-3124 E-mail: darren@darrenoquinn.com - and - Rodney P. Moore, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 Facsimile: (501) 376-9442 E-mail: rmoore@wlj.com ORACLE CORP: Faces Volsky Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info ------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY VOLSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION, and HUMANA INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02004 (W.D. Tex., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach in July 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas. Humana Inc. is a health insurance services provider based in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parkes Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwella@stranchlaw.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Daly Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Andrew Daly III, Matthew Benjamin Ross, Curtis Smith, and Emma Donald, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ORACLE CORPORATION, CSC GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC, TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, and MASTEC, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02039 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. Oracle performs "sub processing" services for Defendants. Accordingly, on information and belief, Oracle stores a litany of the highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about CSC's and MasTec's current and former employees, and Dartmouth's current and former students, including their names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or passport numbers, and financial information. However, this PII was inadequately protected and thus exposed to cybercriminals in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). On information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted several thousands of individuals. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity, CSC, Dartmouth, and MasTec failed to adequately monitor Oracle in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiffs, and Defendants failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect Plaintiffs' and the Class's PII—rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Defendants' failure to report or failure to timely report the Data Breach made breach victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendants knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect the PII in its care, and by failing to adequately notify victims about the breach, Defendants violated state law and harmed an unknown number of CSC's and MasTec's current and former employees, and Dartmouth's current and former students, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims. Oracle is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com ORTHO MATTRESS INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ortho Mattress Inc. The case is styled as Efrain Sanchez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ortho Mattress Inc., Case No. 25STCV36222 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ortho Mattress -- https://www.orthomattress.com/ -- is an American mattress and bedding company with retail and manufacturing headquarters in La Mirada, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly DeSario, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com OUTER INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------- Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Outer, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-14986 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://liveouter.com (hereinafter "Liveouter.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Liveouter.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Outer provides to the public a website known as Liveouter.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of sofas, dining tables and sets, fire pits, throw pillows, umbrellas and outdoor rugs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law PABST BREWING: Aldape Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- James Aldape, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PABST BREWING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01693 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 9, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid compensation and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"). The Defendant violated the WARN Act when it terminated Plaintiff and the Class Members without providing sufficient (or any) advance written notice. The Plaintiff and the Class Members were employees of the Defendant and were terminated without cause on or about December 5, 2025, as part of or as the reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff, which was effectuated by Pabst Brewing on or about that date. The Defendant failed to give Plaintiff and the Class Members prior written notice of their termination and the mass layoff at their single site of employment. Nor did the Defendant "give as much notice as practicable" of Plaintiff and the Class Members' termination. In fact, the Defendant gave no prior written notice to Plaintiff and the Class Members before it engaged in a mass layoff. The Defendant's failure to provide its employees with any prior written notice had a devastating economic impact on Plaintiff and the Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Pabst Brewing in Texas during the relevant time period. Pabst Brewing is a beverage brewing company which operates across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com PARKING REVENUE: Dell Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- RYAN DELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.; and ASURA TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-03329 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants knowingly obtaining, disclosing, and using personal information from motor vehicle records for purposes not permitted under the DPPA. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. provides parking enforcement and collection services to the parking industry. The Company serves parking operators, municipalities, universities, private property owners, multi-family housing, and hospitals in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M. Garabedian, Esq. Victor Sanabria, Esq. MARK FERRER & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Email: victor@mfh.law charles@mfh.law eservice@mfh.law PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania Western University. The case is styled as Cesar Castillo Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Western University, Case No. 2:25-cv-11692 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pennsylvania Western University -- https://www.pennwest.edu/ -- is the second largest university in Western Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com PERELLA WEINBERG: Watts Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- NINA WATTS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS LP; JOSEPH R. PERELLA; PETER A. WEINBERG; FLAGSHIP CREDIT ACCEPTANCE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-14855 (N.D. Ill., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, rescission of unconscionable auto finance contracts, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged systemic pattern of unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices that targets consumers through a calculated barrage of phantom account entries, unauthorized debits, sham payment arrangements, repeated harassing collection calls, and unlawful repossessions carried out without proper notice or legal justification for profit. Through these deceptive and abusive acts, the Defendants have caused substantial and ongoing injury to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers, depriving them of the benefits of their contracts and the protections afforded by law, suit says. Perella Weinberg Partners LP is an independent advisory firm based in New York, New York. Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC is a finance lender based in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PERSANTE HEALTH CARE: James Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Persante Health Care, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew James, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Persante Health Care, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-18261-KMW-EAP (D.N.J., Dec. 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Persante -- https://persante.com/ -- is leading the future of sleep health as the nation's largest comprehensive sleep management provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com PHARMERICA DRUG: Carr Sues Over Minimum and Overtime Wage --------------------------------------------------------- Laura Dawn Carr, Antoine Jenkins, Nana S. Ephraim, Anthony Jones, Robin Jones, Vivian Bailey, Kenneth Maurice Denson, Vontasia Sakia Olds, Dominique Cox, Erica Williams, James Gregory Parker, Angela Boone and Nyah Cherry, individually, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. PHARMERICA DRUG SYSTEMS, LLC, D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS and LARRY BROWNE, Individually, Case No. 3:25-cv-00768-DJH (W.D. Ky., Dec. 9, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated non-exempt driver employees (misclassified as independent contractors) who are members of an FLSA. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated driver employees did not qualify as independent contractors because they did not meet the FLSA "economic realities" tests, as addressed hereinafter. The Defendant paid Plaintiffs and similarly situated driver employees a "route pay" per work day, regardless of the time it took them to complete their assigned route(s) each work day. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated driver employees were required to use their own vehicles in the delivery of PharMerica medications and pay for all the expenses associated with the use of their vehicles, such as the costs of fuel, repairs, oil changes, maintenance, insurance, and depreciation. By misclassifying Plaintiffs and similarly situated driver employees as independent contractors, PharMerica shifted its "employee benefit" costs, such as its share of social security contributions, workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, and other "employee benefits" upon Plaintiffs and similarly situated driver employees. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated driver employees were paid far less than the FLSA minimum wage and any applicable overtime compensation rates of pay for their compensable hours of work within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as non-exempt driver employees. Pharmerica Drug Systems, LLC doing business as Diligent Delivery Systems is a business entity and provides companies, such as PharMerica, with delivery and logistics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori J. Keen, Esq. MCMURRY & LIVINGSTON, PLLC 201 Broadway P.O. Box 1700 Paducah, KY 42002-1700 Phone: 270-443-6511 Fax: 270-443-6548 Email: lkeen@ml-lawfirm.com - and - J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com PICIS CLINICAL SOLUTIONS: Gibson Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Picis Clinical Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Brenda Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Picis Clinical Solutions, Inc. doing business as: Medstreaming, Case No. 1:25-cv-13795-AK (D. Mass., Dec. 10, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Picis -- https://www.picis.com/ -- is a global provider of clinical information solutions that automate the entire perioperative experience with one contiguous patient record.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com PIERRE FABRE: Vales Sues Over Avene's Preservative-Free Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------- IVY-KARINA VALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIERRE FABRE USA INC. and PIERRE FABRE DERMO-COSMETIQUE USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-10523-SVK (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, false and misleading advertising, breach of express warranty, and restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Avene skin care products. According to the complaint, the Defendants falsely and deceptively advertise the products as "Preservative-Free" and/or "0% Preservative." However, contrary to these representations, the products actually contain citric acid, a well-defined artificial preservative ingredient commonly used in cosmetic products. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Pierre Fabre USA Inc. is a subsidiary of Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique, with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of skin care products, headquartered in France. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valter Malkhasyan, Esq. Erik Pogosyan, Esq. MALK & POGO LAW GROUP, LLP 1241 S. Glendale Ave., Suite 204 Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 484-5204 Email: valter@malkpogolaw.com erik@malkpogolaw.com PLANNED PARENTHOOD: N.B. Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. The case is styled as N.B., A.E., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. doing business as: Planned Parenthood, Case No. 1:25-cv-10279-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Wiretapping - Injunctive Relief or Civil Fine. Planned Parenthood Federation of America -- https://www.plannedparenthood.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health care in the United States and globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Email: scott@bursor.com PORTLAND GENERAL: Pearson Sues Over Water Contamination in Oregon ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PEARSON, ROSA CAVASOS, JEFFREY FLEMING, and JON HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and COLUMBIA RIVER PROCESSING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02249-HL (D. Ore., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, negligence, trespass, and private nuisance under Oregon law. The suit is brought against the Defendants to hold them accountable for their role in causing nitrate contamination in Morrow and Umatilla counties. Both the Defendants' industrial processes generate hundreds of millions of gallons of high-nitrate wastewater every year. Rather than properly discarding this wastewater, they send it to the Port of Morrow, a port authority that runs an industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system-even though both the Defendants know the Port routinely violates the permit that governs its wastewater disposal. The Plaintiffs and other Class members should not be required to tolerate continued exposure to contaminated water or to bear the cost of obtaining non-polluted water. Portland General Electric Company is a power company, with its principal place of business in Oregon. Columbia River Processing, LLC is a dairy products manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Bliven, Esq. BLIVEN LAW FIRM, PC 704 S. Main Kalispell, MT 59901 Telephone: (406) 755-6828 Facsimile: (406) 755-6829 Email: mike@blivenlawfirm.com - and - Robert F. Dwyer, III, Esq. BLIVEN LAW FIRM, PC 202 North Main Street, Suite 1 Boardman, OR 97818 Telephone: (406) 755-6828 Facsimile: (406) 755-6829 Email: rdwyer@blivenlawfirm.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Meredith S. Simons, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98134 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com merediths@hbsslaw.com - and - Abigail D. Pershing, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Email: abigailp@hbsslaw.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 Facsimile: (406) 839-9092 Email: john@lawmontana.com PRIMO BRANDS: City of Miami Sues Over Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMO BRANDS CORPORATION; ROBBERT RIETBROEK; DAVID HASS; JASON AUSHER; C. DEAN METROPOULOS; KURTIS BARKER; BRITTA BOMHARD; SUSAN E. CATES; MICHAEL J. CRAMER; ERIC J. FOSS; JERRY FOWDEN; TONY W. LEE; BILLY D. PRIM; KIMBERLY REED; JOSEPH ROSENBERG; ALLISON SPECTOR; STEVEN P. STANBROOK; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; JEFFERIES LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC; TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC; TRUIST SECURITIES, INC.; WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.; DREXEL HAMILTON, LLC; LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; and TRITON WATER PARENT HOLDINGS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-03328 (M.D. Fal., Dec. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misled investors about Primo Brands' prospects as a combined company and the Company's integration progress, by failing to disclose that: (1) from the outset of he Merger, Primo Brands' direct delivery business, including ReadyRefresh, experienced serious operational disruptions that prevented the Company from executing the most basic operational tasks; (2) Primo Brands experienced significant, ongoing, self-inflicted execution challenges integrating Primo Water and BlueTriton; (3) the disruptions in the direct delivery business and execution challenges imperiled Primo Brands' integration plan; (4) in turn, Primo Brands was unable to effectively serve its customers, particularly in its direct delivery business; (5) due to the foregoing, Primo Brands' business and operations were negatively impacted; and (6) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Primo Brands stock fell $4.96 per share, or more than 21 percent, to close at $17.70 per share on November 6, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Primo Brands Corporation operates as a beverage company. The Company produces and distributes bottled and packaged water products, sold directly across retail channels, including mass food, convenience, natural, drug, wholesale, distributors, home improvement, and food service accounts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maya Saxena, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Marco A. Dueñas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 216-2220 Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 Email: bob@robertdklausner.com PRIORITY GROUP MULTI: Sherba Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Priority Group Multi Services LLC. The case is styled as Donna Sherba, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Priority Group Multi Services LLC doing business as: Priority Tax Relief, Case No. 3:25-cv-03559-H-DDL (S.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Priority Group Multi Services LLC doing business as Priority Tax Relief -- https://www.prioritytaxrelief.com/ -- provides tax relief services to individuals wanting to resolve financial struggles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com PTT LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Larsen Due Jan. 22, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PTT, LLC (d/b/a HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company, and HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany Cartwright entered an order setting case deadlines and trial date: Event Deadline Deadline for class-certification-related Jan. 22, 2026 motions: Deadline for class-certification-related Feb. 12, 2026 responses: Deadline for class-certification-related Feb. 19, 2026 replies: The Plaintiffs' response Re: Motion to Seal: Feb. 5, 2026 The Defendants' Reply Re: Motion to Seal: Feb. 12, 2026 Discovery completed by: Apr. 13, 2026 Pretrial conference will be held at June 15, 2026 03:00 PM on: PTT operates as an independent casino games provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nrc3iL at no extra charge.[CC] RDO EQUIPMENT: Settlement in Munoz Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON MUNOZ, et al., v. RDO EQUIPMENT CO., Case No. 1:23-cv-00979-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final class approval and motion for attorneys' fees: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action Settlement is granted, and the court approves the parties' settlement agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement payments is granted; 3. The court awards the following sums: a. Class Counsel shall receive $679,932 in attorneys' fees and $32,776.55 in costs; b. The Plaintiffs Munoz and Blanco shall receive $10,000 each as incentive payments; and c. Phoenix shall receive up to $15,000 in settlement administration costs; d. The parties shall direct payment of 75% of the settlement allocated to the PAGA payment, or $75,000, to the LWDA as required by California law, and the remainder of the PAGA payment, $25,000, shall be included in the net settlement fund; 4. The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement agreement and any deadlines or procedures for distribution set forth therein; RDO provides farming equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=evmKe0 at no extra charge.[CC] RELATION INSURANCE: Terriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Relation Insurance Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Caro Terriquez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Relation Insurance Services, Inc. a Delaware corporation, Relation Insurance, Inc. an entity of unknown form, Does 1-50, Case No. 25CV029531 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 9, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Relation Insurance -- https://www.relationinsurance.com/ -- is a leading North American Insurance Brokerage, providing employee benefits, business insurance, and personal insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda L. Fazio, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: amanda@tomorrowlaw.com RESOLVION LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jackson Due May 11, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA JACKSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. RESOLVION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05255-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Cohen entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The Parties will engage in a first phase of discovery focused on exploration of whether the Plaintiff is similarly situated to the proposed collective. Phase 1 discovery will end on April 10, 2026. 2. Following Phase I Discovery, a motion for class certification and responses shall be filed as follows: The Plaintiffs Motion due on May 11, 2026 The Defendant's Response due on June 10, 2026 The Plaintiffs Reply due on June 24, 2026 3. Further discovery deadlines will be set following the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. Resolvion provides lending services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wp6Ik6 at no extra charge.[CC] RITTER FOODS: Jara Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ritter Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Hector Jara, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ritter Foods, LLC, Case No. 251200689 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas Cty., Dec. 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Ritter Foods -- https://ritterfoods.com/ -- is a reliable distributor of fresh and frozen proteins, supplying beef, poultry, and more to the Mid-Atlantic region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com ROADRUNNER DRYWALL: Phelps Seeks to Certify Manual Labor Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Phelps, an Arizona resident; and Dejan Lent, an Arizona resident, v. Roadrunner Drywall Corp., an Arizona company; Case No. 2:25-cv-04599-JAT (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All employees including but not limited to manual laborers (or similar job titled and/or similar job duties and responsibilities); who work[ed] for Defendant Roadrunner within the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek; as a past or present employee are known as (the "Collective Members")." These Collective Members did not receive time-and-a-half overtime compensation for all hours worked payment of overtime wages to employees, under the collective action mechanism of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime wages for themselves and the Collective Members, requiring the proper. This motion seeks permission to send the Collective Members notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), informing them of their right to join this case and allowing them to decide whether to seek their unpaid wages. The Plaintiff James Phelps worked for the Defendants full-time from on or around mid-2023 to present. The Plaintiff James Phelps was paid a piece rate of $0.17 or $0.18 per square foot depending on the project location. The Plaintiff James Phelps routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week and did not receive the correct overtime pay. Roadrunner provides building sub-contracting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dSL5Xv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com www.weilerlaw.com ROYAL MADERA VINEYARDS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Madera Vineyards, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lucia Castulo Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Royal Madera Vineyards, Inc., Pacific Personnel Management, Inc., Case No. MCV097468 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., Dec. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Royal Madera Vineyards -- https://www.royalmaderavineyards.com/ -- offers top-quality Deciduous Fruit, and more.[BN] ROYAL UNITED: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN WILSON, et al., v. ROYAL UNITED MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06150-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff will need to conduct discovery and secure expert testimony before a motion for class certification can be filed. As such, the Plaintiff requests that the motion for class certification be filed at a time that is Ordered by the Court when a joint proposed Scheduling Order is issued. The Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for the Defendant, who does not oppose the relief. The Plaintiff filed the class action complaint, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a national class. Royal is a privately held national mortgage lender. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oo5qli at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com SANDISK SSDS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Documents Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Sandisk SSDS Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04152-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that the Defendants have designated as Confidential. The Plaintiffs submit this request only to comply with their obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and take no position at this time on the propriety of other parties' confidentiality designations, or whether they meet the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality. The Plaintiffs request that the Court seal portions of the exhibits attached to the declaration of Ian W. Sloss filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification: Document Portion to be Sealed Exhibit 3 to Sloss Declaration: Entire document WD00018172 Exhibit 5 to Sloss Declaration: Entire document WD00093666.000001 Exhibit 6 to Sloss Declaration: Entire document WDC TEAMS00005549 Exhibit 7 to Sloss Declaration: Entire document WDC TEAMS00005693 Sandisk is an American multinational computer technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N6rPMn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Krystyna Gancoss, Esq. Samantha Blend, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 425-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com jeseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com sblend@sgtlaw.com SEC: Sutherland Sues Over Price Manipulation -------------------------------------------- Colin Paul Sutherland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("SEC"); CITADEL SECURITIES LLC; VIRTU FINANCIAL INC.; JANE STREET GROUP LLC; SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLP; INVESCO LTD. and JOHN DOES 1–100 (Market Makers), Case No. 1:25-cv-09987-UA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2025), is brought on behalf of investors harmed by systematic algorithmic manipulation of securities markets through laddered price controls and zero-bid/zero-ask inefficiencies that serve as predefined markers for future price delivery. The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has failed to investigate or disclose the presence of these algorithmic mechanisms despite data showing identical digital signatures across multiple securities. These anomalies contradict the SEC's mandate of maintaining 'fair, orderly, and efficient markets.' Market makers--including Citadel Securities, Virtu Financial, Jane Street, Susquehanna International Group, and Invesco Ltd.--deploy automated systems that deliberately engineer gaps in price discovery by allowing moments where both the bid and ask simultaneously read as zero, leaving a digital 'marker' in the order book. These markers signal algorithmic return points—zones where the market maker intends to reengage liquidity at a later predefined time interval. The resulting market dynamic is not free or efficient. It is a synthetic trading environment where algorithms create artificial 'bubbles' and 'voids' for later exploitation. When prices skip defined ladder steps, the void becomes a programmed inefficiency. The algorithm later returns to that level to extract value through spreads, short-term volatility, or options decay—creating a closed profit loop for insiders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual investor. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, charged with ensuring fair and efficient markets.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SECURITY CREDIT: Brooks Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- KEITH BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITY CREDIT UNION FOUNDATION and MARQUIS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-14011-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich., December 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") of their customers, including, but not limited to: names along with dates of birth, Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, financial account numbers and/or payment card data. According to the complaint, Defendant Security Credit Union requires customers to provide their PII in connection with their transactions. On August 2025, Defendant Marquis detected unusual activity on its IT systems and then notified Defendant Security Credit Union. On October 27, 2025, Marquis notified Security Credit Union that a third party viewed or copied certain files on the Marquis network that contained some of Security Credit Union members' personal information. Thus, Plaintiff's personal information -- which was entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect it against unauthorized disclosure -- was accessed and exfiltrated in a data breach. On December 2025, Defendants sent out data breach notice letters to individuals who were affected by the data breach. Omitted from the data breach notice letter were the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. To date, these omitted details have not been explained or clarified to Plaintiff, who retains a vested interest in ensuring that their PII remains protected. The complaint alleges that the imminent risk of future harm resulting from the Data Breach is traceable to the Defendants' failure to adequately secure the PII in their custody, and has created a separate, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. More specifically, Plaintiff's exposure to the substantial risk of future exploitation caused Plaintiff to: (i) spend money on mitigation measures like credit monitoring services and/or dark web searches; (ii) lose time and effort spent responding to the Data Breach; and/or (iii) experience emotional distress associated with reviewing accounts for fraud, changing usernames and passwords or closing accounts to prevent fraud, and general anxiety over the consequences of the Data Breach. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, for the damages that resulted from the Data Breach. Plaintiff Keith Brooks is a citizen of the State of Michigan, residing in Flint, Michigan. Defendant Security Credit Union Foundation is a financial institution. Defendant Marquis Software Solutions provides services to Security Credit Union.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Paul Doolittle, Esq. Andre Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com SHARP HEALTHCARE: Saucedo Sues Over Unlawful Conversation Recording ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jose A. Saucedo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHARP HEALTHCARE; SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL GROUP; SHARPCARE MEDICAL GROUP; SHARP COMMUNITY MEDICAL GROUP; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU063632C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Nov. 26, 2025), is brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") challenging the Defendants' systematic practice of secretly recording confidential doctor–patient conversations using an "ambient AI" clinical documentation tool, transmitting those conversations to a third-party vendor for processing, allowing vendor personnel to access patients' medical information, and creating false medical records stating that patients "were advised" and "consented" to recording when they were not. Beginning in or around April 2025, Defendants deployed an artificial intelligence powered recording technology--an "ambient clinical documentation" system called Abridge--across their healthcare network to capture and transcribe medical consultations. When activated on microphone-enabled devices, the Abridge application recorded clinical encounters, transmitted audio to a third-party vendor's cloud infrastructure, and generated draft notes inserted into Defendants' electronic health record ("EHR") system. Despite California's all-party consent requirement for recording confidential communications, and despite obligations under the CMIA to safeguard medical information and to obtain specific, written patient authorization before disclosing such information to third-party vendors, Defendants implemented no compliant consent architecture. Defendants did not provide meaningful pre-visit notice, did not obtain encounter-specific all-party consent, and did not obtain CMIA compliant written authorizations before disclosing medical information to vendors. Instead, Defendants used standardized template language in Abridge generated notes to falsely state that patients "were advised" the visit was recorded and "consented" to recording. This boilerplate was inserted even when no such advisement or consent occurred, creating a systemic pattern of false documentation and misrepresentation. The Defendants' scheme invades core privacy rights, undermines the integrity of medical records, and violates multiple California statutes and common-law protections, including the CIPA, the CMIA, and the UCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff discovered that his July 8, 2025 physical exam at a Sharp Rees-Stealy clinic had been secretly recorded and processed by Abridge. Sharp HealthCare operates a large integrated healthcare system in San Diego County, including acute-care hospitals, specialty hospitals, urgent care centers, and affiliated medical groups, and provides medical services to hundreds of thousands of patients annually.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Salgado, Esq. COUNTERPOINT LEGAL 600 B Street, Suite 1550 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 780-3303 Fax: (619) 344-0332 Email: rsalgado@counterpointfirm.com SMOKY ROSE: Savage Suit Seeks Approval of Tipped Workers Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSS SAVAGE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. SMOKY ROSE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00914-E (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for court-authorized notice of this collective action be sent to: "All bartenders, barbacks, and runners of Smoky Rose who participated in Smoky Rose's tip pool in the past three (3) years (the "Tipped Workers")." Savage has demonstrated that he is similarly situated to other Smoky Rose bartenders, barbacks, and runners. Savage and other bartenders, barbacks, and runners were equally subject to Smoky Rose's tip pool, and suffered from Smoky Rose's management’s tip theft. Savage and the bartenders, barbacks, and runners were likewise subject to Smoky Rose’s unlawful overtime pre-approval policy. Savage brought this collective action alleging Smoky Rose unlawfully withheld tips and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Savage worked for Smoky Rose as a bartender from November 2018 until August 2024. Smoky is a Tex-Mex restaurant in Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exyh36 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal - and - Travis Gasper, Esq. GASPER LAW PLLC 633 West David Street Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (469) 663-7336 Facsimile: (833) 957-2957 E-mail: travis@travisgasper.com SPRINGER NATURE: Settles Video Privacy Suit for $900K ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mark Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Springer Nature America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-4493 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final certification of a settlement class, approved a class action settlement in the amount of $900,000, and approved an award of attorneys' fees and costs and a service award as modified. Plaintiff Mark Lee brought suit on June 12, 2024, complaining that Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2710, by knowingly disclosing to Meta the Facebook IDs and URLs identifying the prerecorded audio visual material that he and other class members requested or obtained without obtaining informed written consent. Defendant is a New York corporation that publishes the Scientific American magazine and owns and operates the website https://scientificamerican.com. The Website contains prerecorded videos and a pixel (the Meta Pixel) that transmits to Meta Platforms, Inc. information regarding the online activities of persons who access the Website, including the subscriber's Facebook ID and the title of the prerecorded audio visual material that the subscriber requests or obtains from the Website, and the URL to access that material. By opinion and order of March 4, 2025, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss finding that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged standing and stated a claim for relief under the VPPA. On March 18, 2025, Defendant answered the complaint. The settlement is the product of a full-day mediation session held in person on May 6, 2025, in front of retired judge Diane Welsh. Prior to the mediation, the parties exchanged informal discovery regarding the merits of the case and class certification. The settlement is embodied in a Settlement Agreement dated June 26, 2025. Defendant agrees to pay a sum of $900,000 to a non-reversionary settlement fund to be used to satisfy claims of putative class members, the costs of the claims administrator, attorneys' fees and costs, and a service award to Plaintiff. The settlement is not contingent upon the Court's approval of the award of attorneys' fees and costs or the service award. Defendant also agrees to suspend operation of the Meta Pixel on portions of its website relevant to VPPA compliance. The proposed Settlement Class in this case is defined as: All persons in the United States who: (1) possessed login credentials for the website, https://www.scientificamerican.com, whether accessed via a web browser or mobile device and were paying subscribers, (2) possessed a Facebook account, and (3) requested or obtained video content from and/or through any of Defendant's services during the Class Period while logged into Facebook. The Class Period is June 12, 2022 to and through July 10, 2025. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement by order of July 10, 2025. Simpluris, Inc. was appointed class action and settlement administrator. On or about July 25, 2025, Simpluris received from Defendant a data file containing 32,648 known Settlement Class Member names and email addresses. The settlement administrator successfully delivered email notice to 29,262 settlement class members. The settlement administrator estimates that individual notice reached approximately 90% of the identified settlement class members. The settlement administrator received a total of 767 valid claims forms. By the deadline for exclusions and objections, the settlement administrator had received no requests for exclusion and no objections. The Court received a single objection dated September 15, 2025, on September 23, 2025. The Court confirmed and finalized certification of the settlement class. The settlement class is comprised of thousands, if not tens of thousands of individuals and thus well exceeds the number of forty that is frequently considered to satisfy the numerosity requirement. The common questions include whether Defendant knowingly disclosed the personally identifiable information of members of the class and whether its conduct violates the VPPA. The Court concluded that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The settlement delivers excellent relief to the class given the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal. Shortly after the Court decided the motion to dismiss, the Second Circuit adopted a test for personally identifiable information that differed substantially from that which this Court set out in its decision on the motion to dismiss. After these cases, there was a very real possibility that the class might not be able to recover at all. In that light, the settlement of $900,000 is an exceptionally good result for the class. Class counsel sought an attorneys' fees award of 33.3% of the settlement fund for a total of $300,000. Class counsel also sought reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation costs of $18,189.53. The Court approved the out-of-pocket litigation costs. The Court recalculated the lodestar by applying the appropriate hourly rate to the appropriate reasonable hours and concluded that Plaintiff's lodestar is $133,728.75. Considering the Goldberger factors and applying a multiplier of 1.5 to the lodestar, the Court approved a fee award of $200,593.13. Counsel sought an incentive award of $25,000 for class representative Mark Lee. The Court concluded that Lee is entitled to a service award but that $25,000 is far disproportionate to the value he delivered to the class and the risk he assumed. Considering comparable cases as well as the individualized facts of this case, the Court approved a service award to Lee of $5,000. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for final certification of a settlement class, approval of the class action settlement, and an order finding the notice program to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) and due process. The Court granted as modified the motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and a service award: $200,593.13 in attorneys' fees; $18,189.53 in attorney expenses; and $5,000 as a service award to Plaintiff Mark Lee. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Vgu35 from PacerMonitor.com ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Richard Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sean Richard, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, CARDIOLOGY DIVISION, INC., a Delaware corporation; ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28908 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. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11795. The Complaint asserts ten causes of action against Defendants for: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and all in violation of California Labor Codes and violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. Steven A. Morphy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: mbeilke@seyfarth.com jtrankiem@seyfarth.com smorphy@seyfarth.com STATE FARM: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Barbato Due Feb. 14, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Barbato, et al., v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Ed Artau entered an order granting in part, denying in part joint motion to set class certification briefing schedule and to continue trial and other case deadlines: 1. The parties shall have until Jan. 14, 2026, to complete the claim review set forth in Magistrate Judge Reid's order. 2. The Plaintiffs have until Feb. 14, 2026, to file a motion for class certification. 3. The Defendants have 30 days, or Jan. 26, 2026, whichever is later, to respond in opposition to a motion for class certification. 4. The Plaintiffs have 14 days after the defendant's file an opposition to class certification to file a reply in support of a motion for class certification. 5. The Plaintiffs have until April 28, 2026, for expert disclosure relating to claim review. 6. The Defendant has until May 28, 2026, to complete expert disclosure. 7. The parties have until June 28, 2026, to complete all depositions and expert discovery. 8. The parties have until July 1, 2026, to complete their second mediation. 9. The parties have until July 27, 2026, to file all pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions in limine. 10. This case is set for trial during the Court's two-week trial period beginning Sept. 21, 2026. State Farm provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MzXtqX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 200 Southeast Second Avenue Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com - and – Paulino A. Núñez Jr., Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 E-mail: pan@rtgn-law.com - and – Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745-2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com The Defendant is represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Bryan T. West, Esq. Scott E. Allbright, Jr., Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com bryan.west@akerman.com scott.allbright@akerman.com SWEETKIWI HOLDINGS: Chavis Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deprivation -------------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Chavis, Donovan Perry, Darius Hounshell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SWEETKIWI HOLDINGS, INC., EHIME EIGBE, MICHAEL AKINDELE, Case No. 1:25-cv-04311 (D.D.C., Dec. 11, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act ("DCMWRA"), and District of Columbia Wage and Payment and Collection Law ("DCWPCL"), against Defendants because of Defendants' unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights to the minimum wage, overtime pay, and the payment of all wages earned in a timely manner. The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated were often required to work on weekends and before and after their scheduled shifts in order to ensure all orders were completed and shipped according to schedule. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other Production Employees for all of their hours worked, including overtime hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants have consistently denied Plaintiffs and similarly situated Production Employees the overtime wages to which they are entitled by failing to compensate them for all time working beyond their scheduled shifts. Therefore, Defendant has failed to compensate Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant as Production Employees. Sweetkiwi Holdings, Inc. owns and operates Sweetkiwi's production plant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Ricksecker, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. Callie E. Dydo, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Email: dr@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com ced@mselaborlaw.com TEAM COMPANIES: Vyver Balks at Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- JESSIE VAN DER VYVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TEAM COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11605 (C.D. Cal., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between July 15, 2025 and July 26, 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. The Team Companies, LLC is a payroll, business affairs and technology provider based in Burbank, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 1925 Century Park E, Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 438-5355 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Pennington Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Pennington, Megan Dooley Fisher, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva Sales and Marketing, Inc., Cephalon LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01324 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Dec. 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02737-JWB-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Teva Pharmaceuticals -- https://www.tevapharm.com/en/ -- is a leading innovative biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison E. Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Fax (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com TIMOTHY HORNER: Espinosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timothy Horner, et al. The case is styled as Arturo Espinosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an Aggrieved Employee on behalf of other Aggrieved Employees under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. Timothy Horner, TDH Construction Inc., Does 1-25, Case No. 25CV030030 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Timothy Horner is the CEO of TDH Construction, Inc. -- http://www.tdh-construction.com/-- is a fully licensed, bonded, and insured General Contractor in the State of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maralle Messrelian, Esq. MM LAW, APC 500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 2000 Glendale, CA 91203-3304 Phone: 818-810-7747 Email: maralle@mmlawapc.com TLB DELAWARE: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TLB DELAWARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10104 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://spasciences.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. TLB Delaware LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TRIUMPH CONSTRUCTION: Lamarco Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LAMARCO, AUSTIN LAMARCO and JOHN SCOTT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TRIUMPH CONSTRUCTION CORP. and CARLO CUZZI, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-03404-JHR-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and authorizing notice to be issued to: "All persons similarly situated so that they may be informed of the action and given a meaningful opportunity to "opt-in" to the action as plaintiff by also asserting FLSA claims. Triumph is a family owned and operated construction company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4lPmoI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Alexandra Aguilar, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 TROVEC SERVICES: Villarreal Seeks Field Supervisors' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK VILLARREAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROVEC SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00556 (W.D. Tex., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Mr. Villarreal worked for Trovec as a field supervisor in Texas and New Mexico from approximately March 2023 until October 2025. Trovec Services LLC is a water treatment service company with its headquarters located in Midland, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com UNITED AUTO: Northern District Seeks to Certify FLSA Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSEPH FERRARA, SCOTT JOHNSON, and MICHAEL TRINCA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by UNITED AUTO SUPPLY OF SYRACUSE, INC., PINNACLE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by UNITED AUTO SUPPLY OF SYRACUSE, INC. and/or PINNACLE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, v. UNITED AUTO SUPPLY OF SYRACUSE, INC., PINNACLE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by UNITED AUTO SUPPLY OF SYRACUSE, INC. and/or PINNACLE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00337-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move before the Honorable David N. Hurd, for an Order: (1) certifying the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) certifying the Plaintiffs' NYLL claims as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (3) authorizing notice be published to class members in the form attached as Exhibits JJ and KK to the Sakovits Declaration; (4) directing the Defendants to produce a full and complete class list of all class members in accordance with the proposed publication order attached as Exhibit LL to the Sakovits Declaration; and (5) such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. United distributes automotive parts and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0rgqGs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Murphy, Esq. Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY York 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com asakovits@vandallp.com - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY Telephone: (315) 314-8000 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com UNITED STATES: Class Cert Hearing in Bourque Due May 14, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE BOURQUE et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order granting joint status report granting revised case management schedule as follows: Event Deadline Settlement Conference: Jan. 23, 2026 Last day to raise discovery disputes Jan. 29, 2026 related to class certification: Case management conference: On or after Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026 Class certification hearing: May 14, 2026 Expert disclosures: May 21, 2026 Hearing on dispositive motions and/or Sept. 24, 2026 Daubert briefing: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UdTwyG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Madelyn Petersen, Esq. Rachael Flanagan, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC  1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005  Telephone: (202) 408-4600  Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com  mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com  rflanagan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Charles Reichmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN  16 Yale Circle  Kensington, CA 94708-1015  Telephone: (415) 373-8849  E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com - and - Mariel LaSasso, Esq. LASASSO LAW GROUP PLLC 30 Wall St., Eighth Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 421-6000 E-mail: mariel@lasassolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Stephen M. Elliott, Esq. Jessica A. Lundberg, Esq. Kathryn L. Wyer, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW, Rm 11508 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-4688 Facsimile: (202) 514-8640 E-mail: jessica.a.lundberg@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Court Partly Grants Immigrant Injunction in "Molina" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JOS ESCOBAR MOLINA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-3417 (D.D.C.), Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification, and denied without prejudice Plaintiffs separate motion for class certification, in a Memorandum Opinion. According to the Court, this case arose in the wake of a publicly declared emergency in the Nations Capital and in the midst of public announcements by federal officials that criminal aliens are a public safety threat, which prompted the need for clarification that, as a general rule, it was not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States and that an immigration status violation was a civil violation. Plaintiffs, described as including Temporary Protected Status holders, immigrant asylum seekers, and CASA, Inc., moved to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security, its Secretary, and other federal agencies and officers from conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without making individualized probable cause determinations as to each arrestees risk of escape as required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2), and alternatively sought to stay the agency policy permitting such arrests. Upon careful examination, the Court explained that Plaintiffs were not challenging the authority of federal law enforcement agents to make criminal arrests, nor the long standing authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to make civil arrests pursuant to an administrative warrant, nor the authority to make warrantless civil arrests of a noncitizen to facilitate removal when statutory and regulatory requirements were met. Plaintiffs only challenged the way that warrantless civil immigration arrests were allegedly being carried out in the District under a new administration policy that, according to Plaintiffs, failed to meet the legal requirements of Section 1357(a)(2) because officers did not make individualized probable cause determinations that a noncitizen was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained. The Court summarized Plaintiffs allegations that, for approximately 15 years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement required officers to complete a form identifying an arrest target and to gain supervisor approval before making an immigration arrest, but that Defendants had instituted a new arrest first, ask questions later policy of making warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause to believe someone was both in the United States unlawfully and an escape risk. Plaintiffs proffered evidence that senior officials had publicly emphasized reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause as the standard for civil immigration arrests, and that federal officials made statements that mischaracterized the law, including declarations that DHS law enforcement uses reasonable suspicion to make arrests and that agents did not need probable cause or a warrant to make immigration arrests. The Court described detailed factual narratives of the four individual Plaintiffs and CASA, Inc. According to the Court, Plaintiff Jos Escobar Molina, a Temporary Protected Status holder from El Salvador, was seized near his work truck by plainclothes officers who did not identify themselves, did not show a warrant, did not ask his name, and told him he was illegal, before transporting him to facilities in Virginia; he was later released after a supervising ICE officer acknowledged that officers had made an error in arresting him because he had TPS. The Court recounted similar accounts for Plaintiffs B.S.R., N.S., and R.S.M., including arrests by officers in unmarked vehicles, lack of warrants, failure to inquire into ties to the community, and detention in crowded facilities with limited food, water, and sanitary conditions. The Court also summarized CASA, Inc.s evidence that Defendants challenged practice caused a forty fold increase in reports of ICE detentions, diverted CASA resources from its core mission to rapid detention response, increased operating costs, reduced grant funding, and chilled members willingness to share information because of fear that immigration status would be weaponized against them. Plaintiffs additionally submitted numerous declarations from CASA members and other individuals describing warrantless arrests by masked or plainclothes officers in unmarked vehicles, absence of warrants, minimal questioning, harsh detention conditions, distant transfers, and deteriorating health conditions without adequate medical care. Upon careful examination, the Court held that Plaintiffs had Article III standing. The Court found that the individual Plaintiffs alleged concrete injuries arising from their arrests, including unlawful seizures and resulting harms, that were fairly traceable to Defendants policy and likely to be redressed by injunctive relief. The Court further held that CASA, Inc. had associational standing because it alleged that its members were subject to the same challenged practice of warrantless civil immigration arrests without individualized probable cause determinations, and that the claims and requested relief did not require individualized participation of members. According to the Court, Defendants reliance on jurisdiction stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act was misplaced. The Court held that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(5) and Section 1252(b)(9) did not bar jurisdiction because none of the individual Plaintiffs were seeking review of an order of removal, or of the decision to seek removal, or of the process by which removability would be determined, and because the arrests were not part of the execution or commencement of removal proceedings. The Court also held that Section 1252(g) did not apply because Plaintiffs were challenging neither a final order of removal nor the Attorney Generals discretionary decisions to commence, adjudicate, or execute removal, but instead challenged the policy and practice of making civil immigration arrests without the probable cause required under Section 1357(a)(2). The Court rejected Defendants argument that Plaintiffs lacked a reviewable final agency action. The Court reasoned that the record, including official statements and the pattern of arrests, left no doubt that Defendants had, in practice, consummated a decision making process that resulted in implementation of a new policy of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests based on a lower standard than probable cause, and that this constituted final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Upon careful examination of the merits, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants policy and practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without individualized probable cause determinations that a noncitizen was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained violated 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2) and the Fourth Amendment. The Court emphasized that Section 1357(a)(2) required probable cause to believe that a noncitizen was in violation of the law and likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained, and that reasonable suspicion was not sufficient. The Court further held that Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm because they faced a real and immediate threat of continued unlawful arrests and detentions, and that the balance of equities and the public interest favored granting relief to ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to enjoin preliminarily Defendants from continuing any policy or practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without individualized probable cause determinations as to each arrestees risk of escape, as required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2). The Court ordered that Defendants were preliminarily enjoined from enforcing any policy of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause to believe that the arrestee was likely to escape before an administrative warrant could be obtained. According to the Court, Plaintiffs also sought provisional certification of a class and then separate certification of a broader class and subclass. Plaintiffs proposed, among other groups, an Unassessed Escape Risk Class consisting of individuals arrested for civil immigration violations in the District without an individualized assessment of probable cause as to flight risk. Upon careful examination, the Court concluded that provisional class certification was appropriate only as to the Unassessed Escape Risk Class. The Court held that Plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements for provisional certification of this class in connection with the preliminary injunction because the class was sufficiently defined, the legal and factual questions regarding the legality of warrantless civil immigration arrests without individualized escape risk determinations were common, and classwide injunctive relief was appropriate. Accordingly, only Plaintiffs proposed Unassessed Escape Risk Class was provisionally certified for purposes of the preliminary injunction. Separately, Plaintiffs moved for certification of a broader class consisting of all persons who, since August 11, 2025, had been or would be arrested in the District for alleged civil immigration violations without an administrative warrant and without probable cause, and an additional subclass. The Court denied the broader motion for class certification without prejudice, concluding that, at that stage, discovery was still needed to ascertain the contours of the precise policy at issue and that full Rule 23 analysis would be better undertaken on a more complete record. Therefore, the case remained a putative class action, with only provisional certification of the Unassessed Escape Risk Class in connection with the injunction and no final Rule 23 class certification yet granted. The Court also addressed the form of relief and accompanying reporting obligations. The Court held that an injunction directing Defendants to cease applying the deficient standard and to instruct agents to arrest members of the plaintiff class only after establishing probable cause that they were likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained was reasonable and sufficiently specific. The Court further required Defendants to transmit the injunction to all relevant agents and ordered reporting obligations requiring Defendants to document the facts and circumstances surrounding each warrantless civil immigration arrest, including the specific facts supporting probable cause of escape risk, explaining that these requirements were necessary to ensure compliance with the injunction and did not constitute improper ongoing discovery. Regarding bond, the Court exercised its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) and directed Plaintiffs to collectively post a nominal bond of 1.00. The Court stated that in public interest cases, particularly those seeking to vindicate fundamental rights under immigration laws where plaintiffs in all likelihood lacked the monetary resources necessary to post a substantial bond, a nominal bond was appropriate, and noted that courts commonly imposed only nominal bonds when the risk of harm to the government was non existent or remote. Therefore, in its conclusion, the Court stated that Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, to Stay, and for Provisional Class Certification was granted in part and denied in part, that the request for a stay under 5 U.S.C. Section 706 was denied, and that Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification was denied without prejudice, with an order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion to be entered contemporaneously. A copy of the Court's decision dated December 2, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A64s3b from PacerMonitor.com UNITED STATES: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 2, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO GOMEZ RUIZ, et al., v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-09757-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chesney entered an order that the briefing schedule and hearing on the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction and class certification are modified as follows: -- The Defendants' deadline to file their oppositions to the motions is Jan. 2, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply briefs in support of the motions is Jan. 14, 2026; -- The parties' hearing on the motions currently set for Jan. 9, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., is continued until Jan. 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. The Defendant enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9N7JD6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody S. Harris, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: charris@keker.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig H. Missakian, Esq. Pamela T. Johann, Esq. Savith Iyengar, Esq. 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7200 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 E-mail: savith.iyengar@usdoj.gov UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Curlee Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA CURLEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.; and ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01999 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2025) is an action on behalf of herself and all other individuals similarly situated against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the Defendant's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the fact that the compromised PII is likely already being sold on the dark web. The risks constitute a concrete injury suffered by Plaintiff and the Class as they no longer have control over their PII, which is now in the hands of third-party cybercriminals. This substantial and imminent risk of identity theft has been recognized by numerous courts as a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing, says the suit. The University of Phoenix, Inc. offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level curriculum. The University provides programs including undergraduate degree programs in nursing and business as well as Graduate degree programs in social sciences and natural sciences. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. MANDEL LAW GROUP 3416 Pelham Rd Fort Worth, TX 76116 Telephone: (214) 762-1036 Email: rogerlmandel@gmail.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 Email: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com UNIVISTA INSURANCE: McClain Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Univista Insurance LLC. The case is styled as Marshall McClain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Univista Insurance LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-25837-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. UniVista Insurance -- https://www.univistainsurance.com/ -- specializes in providing affordable and innovative insurance solutions throughout South Florida for over 10 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com UPPER RESTORATION: Alvarez Files Suit Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CARLOS ZAMORA ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. UPPER RESTORATION, INC., and MATTHEW LEE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 25-6792 (E.D.N.Y., December 9, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages. The complaint relates that throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay him the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, throughout his employment, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to work beyond 40 hours in a workweek, yet in exchange, the Defendants paid Plaintiff at a flat hourly rate, which did not include overtime premiums at the statutorily-required rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours that he worked in excess of 40 in a week. The complaint alleges that the Defendants further violated the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by failing to furnish Plaintiff with any wage statement on each payday or with any wage notice at his time of hire, let alone statements or a notice that contained accurate, specifically enumerated criteria. The Defendants paid and treated all of their non-managerial laborers in this same manner. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period who suffered damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA. Plaintiff brings his claims under the NYLL and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR") on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of any FLSA Plaintiff who opts-in to this action. The Plaintiff also brings this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly-situated during the applicable NYLL limitations period who suffered damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the NYLL and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiff Jose Carlos Zamora Alvarez worked for Defendants as a non-managerial laborer, performing general construction work at various commercial and residential jobsites throughout New York state, from in or around March 2025 until September 10, 2025. Defendant Upper Restoration, Inc. is a New York corporation that operates a Nassau County-based construction business and the corporation's owner and day-to-day overseer. Defendant Matthew Lee was and is the owner and day-to-day overseer of Upper Restoration, Inc., who in that role personally managed and oversaw, and continues to manage and oversee, the day-to-day operations of the business, and who was and is together ultimately responsible for all matters with respect to hiring and firing employees, determining employees' rates, methods of pay, and work schedules, as well as for maintaining employment records.[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 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 US BANK NATIONAL: Jimenez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeannette Jimenez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, an entity; U.S. BANCORP, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2STCV32370 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. 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11785. The Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay all wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; failure to pay all overtime wages at the legal overtime rate; failure to provide all meal periods; failure to authorize and permit all paid rest periods; failure to comply with Labor Code; derivative failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; violations of Labor Code; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 21st Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5891 Phone: +1 415-591-1000 Facsimile +1 415-591-1400 Email: JFife@winston.com - and - Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213-615-1700 Facsimile: +1 213-615-1750 Email: ewoodhead@winston.com VALEX CORP: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VALEX CORP. The case is styled as Gilberto Gutierrez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. VALEX CORP., Case No. 2025CUOE055225 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., Nov. 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." Valex Corporation -- https://www.valex.com/ -- manufactures and distributes ultra high pure steel products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com VICVIC CORP: Faces Tito Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ MANUEL JESUS TITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICVIC CORPORATION D/B/A SEVENTH STREET CAFE and VICTOR SCOTTO and VICTORIA SCOTTO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06734 (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook, food preparer, grill worker, and cleaner, while performing related miscellaneous duties, from in or around November 1993 until in or around October 2025. Vicvic Corporation, doing business as Seventh Street Cafe, is a cafe owner and operator, located at 126 7th Street, Garden City, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 (718) 263-9598 VONS COMPANIES: Sandoval Bid to Continue Discovery Deadline Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO SANDOVAL CARRILLO, et al., v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00191-SRM-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Plaintiff's second ex parte application to continue class discovery deadline and class certification briefing deadlines by four weeks. The Plaintiff argues he will be prejudiced if the Ex Parte Application is denied because Defendant Asurint's deposition is scheduled for Dece. 23, after the current discovery cut-off date of Dec. 12, 2025. Vons operates supermarkets, food, and drug combination retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VRT6EI at no extra charge.[CC] WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Grout Files Suit in D. Montana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Grout, Donna Williams, Rebecca Scott, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. Wakefield & Associates, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00110-JTJ (D. Mont., Dec. 10, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin Boland Aarab, Esq. Samir Faerevik Aarab, Esq. CAITLIN BOLAND AARAB 18 6th St North, Ste. 200 Great Falls, MT 59401 Phone: (406) 315-3737 Email: cbaarab@bolandaarab.com sfaarab@bolandaarab.com - and - Rachel Elizabeth Parker, Esq. Raphael Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM 300 4th St. North Great Falls, MT 59401 Phone: (406) 291-6169 Email: rachel@graybilllawfirm.com raph@graybilllawfirm.com WELLQUEST LIVING: Soto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellquest Living, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Bianca Soto, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wellquest Living, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 25CV030099 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." WellQuest Corporate -- https://wqliving.com/ -- specializes in providing vibrant retirement communities for seniors, focusing on independent living, assisted living, and memory care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Elkin, Esq. ELKIN GAMBOA, LLP 4119 W Burbank Blvd., Ste. 110 Burbank, CA 91505-2122 Phone: 323-372-1202 Fax: 323-372-1216 Email: michael@elkingamboa.com WELLS FARGO BANK: Valencia-Chavez Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rosalinda Valencia-Chavez, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. a national banking association; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-25-630366 was removed from the Superior Court of the State California, County of San Franscisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10600-AGT. The Plaintiff's primary allegation in the Complaint is that she was classified as exempt from the California laws requiring payment of overtime and provision of meal and rest periods and that she did not meet the requirements to be classified as exempt.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Theresa A. Kading, Esq. Elizabeth A. Han, Esq. KADING BRIGGS LLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 450-8040 Facsimile: (949) 450-8033 Email: tkading@kadingbriggs.com ehan@kadingbriggs.com WEST PAW: Youngren Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. West Paw, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14923 (N.D. Ill., December 9, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://westpaw.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). According to the complaint, Plaintiff DUSTIN YOUNGREN has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Westpaw.com. He intended to purchase new toys for his dog. On June 19, 2025, he turned to Google in search of online stores offering dog toys and treats and came across Westpaw.com, a company known for its wide range of pet products designed with durability, safety, and sustainability at its core. While exploring their offerings, he decided to purchase the Zisc Flying Disc. However, as he tried to navigate the website and complete his purchase, he encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his progress. Specifically, multiple images and links contained identical or repetitive alternative text and destinations, forcing him to tab through the same content repeatedly. Additionally, many images on the website had the same alternative text, making it difficult for him to distinguish between different visual elements and understand the content accurately. Furthermore, the color radio buttons were unlabeled, making it impossible for him to understand their purpose or select an option. These access barriers have caused Westpaw.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, the complaint asserts. Because Defendant's website, Westpaw.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the complaint alleges. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in West Paw's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Dustin Youngren is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. West Paw, Inc. operates the website Westpaw.com that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of pet products, including toys, treats, bowls, and mats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law ZUMPER INC: Installs Data Broker Software on Website, Pham Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON PHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZUMPER, INC. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03521-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal., December 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. The case arises from Zumper's alleged installation and use of a data broker software on its website, https://www.zumper.com, to secretly collect data about a website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. According to the complaint, Zumper has partnered with registered California data brokers in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful surveillance, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have been injured. Zumper, Inc. is a digital marketplace for renters and property managers, with its headquarters located in San Franciso, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Orders J&J to Pay $40MM in Talc Powder Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adeola Adeosun of Newsweek reports that a California jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women who alleged that the company's talcum powder products caused their ovarian cancer. The verdict awarded $18 million to Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband. The case is part of broader nationwide litigation alleging that talc contained in Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder was linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Johnson & Johnson has long disputed those claims, citing studies it says show talc is safe and asbestos-free, according to report. Company litigation chief Erik Haas said Johnson & Johnson intends to appeal the verdict, noting that the company has won the vast majority of ovarian cancer cases it has taken to trial. He called the jury's findings incompatible with decades of independent scientific evaluations, the report cites. The verdict arrives as Johnson & Johnson faces renewed exposure following the collapse of its latest bankruptcy effort. After a judge rejected the companyâ€™s proposed $9 billion settlement plan earlier this year, Johnson & Johnson said it would return to the civil court system to resolve talc claims on a case-by-case basis, the report states. ********* 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 ***