251229.mbx

251229.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 29, 2025, Vol. 27, No. -1 Headlines 360 LENDING CORP: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia 86/2 RESTAURANT: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ABS & TAYLOR: Carter Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages AMAZON.COM INC: Court Rules Virtual Try-On Class Action Can Proceed AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Deadlines Vacated in Knox Suit ARAMARK CAMPUS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dale Due June 26, 2026 ASAP TRANS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Malone Suit to 7th Circuit ASP AESTHETICS: Hansen Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. AUNTIE PEACHES: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination BGC GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unreasonable Construction Delays BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 10, 2026 BROWN-DAUB CHEVROLET: Pero Sues Over TCPA Violation CAMPBELL SOUP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Husain Consumer Suit CATBIRD NYC: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website CERNER CORPORATION: Tice Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CIRCUS AND EL DORADO: Faces Wiess Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Nev. CITIBANK NA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid DELTA STAR: Wilson Bid for Class Cert Tossed DG STRATEGIC VII: Lewis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DOLLAR TREE: Hearing on Class Cert Denial Bid Set for Jan. 22, 2026 DONALD TRUMP: Global Nurse Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class DOORDASH INC: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. California DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Custer Wins Class Cert Bid DREYER'S GRAND: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Misbranded Fruit Bars E MORTGAGE: More Time to File Class Certification Sought ELEVANCE HEALTH: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Nixon Gets Initial Nod ELITE ERA LLC: Cattani Files Suit in S.D. California EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Settlement in Cordova Gets Final Nod EMMIGRANT SAVINGS: Scheduling Order Entered in Adamson Suit ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 29 ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Seeks More Time to File Response ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Time to File Class Cert Response Extended F5 INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in W.D. Wash. FANDOM INC: Settlement in Shah Gets Initial OK FOUR SEASONS HOTELS: Campbell Sues Over Disability Discrimination FRESH INC: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Lip Products FRESNO, CA: TwoHands Sues Over Homeless' Civil Rights Violations GEISINGER SYSTEM: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit for $28.5MM HAND HOSPITALITY: Son Seeks Extensions of Discovery Deadlines HOMESTEAD PLAZA: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Breach HOTEL JEROME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over J-1 Visa Violations HUMANGOOD SOCAL: Duran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HURRICANE, UT: Airbnb Hosts File Class Suit Over New Ordinances HUT CAROLINAS: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Class Settlement in McNally Suit Gets Final Nod INOVA HEALTH: Settlement Deal in Lugo Suit Gets Initial Nod INSURANCE TRIPLE: Friel Bid to Commence Discovery OK'd INSURIFY INC: Hafizi Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Messages INTEGER HOLDINGS: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, West Alleges INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Dodd Seeks Class Certification INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Stays Sermeno Suit JACK'S FAMILY: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages JAMF HOLDING: Misleads Shareholders to OK Merger, Bushansky Says JASON LUO: "Levy" Gets Leave to Amend Complaint JBL PREMIER: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property JEFF RUBY CULINARY: Court Approves FLSA Settlement in Lamb JITO LABS: Faces Refiled Class Action Suit Over MEV Trading Scheme JOHN KRUMME: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Minshew Due June 1, 2026 JONES & CO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly OK'd KROGER CO: Womick Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing L'OREAL USA: Kim Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LEMONAID HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Health Privacy Suit for $3.25MM LKQ PICK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Short Due August 10, 2026 LOREAL USA INC: Kim Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: ACLU Opposes Attempt to Halt Racial Law Reform MATADOR GROUP: Faces Ganan Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. MAX'S SERVICES: Class Cert Filing in Guerrero Due March 23, 2026 MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Court Approves Class Settlement in "DeLisle" MDL 3164: Panel Denies Centralization of 41 Data Breach Suits MDL 3170: TransUnion Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ill. MERCK SHARP & DOHME: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MERCURY SYSTEMS: Settlement in North Collier Gets Initial Nod METLIFE INC: Smith Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Support Specialists MICROSOFT CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 5, 2026 MIDI HEALTH: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Baker Says MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Neall Sues Over Wrongful Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Rosini Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Sennett Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Tucker Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale MORTON DRUG COMPANY: Metoxen Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin NEW ERA ENERGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims NEW ORLEANS PELICANS: Faces Gallien Suit Over TCPA Violation ODW LOGISTICS: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages OKLAHOMA: Able Farms Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ORACLE CORP: Brumwell Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access ORANGE AVE HOSPITALITY: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property PEPSICO INC: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over False Snack Line Ads PERSANTE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bergeron Alleges PERSANTE HEALTHCARE: Gomez Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info PRECISION DRILLING: Response to SAC Due Jan. 12, 2026 PRIMAL PET: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Says PRIME NOW: Class Cert Bid in Quintero Extended to May 8, 2026 RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Settlement in Crews Gets Initial Nod RTIC OUTDOORS: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks OK of Renewed Bid for Class Cert SANO FOOD PEMBROKE: Victor Sues Over Discriminative Website SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action SECURITAS SECURITY: Malpica Suit Removed to S.D. California SMOOTHIE SPOT GROUP: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination SONY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headphones SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE: Snipes Suit Removed to N.D. California SSP AMERICA CID: Hill Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage SSP AMERICA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages STARBUCKS CORP: Cypret Sues Over Employees' Unreimbursed Expenses SUPERGOOP LLC: Wayne Suit Removed to C.D. California TAILORED CHEF: Underpays Food Preparers, Garcia Suit Says TEXAS: Discriminates Foreign Commerce, Beijing Daxing Alleges TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Faulty Gearbox TRI CITY FOODS: Butkovitz Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TROIS INVESTMENT: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Hardy-Gerena Suit Removed to D. Columbia UNDER ARMOUR: Ganesh Files Suit Over Data Breach UNITED STATES: 7th Cir. Stays Orders in Castanon-Nava v. DHS UNITED STATES: Fed. Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lesko's OT Claim UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Court Consolidates Cybersecurity Suit UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Korengold Sues Over Unsecured Info UPLAND SOFTWARE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Vining Claims VBIT TECH: Denies Bid to Add PUVTA Claims in "Dettmering" WALGREEN CO: Trial & Pretrial Schedule Order Entered WHITESTONE HOME: Class Settlement in Robertson Gets Final Nod ********* 360 LENDING CORP: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 360 Lending Corp. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. 360 Lending Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-07121-MHC (N.D. Ga., Dec. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 360 Lending Corp. -- https://360lendingcorp.com/ -- offer tailored loan solutions from mortgages and refinancing to personal and investment loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 626-2098 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com 86/2 RESTAURANT: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- CATARINO MANUEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 86/2 RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a GRACIE'S DINER, SAS RESTAURANTS LLC d/b/a TIMES SQUARE DINER & GRILL, ANASTASIOS KATSAROS, STEPHEN KATSAROS a/k/a STEVEN KATSAROS, and STAVROS NIKOLAKAKOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10248 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 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 provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and fraudulent filing of information returns. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher at Times Square Diner & Grill from in or around June 2021 until in or around July 2025. 86/2 Restaurant LLC, doing business as Gracie's Diner, is a restaurant owner and operator, located at 1633 2nd Ave, New York, New York. SAS Restaurants LLC, doing business as Times Square Diner & Grill, is a restaurant owner and operator, located at 807 8th Ave., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ABS & TAYLOR: Carter Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Gary Carter, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABS & TAYLOR ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-15168 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons for travel time related their job duties and assignments. The Plaintiff and other employees performed work for Defendant, but Defendant failed to pay them all minimum wages for travel time and unlawfully deducted pay from their wages. The Plaintiff routinely traveled on average of ten to fifteen hours driving to and from various jobsites in the company vehicle and Defendant altered Plaintiff's reported compensable time. In most if not all workweeks, Plaintiff and other employees traveled to job sites and assignments but Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours worked and unlawfully deducted pay from their wages. The Defendant failed to comply with the FLSA, because Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees their minimum wages and unlawfully deducted pay from their wages. As a result of these practices, Plaintiff is owed lost wages and liquidated damages as a result of not being paid minimum wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant on May 1, 2017 as a Service Technician. The Defendant was a corporation doing business in and for Cook County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone (630) 575-8180 Fax (630) 575 - 8188 Email: ceisenback@atlaslawcenter.com AMAZON.COM INC: Court Rules Virtual Try-On Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that siding against Amazon, a federal appellate court has ruled that consumers can move forward with a class-action lawsuit over claims that the company violated an Illinois biometric privacy law by allegedly collecting and storing facial recognition data of people who used "virtual try on" technology to test makeup and eyewear. The ruling, issued Wednesday, December 17, by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, upholds a decision issued by U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Alonso in the Northern District of Illinois. He held in March 2024 that the matter could proceed as a class-action on behalf of everyone who used a virtual try-on feature on Amazon's mobile website or app while in Illinois after September 7, 2016. The ruling comes in a dispute dating to 2021, when an Illinois resident named Tanya Svoboda alleged that she uploaded photos of her face to Amazon in order to virtually test out different lipsticks. A second person, Antonella Ortiz Colosi, later joined the lawsuit. They alleged in an amended complaint that Amazon's virtual try-on feature violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Information Act, which prohibits companies from collecting and storing facial recognition data without users' written consent, and requires companies to disclose policies for shedding the data. The law provides for damages up to $5,000 per individual. Amazon denied that it violated the law, arguing in a motion for summary judgment that its virtual try-on technology runs on users' devices. "No information about users' faces ever leaves those devices," Amazon argued, adding that the data is deleted from users' devices when they close the app or mobile browsing window. Alonso rejected Amazon's motion for summary judgment for now, but said the company could renew its arguments after more evidence was exchanged between itself and the plaintiffs. The company also argued in a separate motion that the matter shouldn't proceed as a class action, writing in papers filed last year that the claims "raise major issues that can be resolved only with an analysis of each individual class member's circumstances and each individual class member's particular use of [virtual try-on] technology." Amazon added that determining whether a particular person used the technology while in Illinois would require a case-by-case analysis. Alonso rejected that argument as well, ruling that the matter could move forward as a class action. Amazon then asked the 7th Circuit to reverse Alonso's decision regarding class-action status. A three-judge panel of that court ruled against Amazon, writing that the case will turn on "common questions" regarding Amazon's alleged use of virtual try-on technology. "Some common questions require expert discovery to analyze the [virtual try-on] software. None will benefit from repeated adjudication," Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote in an opinion joined by Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton. But the judges suggested that Amazon could raise the issue again, after more facts emerged. "It warrants emphasis that class certification does not carry any permanency," Scudder wrote. "The district court should remain vigilant in monitoring the propriety of certification as the case develops." [GN] AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Deadlines Vacated in Knox Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lora Knox, et al., v. American Family Insurance Company ,et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00790 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting a joint motion to vacate all remaining deadlines in the pretrial conference order and to set the case for a new scheduling conference within 21 days of a ruling on the pending motions for class certification and summary judgment. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. American is an American private mutual company.[CC] ARAMARK CAMPUS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dale Due June 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA DALE on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-04856-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an amended order as follows: -- Last day to file motion for class certification: June 26, 2026 -- Deadline to file opposition: July 31, 2026 -- Deadline for reply: Aug. 14, 2026 -- Hearing on motion for class certification: Sept. 1, 2026 Aramark provides food services and facilities management to hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums, and other businesses around the world. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2KtUm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com mitchell@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Thomas A Duda, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com thomas.duda@morganlewis.com ASAP TRANS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Malone Suit to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINA PETROSIUS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Samuel Malone, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASAP Trans Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03572, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants alleging claims under the Truth in Leasing Act (TILA), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Wages Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), and the Illinois common law of fraud and contract. Plaintiff Malone sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for TILA and breach of contract claims, which the District Court certified against Defendant Petrosius only on October 22, 2025. Similarly, both Plaintiffs moved to certify the IWPCA class against ASAP and Petrosius, with the court certifying a modified class against Petrosius. Petrosius filed a timely motion to reconsider the order of class certification on October 31, 2025, which the District Court denied. The appellate case is entitled Samuel Malone and Donald Brown v. ASAP Trans Corp. and Kristina Petrosius, Case No. 25-8035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on December 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SAMUEL MALONE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. Justin Tresnowski, Esq. HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD. Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 Email: cwilmes@hsplegal.com jtresnowski@hsplegal.com Defendant-Petitioner KRISTINA PETROSIUS is represented by: Timothy J. Young, Esq. Robert V. Good, Esq. Serge S. Petukh, Esq. Alexa C. Bradley, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 550 West Adams Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 345-1718 Facsimile: (312) 345-1778 Email: Tim.Young@lewisbrisbois.com Robert.Good@lewisbrisbois.com Serge.Petukh@lewisbrisbois.com Alexa.Bradley@lewisbrisbois.com ASP AESTHETICS: Hansen Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASP Aesthetics LP. The case is styled as Tysen Hansen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ASP Aesthetics LP, Case No. 2025LA001594 (Ill. Dist. Ct., DuPage Cty., Dec. 15, 2025). ASP Aesthetics LP doing business as Chapter Aesthetic Studio -- https://www.mychapter.com/ -- offers non-surgical cosmetic face, body, beauty products, and skin treatments services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com AUNTIE PEACHES: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Drummond, and all others similarly situated v. AUNTIE PEACHES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01539 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's website, https://www.auntiepeaches.com/ (the "Website"), was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same shopping experience, with the same access to the services, promotions, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is has been blind and visually disabled in that Plaintiff suffers from optical nerve atrophy as a result of retinoblastoma. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a U.S. based store specializing in herbal remedies, natural wellness products, and apothecary items, the store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com BGC GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Unreasonable Construction Delays ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Lynch of ABC South West WA reports that if a class action against one of WA's biggest builders is successful, customers could get a share of more than $100 million. Jo and David Dimov are among those who say they have experienced unreasonable delays with their home build. What's next? BGC has confirmed it is yet to take on new home builds, as it continues to work on dozens of incomplete homes in Perth and the South West. Almost two years after the slab went down on Jo and David Dimov's "forever home", it is still unfinished. They are among thousands of Western Australians who could benefit from a class action accusing one of WA's biggest builders of unreasonable delays. Two years ago, a class action was launched against BGC Housing, claiming the company had oversold and underdelivered houses. Since then, more homebuilders in Perth and the state's South West have signed up to the legal proceedings and lawyers say they are aiming for a payout of more than $100 million. Jo and David Dimov signed up with a subsidiary of Perth builder BGC Housing Group in late 2022. They were "pretty excited" when the slab went down on their block, north of Bunbury, in January last year. "It was exciting to see the earthworks happen . . . [and] to see the bobcat get in there and start digging it up," said Mr Dimov. "It started to take some shape and looked like things were going to kick off pretty quick." But nearly two years later, they are still waiting to move in. "I have seen entire subdivisions go up in the time our house has been built," he said. Ms Dimov said it had been a stressful couple of years trying to build what she described as their "forever home". "It's been disheartening, there has been tears . . . The stress and the pressure on our family unit, it's been pretty hard," she said "They need to be accountable as a big company for what they've done by overselling houses." Ms Dimov has described having to fight "every step of the way" to get the work done correctly. She said they had joined the class action in the hope it would bring about change, but said more needed to be done to keep builders in check. "Even if it's just a spot check, 'Surprise, we're here to check to make sure that you're doing the right job' . . . then I feel like maybe some of these builders would be a little bit more accountable," she said. The WA government has committed to mandatory building inspections in apartment builds from next year but is yet to set a timeline for bringing them in for home builds. Delays 'shouldn't have happened' Lawyer Spencer Lieberfreund, who is supporting the claimants in the class action, said customers had dealt with alleged delays and cost increases "that shouldn't have happened". "We started to get a number of people coming to see us individually with complaints about delays in their construction, we saw they were all BGC home owners and it snowballed from there," he said "Our estimate was that there were between six and seven thousand customers that BGC had that were affected by this." He said he ultimately wanted to see people compensated for the time they spent waiting. "You might have had to pay additional rent, [or] if you already owned a home you might have had to pay additional interest payments, [or] if you were an investor, you might have lost rent because you were unable to rent your home when you should have been able to do so," he said. BGC still working through backlog In 2023, BGC limited taking on new home orders to focus on its existing jobs, including home builds picked up after the McGowan government's COVID-19 "Building Bonus Grants". In a statement, the company confirmed it was still working through the backlog, but said it was getting closer to handover on each build. "BGC confirms it currently has 61 residential homes for retail customers remaining to be completed in Western Australia, including one in the South West of the state," a spokesperson said. "Each of these homes is continuing to achieve progress towards key handover every day. "The company stopped taking sales of new residential homes in April 2023 and has not recommenced." [GN] BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 10, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bonoan, v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. Case No. 3:25-cv-07848-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: Trial date: Oct. 18, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Sept. 2, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: March 19, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 11, 2026 Motion for class certification: Last day to be heard: Oct. 27, 2026, 2:00 p.m. [in person] Last day to reply to class Aug. 13, 2026 certification: Opposition to class certification July 31, 2026 motion due: Class certification motion due: July 10, 2026 Blizzard is an American video game developer and publisher. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6HB1Ng at no extra charge.[CC] BROWN-DAUB CHEVROLET: Pero Sues Over TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE PERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROWN-DAUB CHEVROLET OF NAZARETH, Defendant, Case No. 25-7016 (E.D. Pa., December 12, 2025) is a class action seeking all available remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). This action arises from the Defendant's practice of sending telemarketing text calls to wireless subscribers without having implemented procedures required for maintaining and honoring an internal do-not-call list in violation of the regulations implemented under the TCPA. The complaint alleges that despite Plaintiff specifically opting out of further communications, Defendant continued to send her unwanted and unauthorized telemarketing text messages on the following dates: January 8 and 28, 2025; February 18, 2025; March 4, 2025; and March 28, 2025. As a result of Defendant's illegal communications with Plaintiff, Defendant has violated federal law, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff Catherine Pero is a resident of Pipersville, Pennsylvania. Defendant Brown-Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth is a company engaged in vehicle trading, with its headquarters located at 819 Nazareth Pike, Nazareth, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Andrew Lapat, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 South State Street Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com alapat@edelson-law.com CAMPBELL SOUP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Husain Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SYED HUSAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 24-6041 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the class action lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (D.C. No. 3:24-cv-01776-CRB, Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Sidney R. Thomas, Daniel A. Bress, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr., Circuit Judges. Judge Mendoza issued a dissenting opinion. Plaintiff Syed Husain appeals from the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his putative class action lawsuit alleging that Kettle Brand "Air Fried" chips are deceptively labeled as air fried when they are, in fact, deep fried in oil. The Court of Appeals reviews the dismissal of a case under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, and it affirms the dismissal. The Panel finds that Husain fails to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived into believing that the chips are not deep fried in oil. The front of the packaging prominently states that the chips are not just "Air Fried," but also "Kettle Cooked Air Finished." The front label, therefore, expressly describes a two-step process that involves both kettle cooking and air frying. According to the Court of Appeals' Memorandum, the suggestion that the chips are exclusively air fried is belied by the plain language of the front of the packaging. And the Panel agrees with the district court that reasonable consumers would understand "kettle cooked" to refer to the commonly understood method of deep frying potato chips in oil. The Panel finds that Husain's contention that "kettle cooked" could refer to potato chips being cooked in water or steam is not plausible. The Panel opines that the front label nowhere suggests that the chips are cooked without oil or are exclusively air-fried. Indeed, a front-label burst indicates that these chips have "30% less fat than regular Kettle Brand" chips, and a reasonable consumer would understand that the remaining fat content cannot come from potatoes alone, without a significant amount of oil. But even if the front label is ambiguous, the Panel finds the rest of the packaging cures any ambiguity. The ingredients list on the back panel lists "vegetable oils (canola, sunflower and/or safflower)" as the second ingredient. The back of the packaging likewise confirms the two-step cooking process, stating that "We batch cook them in kettles, then air fry them for a light and crispy crunch!" And there is also a pictorial depiction of potato slices being dropped into a vat of boiling liquid that a reasonable consumer would understand to be oil, especially given the visible droplets bubbling out of the pot. Given this context, the Panel points out no reasonable consumer unsure of the meaning of the front label would be deceived into thinking that the chips are not deep fried in oil. Circuit Judge Mendoza dissents. Judge Mendoza notes that the majority's conclusion that no reasonable consumer could be misled by the Campbell Soup Company's "Air Fried" chip packaging departs from the plausibility standard that governs at the motion-to-dismiss stage and misconstrues how reasonable consumers (rather than judges parsing labels with technical precision) interact with food claims in a typical marketplace. At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, Judge Mendoza says the Panel's task is only to determine whether a "reasonable consumer" could at least plausibly conclude what the front of this packaging obviously intends to communicate: that the chips are exclusively "Air Fried." The complaint alleges exactly that, and the labeling readily supports it. Judge Mendoza, therefore, dissents. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 10, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56b88xe3 from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. CATBIRD NYC: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATBIRD NYC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10223 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 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 State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. 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://www.catbirdnyc.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 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. Catbird NYC LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevy@glpcfirm.com CERNER CORPORATION: Tice Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Herbert Tice, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., MedStar St. Mary's Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital of St. Mary's County, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-03907 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. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00965-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. 377 Northwest Patch Court Lee's Summit, MO 64081 Phone: (816) 656-1690 Email: vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Nikoletta Sara Mendrinos, Esq. 1 South St, 30th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 951-8824 Fax: (410) 539-6599 Email: nikoletta.mendrinos@murphyfalcon.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 CIRCUS AND EL DORADO: Faces Wiess Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Nev. --------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD WIESS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIRCUS AND EL DORADO JOINT VENTURE, LLC d/b/a SILVER LEGACY RESORT CASINO; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00723 (D. Nev., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawful tip retention in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly paid casino dealer from on or around June 30, 2021, until on or about October 22, 2025. Circus and El Dorado Joint Venture, LLC, doing business as Silver Legacy Resort Casino, is a casino owner and operator, located in Reno, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 Email: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com CITIBANK NA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- 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 Defendants ask the Court to enter an order (1) extending its deadline to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Jan. 30, 2026; and (2) extending the Plaintiff's reply deadline to Feb. 13, 2026. In addition to the trial conflict, lead counsel for Citibank has a pre-planned family vacation based around the holidays, which already is being shortened due to trial preparation demands. Citibank is the primary U.S. banking subsidiary of Citigroup, a financial services multinational corporation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H3oBB3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Edward M. Mullins, Esq. Ana M. Barton, Esq. Sujey Herrera, Esq. John C. Scalzo, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 747-0200 E-mail: Emullins@reedsmith.com abarton@reedsmith.com sherrera@reedsmith.com jscalzo@reedsmith.com DELTA STAR: Wilson Bid for Class Cert Tossed -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, v. DELTA STAR, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beeler entered an order denying motion for class certification. Because the plaintiff does not meet the typicality requirement, the court denies the motion for class certification. This resolves ECF No. 76. The court denies the motion to certify the class. The non-union plaintiff's claims are not typical of the class, who are union members. Additionally, for union members (who comprise the majority of the putative class), LMRA preemption further bars certification of claims requiring CBA interpretation. The case is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Max Wilson against his former employer, Delta Star alleging wage-and-hour violations under California law. The plaintiff, a non-exempt hourly employee who worked for Delta Star from approximately February 2017 to August 2021, moves for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) to certify nine subclasses of current and former non-exempt employees in California based on: (1) unlawful rounding of work hours to scheduled shift times; (2) automatic thirty-minute deductions for meal periods; (3) failure to provide full, uninterrupted thirty-minute meal breaks before the end of the fifth hour of work; (4) failure to include non-discretionary bonuses in the regular rate for overtime calculations; (5) failure to include non-discretionary bonuses in the regular rate for sick pay calculations; (6) failure to reimburse for necessary hand tools where employees earned less than twice the minimum wage; (7) failure to pay all wages due upon termination; (8) inaccurate wage statements; and (9) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq. Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LwdxnK at no extra charge.[CC] DG STRATEGIC VII: Lewis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shaila Lewis, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DG STRATEGIC VII, LLC, Case No. 25-2-05618-34 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Thurston County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-06125. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a cause of action for violation of the Washington Noncompetition Act. The Plaintiff brings her claim on behalf of herself and a putative class under Washington Civil Rule 23.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. Donald W. Heyrich, Esq. Rachel M. Emens, Esq. Henry Brudney, Esq. Joseph W. Wright, Esq. Samuel N. Jackson, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: jrittereiser@hkm.com dheyrich@hkm.com remens@hkm.com hbrudney@hkm.com jwright@hkm.com sjackson@hkm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Scoville, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 16631 6th Ave SW Burien, WA 98166 Phone: (206) 718-2343 Email: mscoville@mcguirewoods.com - and - Amy Morrissey Turk, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP World Trade Center 101 West Main Street, Suite 9000 Norfolk, VA 23510-1655 Phone: (757) 640-3711 Email: aturk@mcguirewoods.com - and - Paul M. Chappell, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2601 Olive Street, Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 932-6400 Email: pchappell@mcguirewoods.com DOLLAR TREE: Hearing on Class Cert Denial Bid Set for Jan. 22, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA GODINES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01743-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order granting stipulation as to briefing schedule on Dollar Tree's continued motion to deny class certification. 1. The Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's motion to deny class certification is due Feb. 6, 2026. 2. The Defendant's reply in support of its motion to deny class certification is due Feb. 27, 2026. 3. The hearing on the Defendant's motion to deny class certification currently set for Jan. 22, 2026, is continued to March 19, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. On Dec. 16, 2025, the Godines and Defendant Dollar Tree filed a Stipulation as to Briefing Schedule on Dollar Tree's Continued Motion to Deny Class Certification. Concurrently, the Defendant filed a Notice of Continuation of Dollar Tree's Motion to Deny Class Certification. Dollar Tree is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CPAYFN at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Global Nurse Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLOBAL NURSE FORCE, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-08454-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 12, 2026, will move the Court for an entry of an Order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4), (b)(2), and (g), (1) certifying the Class comprising: "All U.S. employers who have filed or will file an H-1B petition that is subject to the $100,000 fee under the September 19, 2025 Proclamation, "Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers," or the Proclamation's implementing guidance, or would file such a petition but for the fee, with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services received on or between Sept. 21, 2025 and Sept. 21, 2026, to employ a qualified temporary nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation in the United States under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and 8 C.F.R. section 214.2(h)(1)(i).; (2) appointing the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) appointing counsel for the Named Plaintiffs as Class Counsel. On Friday, Sept. 19, 2025, the President issued a Proclamation entitled "Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers," which conditions the adjudication of H-1B petitions on an Employer's payment of $100,000 per petition. The Plaintiffs are three of many thousands of employers adversely affected by the Proclamation and the Agency Policies' unlawful $100,000 Requirement. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hcTm0z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cynthia Liao, Esq. Johanna M. Hickman, Esq. Jennie L. Kneedler, Esq. Steven Y. Bressler, Esq. Elena Goldstein, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 808-1982 E-mail: cliao@democracyforward.org hhickman@democracyforward.org jkneedler@democracyforward.org sbressler@democracyforward.org egoldstein@democracyforward.org - and - Kalpana Peddibhotla, Esq. SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE COLLABORATIVE (SAAJCO) 333 W. San Carlos Street, Suite 600 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 550-9240 E-mail: kalpana@saajco.org - and - Jesse M. Bless, Esq. BLESS LITIGATION LLC 6 Vineyard Lane Georgetown MA 01833 Telephone: (781) 704-3897 E-mail: jesse@blesslitigation.com - and - Greg Siskind, Esq. SISKIND SUSSER 1028 Oakhaven Road Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 682-6455 E-mail: gsiskind@visalaw.com - and - Zachary R. New, Esq. JOSEPH & HALL, P.C. 12203 East Second Ave. Aurora, CO 80011 Telephone: (303) 297-9171 E-mail: zachary@immigrationissues.com - and - Harini Srinivasan, Esq. Aniko Schwarcz, Esq. Alexandra Gray, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: hsrinivsan@cohenmilstein.com aschwarcz@cohenmilstein.com agray@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen C. Tumlin, Esq. Esther H. Sung, Esq. Laura Flores-Perilla, Esq. Hillary Li, Esq. Brandon Galli-Graves, Esq. Emily Satifka, Esq. JUSTICE ACTION CENTER Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 450-7272 E-mail: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org laura.flores-perilla@justiceactioncenter.org hillary.li@justiceactioncenter.org brandon.galli-graves@justiceactioncenter.org Emily.satifka@justiceactioncenter.org - and - Charles H. Kuck, Esq. KUCK BAXTER LLC 365 Northridge Rd., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 949-8154 E-mail: Ckuck@immigration.net DOORDASH INC: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alfonso Brown and Miles Richardson, individuals, in their individual and representative capacities v. DOORDASH, INC., Case No. 21CV001828 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10817. The Plaintiffs' lawsuit alleges that a federal trucking law--the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (the "FAAAA")--preempts and nullifies Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that millions of Californian voters passed so that local rideshare and delivery workers could remain independent contractors.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq. Elizabeth McCloskey, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3715 Phone: 415.393.8200 Facsimile: 415.393.8306 Email: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com - and - Michael Holecek, Esq. Alexander N. Harris, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: mholecek@gibsondunn.com aharris@gibsondunn.com DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Custer Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE CUSTER, v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order that: 1. The plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. 2. The following class is certified: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in North Carolina, (2) serviced or subserviced by DMI, (3) and who paid a pay-to-pay fee to DMI when making a payment on their mortgage by telephone or an Interactive Voice Response system between Apr. 10, 2020, and the date class notice is approved." 3. George Custer is appointed class representative. 4. The Plaintiff's counsel, John W. Barrett, James L. Kauffman, Bart Cohen, and Bailey & Glasser LLP, Benjamin M. Sheridan, Jed R. Nolan, and Klein & Sheridan, LC PC, and Katherine M. Aizpuru, Robin P. Bleiweis, and Tycko & Zavareeli LLP, are appointed as class counsel. 5. The parties shall immediately begin work on gathering and managing the information needed to provide class notice, if that has not already been done. 6. The parties shall meet and confer about an appropriate class notice, needed modifications to the trial schedule and associated trial preparation deadlines, and any other logistical or housekeeping matters raised as a result of this Order. The Court understands it should not rule on the fully briefed summary judgment motion until after the opt-out period ends. No later than Jan. 8, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint Submission on Class Notice and Trial containing their joint proposal or, if they fail to agree in full, dueling proposals with short briefs directed to items of disagreement. Mr. Custer alleges that DMI violates North Carolina law by charging fees to customers who pay their mortgages by phone. DMI operates as a loan servicer and sub-servicer across the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XoTTPk at no extra charge.[CC] DREYER'S GRAND: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Misbranded Fruit Bars -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream has misrepresented its Outshine Fruit Bars, given that the purportedly healthy snack contains a high amount of added sugar and synthetic ingredients not found in real fruit. The 44-page Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream class action lawsuit accuses the defendant of falsely branding its Outshine Fruit Bar products, which the company says are plant-based, made with real fruit and tasting "like biting into a piece of ripe fruit," as a healthier alternative to traditional popsicles, representations reinforced on product packaging with images of fruits and plant leaves. Per the case, the packaging for Outshine bars also displays a statement that they contain "no artificial flavors" and represents that the bars are essentially equivalent to "frozen fruit on a stick." The complaint alleges, however, that the bars contain a plethora of synthetic ingredients, including guar gum, carob bean gum, malic acid, synthetic ascorbic acid and "natural flavor." The filing says that "the need to supplement [Outshine fruit bars] with these ingredients underscored that the products are engineered, processed desserts, not simple frozen fruit." Consumers are always on the lookout for healthier products, the case explains, citing a peer-reviewed paper from the Food and Drug Law Journal that says 62 percent of consumers avoid artificial flavors. The complaint argues that the packaging for Outshine bars has no "contains artificial flavors" statement, deliberately misleading consumers into thinking the bars are made purely from fruit. The filing further claims that the Outshine bars "derive a substantial portion of their sweetness from refined cane sugar added during manufacturing." Additionally, "nothing on the front of the package discloses that the products contain 24 grams of added sugar, or that the majority of the sugar is not the natural sugar found in whole fruit," the lawsuit mentions. Reasonable consumers are "not expected to inspect" the product's health claims, the complaint says. Consumers rely heavily on a product's marketing and packaging, but "numerous studies demonstrate most consumers cannot make accurate assessments of a food's healthfulness based on the Nutrition Facts Panel," the suit explains. Labels for Outshine bars are intended to create a "healthy aura," the case charges, "while masking the fact that the products contain highly processed and synthetic ingredients." The suit says that consumers don't look at products "in a vacuum"; instead, they compare them to similar offerings from other brands. Dreyer's, the case argues, uses language like "plant-based," "made with real fruit," and "no artificial flavors." The Dreyer's class action lawsuit alleges that consumers in search of a healthy alternative to traditional popsicles see this language and are misled into believing the product will not contain added sugar or synthetic ingredients. The Dreyer's Outshine class action lawsuit seeks to cover all United States residents who, during the applicable statutory period, purchased Outshine Fruit Bars primarily for consumption. [GN] E MORTGAGE: More Time to File Class Certification Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. E MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02532-MWC-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend time the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. While the Parties were engaged in the meet-and-confer process to address outstanding discovery issues and obtain supplemental responses from Defendant, Defendant's counsel informed the Plaintiff's counsel of the need for a substitution of counsel. Specifically, on Nov. 12, 2025, the Defendant filed a request for substitution of attorney. Additionally, the action involves relevant third-party discovery. Plaintiff anticipates the need to serve subpoenas to obtain information from third parties that may have knowledge of the putative class data necessary to define the class and substantiate class allegations. Despite these challenges, the Plaintiff has been diligent in pursuing discovery and working to advance the case. However, due to the aforementioned circumstances, Plaintiff is not yet in a position to move for class certification by the current deadline. As such, the Parties request the Court extend the deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification by 90 days. This extension would amend the deadline as follows: Current Deadline: New Proposed Date: December 17, 2025 March 17, 2026 E mortgage Capital provides a wide range of competitive mortgage and refinancing options. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9kUtt2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gor Antonyan, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gor@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Garrick Patrick Vanderfin, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 900 W 48th Pl, Ste 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 753-1000 E-mail: gvanderfin@polsinelli.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: $2.5MM Class Settlement in Nixon Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIXON, et al., v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00076-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Van Tatenhove entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The parties' joint motion for status conference is denied as moot. 2. The plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class-action settlement is granted. The Court preliminarily approves the proposed Settlement. 3. The following class is conditionally certified for settlement purposes: "All persons covered by an employer-sponsored health insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act ("ERISA") that was either insured or administered by Elevance Health (collectively, "Elevance Health ERISA Plans"), who were denied coverage for minimally- invasive sacroiliac joint fusion ("MISIJF") pursuant to SURG.00127 between Sept. 20, 2017 and July 30, 2021, to whom the Notice is mailed or attempted to be mailed, and who do not properly exclude themselves from the Class in accordance with the terms of the Agreement." 4. The Court confirms plaintiffs Robert Nixon, Jason Hecker, Karmen Exley, and Arthur Karrick as Class Representatives. 5. A final fairness hearing is set on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. at the federal courthouse in Frankfort, Kentucky. The case involves Elevance Health's denial of coverage for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery as "investigational" and "not medically necessary." The total maximum settlement fund amount is $2,502,750. If the total claims approved under the settlement exceeds the settlement fund, reimbursements to class members will be reduced pro rata. Id. Each class member who opts-in and receives approval is eligible to receive up to $15,000 in reimbursement for any MISIJF procedure they received between September 20, 2017, and July 30, 2021, for which Elevance denied coverage. Elevance provides medical, pharmacy, dental, vision, and behavioral health insurance and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XrvSjs at no extra charge.[CC] ELITE ERA LLC: Cattani Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite Era LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joanne Cattani, for herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elite Era LLC, Seal Skin Cover LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03581-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Elite Era LLC doing business as Seal Skin Covers -- https://sealskincovers.com/ -- is the fastest-growing cover brand in America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. HATTIS, LUKACS & CORRINGTON (WA) 11711 SE 8th St, Ste 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 233-8628 Email: dan@hattislaw.com EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Settlement in Cordova Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dasya Maria Cordova and Ada Casasus, on behalf of themselves and a class and collective of similarly situated persons, v. EmblemHealth Inc. and EmblemHealth Services Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02933-JHR-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rearden entered an order granting final approval of class and collective action settlement. EmblemHealth provides health care insurance and benefit plans. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KbdX1Y at no extra charge.[CC] EMMIGRANT SAVINGS: Scheduling Order Entered in Adamson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEOFFREY ADAMSON, v. EMMIGRANT SAVINGS BANK et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06524-LGS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gorenstein entered a scheduling order as followsL 1. All pre-trial applications, including those relating to scheduling and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned (except motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification). All applications must comply with this Court=s Individual Practices, which are available through the Clerk=s Office or at: https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel- w-gorenstein 2. The parties should write to the Court at any time that they wish to participate in Court-sponsored mediation. 3. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all discovery. 4. Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to Rules 26 through 37 or 45 - not only must comply with & 2.A. of the Court's Individual Practices but also must be made promptly after the cause for such a motion arises. In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances no such application will be considered if made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery. Untimely applications will be denied. 5. Any application for an extension of the time limitations with respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to the party making the application and must be made in accordance with the Courts Individual Practices. The application must state the position of all other parties on the proposed extension and must show good cause therefor not foreseeable as of the date of this Order. Failure to comply with the terms of this Order may also result in sanctions. Emigrant is a savings bank chartered by the state of New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JpMs3j at no extra charge.[CC] ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Light v. Englander Transportation, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:25-cv-00102 (W.D. Va., Filed Feb. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Michael F. Urbanski entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Class Certification is extended to Dec. 29, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Englander offers refrigerated transportation of temperature controlled commodities.[CC] ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Seeks More Time to File Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS LIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENGLANDER TRANSPORATION, INC., and FLEETMASTER EXPRESS, INC. Case No. 7:25-cv-00102-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time until Jan. 23, 2026, to file a response to the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff does not object to this motion. On Dec. 17, 2025, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification; and extended the deadline to Dec. 29, 2025. Counsel for the Defendants has scheduled a trip out of the country from Dec. 24, 2025, through Jan. 14, 2026. Englander offers refrigerated transportation of temperature controlled commodities. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E5PdPU 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 - and - Jacob M. Small, Esq. J. MADISON PLC 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 910-5062 Facsimile: (703) 910-5107 E-mail: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Barnsback, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER, PLLC 225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 775-8601 E-mail: mbarnsback@ohaganmeyer.com ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Time to File Class Cert Response Extended ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Light v. Englander Transportation, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:25-cv-00102 (W.D. Va., Filed Feb. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Michael F. Urbanski entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file response. The deadline for Defendants to file a response to the expected motion for class certification is Jan. 23, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Englander offers refrigerated transportation of temperature controlled commodities.[CC] F5 INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit styled Smith v. F5, Inc., et al., No. 2:25-cv-02619 (W.D. Wash.) has been filed, seeking to represent investors in F5 (NASDAQ: FFIV) who purchased or otherwise acquired F5 securities between October 28, 2024 and October 27, 2025. The lawsuit comes in the wake of F5's October 15, 2025 report that, on August 9, 2025, it learned of a major cybersecurity incident involving a nation-state actor that gained unauthorized access to certain Company systems, including its highest revenue product (F5 BIG-IP). This and related subsequent disclosures drove the price of F5 shares sharply lower. National shareholders rights firm Hagens Berman continues to investigate whether F5 timely reported the breach to investors and its impact on the company's business. The firm urges F5 investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages persons with knowledge who may be able to assist in the investigation to contact its attorneys. Class Period: Oct. 28, 2024 – Oct. 27, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Feb. 17, 2026 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ffiv Contact the Firm Now: FFIV@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 F5, Inc. (FFIV) Securities Class Action: The lawsuit is focused on the timing and propriety of F5's disclosures about the sufficiency of its cybersecurity response plan, the adverse effect of any cybersecurity incidents on its business and growth prospects including its F5 BIG-IP products which provide application delivery and security solutions. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period F5 assured investors that it "delivers the most effective and comprehensive app and API security platform in the industry[]" and claimed that it could uniquely address newly developing security concerns while providing best-in-class security offerings. Investors' expectations were dashed beginning on October 15, 2025. That day, F5 revealed that "[o]n August 9, 2025, F5, Inc. [. . .] learned that a highly sophisticated nation-state threat actor had gained unauthorized access to certain Company systems." F5 also disclosed "the threat actor maintained long-term, persistent access to certain F5 systems, including the BIG-IP product development environment and engineering knowledge management platform." Still, the company assured investors "this incident has not had a material impact on the Company's operations[.]" This news sent the price of F5 shares down $47.82 (-13.9%) during the two trading days ended October 16, 2025. The incident's full impact became clearer on October 27, 2025. That day, the company reported its Q4 and FY 2025 financial results and guided for 2026 revenue growth of only 0% to 4% as compared to 2025 revenue growth of 10%. Management blamed the steep growth deceleration "on what we see as potential near-term impact related to the security incident[]" and said "it would be natural that in some of our customers, at an executive level, we may see some delays of approvals or delays of deals or additional approval, as customers across a complex organization make sure that they want to be reassured that their projects should move forward[.]" This news sent the price of F5 shares down $22.83 (-7.8%) the next day. "We're focused on when F5 determined that the August 2025 cybersecurity incident was material and whether the company timely informed investors consistent with the SEC's 4 business day rule and which might have predated the October 15 disclosure," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation. If you invested in F5 and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your losses now » Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding F5 should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email FFIV@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. Tel: (844) 916-0895 [GN] FANDOM INC: Settlement in Shah Gets Initial OK ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VISHAL SHAH, and JAYDEN KIM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FANDOM, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01062-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows: 1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the terms embodied therein pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Settlement Class Members under the relevant considerations. The Court preliminarily finds that the relief provided—a non- reversionary common settlement fund of $1.2 million—is adequate considering, inter alia, the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the alleged harm to Settlement Class Members, and the proposed method of distributing payments to the Settlement Class (i.e., direct payment via check). 2. The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a "Settlement Class," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), consisting of: "All persons who accessed www.gamespot.com, or any of its subdomains, in California and had their information collected by the Trackers between Jan. 5, 2023 to the present, meaning the Effective Date of the Settlement." 3. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Vishal Shah and Jayden Kim as the Class Representatives to represent the Settlement Class. 4. The Court appoints the law firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 5. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on May 19, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. both in person at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102 and via Zoom at https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/rfl/lin-rita-f. Fandom is an entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9j7Gj2 at no extra charge.[CC] FOUR SEASONS HOTELS: Campbell Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andree Campbell, and all others similarly situated v. Four Seasons Hotels Limited and FTLFS Hotel Property LP, Case No. 0:25-cv-62594-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's website, https://www.evelynsfortlauderdale.com/ (the "Website"), was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same shopping experience, with the same access to the services, promotions, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 141 worldwide based properties specializing in luxury hotels, resorts, private residences, and premium hospitality services, including the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com FRESH INC: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Lip Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Fresh, Inc. has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the beauty company's Fresh Sugar lip products are falsely advertised, given that the items, unbeknownst to consumers, do not contain sugar. The 30-page class action lawsuit avers that, although Fresh extensively markets its Fresh Sugar lip products as containing and/or "infused with" real sugar, these claims are "false and deceptive" and intended to mislead consumers into paying a premium price. Sugar is a desirable ingredient in beauty products due to its properties as a humectant and a natural exfoliator, the case explains. Per the suit, "[t]he simple carbohydrate we all know and love" is also a natural source of glycolic acid, which can encourage cell turnover and regeneration. As such, the lawsuit says, consumers are willing to pay a premium for a product containing sugar. The filing argues that a reasonable consumer would look at the "SUGAR" representations on the labels of Fresh Sugar lip products and believe the items contain real sugar. The suit further contends that consumers are "exposed to a pervasive marketing and advertising campaign that consistently reinforces the unifying message that the products contain sugar, thereby amplifying and furthering the deception." Per the complaint, Fresh intentionally emphasizes the presence of sugar in its lip products; product descriptions contain key phrases such as "powered by sugar from beet root and sugar cane" or "infused with sugar." Moreover, the case says that marketing for Fresh Sugar lip products typically shows images of crystallized sugar, "directly associating the beneficial skincare effects of sugar." The class action lawsuit alleges that consumers are willing to pay more for Fresh Sugar lip products because of the deceptive marketing at issue. Had consumers known that the products do not actually contain sugar, they would not be willing to pay as much for them or purchase them at all, the complaint contends. The Fresh products at issue in the lawsuit include, but are not limited to, Fresh Sugar Lip Balm, Sugar Tinted Lip Balm in all colors, Fresh Sugar Lip Treatment SPF 15, Sugar Advanced Therapy Lip Treatment, and Sugar Advanced Therapy Lip Rescue Ointment. Notably, the class action lawsuit states that "[Fresh] itself sells other Fresh brand products bearing the claim 'SUGAR' on the front label, but which do contain sugar," such as facial scrubs and treatments. The suit argues that Fresh "clearly" could have easily added sugar to any products bearing the "SUGAR" claim. The Fresh Sugar class action lawsuit seeks to represent all residents of the United States who purchased any of the Fresh Sugar products at issue within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] FRESNO, CA: TwoHands Sues Over Homeless' Civil Rights Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- WICKEY TWOHANDS and JOSEPH QUINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal corporation; STEVE ROCHA, in his individual and official capacity; H. CORONA, in his individual and official capacity; OMAR KHAN, in his individual and official capacity; DAVID PONEK, in his individual and official capacity; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01797-SKO (E.D. Cal., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations under the United States and California Constitutions, federal civil rights statutes, and state law. The suit challenges the City of Fresno's unconstitutional policies, practices, and ordinances that criminalize homelessness and systematically deprive unhoused individuals-particularly the elderly and disabled-of their fundamental constitutional rights. Through facially neutral but discriminatorily enforced laws, the Defendants have created a regime that punishes poverty, destroys personal property without due process, and subjects vulnerable populations to arrest, harassment, and danger without providing adequate shelter alternatives or reasonable accommodations. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate unconstitutional ordinances and practices, as well as damages for the violations they have suffered. City of Fresno is a municipal corporation in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin G. Little, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN G. LITTLE Post Office Box 8656 Fresno, CA 93747 Telephone: (559) 342-5800 Facsimile: (559) 242-2400 Email: service@kevinglittle.com GEISINGER SYSTEM: Agrees to Settle Class Action Suit for $28.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Berger Montague PC announce settlements totaling $28.5 million in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of healthcare workers employed by Geisinger System Services, Inc. ("Geisinger") and Evangelical Community Hospital ("Evangelical") from January 1, 2014 through August 5, 2020. The lawsuit alleged that Geisinger and Evangelical agreed not to recruit (or "poach") each other's healthcare workers. The lawsuit further alleged that this agreement allowed Geisinger and Evangelical to suppress wages and job mobility of their healthcare workers. Geisinger and Evangelical deny the allegations and do not admit any liability related to the allegations as part of these settlements. Who is included in the settlements? Generally, you are member of the settlement class and eligible to receive a share of the settlements if you are a person who worked as a healthcare worker at Geisinger's or Evangelical's facilities located in Union, Snyder, Northumberland, Montour, Lycoming, and/or Columbia counties in Pennsylvania at any point from January 1, 2014 through August 5, 2020. Healthcare workers are nurses, physicians, advanced practitioners, medical support personnel, and other healthcare professionals (technicians, therapists, healthcare managers, or other healthcare professionals who contribute to the healthcare system in various capacities). What do the settlements provide? Geisinger agreed to pay $19 million and Evangelical agreed to pay $9.5 million to settle this lawsuit. The total $28.5 million settlement fund will pay money to eligible members of the settlement class, attorneys' fees and expenses, notice and settlement administration costs, taxes and tax expenses, and class representative service awards. How can I get a payment? If you received a notice by mail or email showing your compensation information, you are automatically included in the settlement class and do not need to submit a proof of claim and release form to receive payment. You are, however, encouraged to visit the settlement website and provide the unique identifier and PIN number provided on the notice form you received to verify that your name, address, and compensation information are correct. The website address is www.GeisingerEvanSettlement.com. If your notice states in the "How Can I Get a Payment?" section that you must complete IRS Form W-9, please use the unique ID and PIN provided in your notice to complete and submit IRS Form W-9 for tax reporting purposes. This action can be completed as part of the update process noted above on the settlement website. If your notice says this, you must complete this step in order to receive a payment. If you did not receive notice in the mail or by email but believe you are a member of the settlement class, you must complete a proof of claim and release form to receive money from the settlement fund. This form must be submitted online or postmarked no later than February 17, 2026. Your total compensation at Geisinger and/or Evangelical from January 1, 2014 through August 5, 2020 will be used to determine your proportional (or pro rata) share of the settlement. All valid and timely claimants will receive at least a $250 payment. What are my rights? Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue Geisinger and/or Evangelical yourself, you must exclude yourself from the settlement class and opt out of your share of the settlements by February 17, 2026. Even if you do not exclude yourself from the settlement class and opt out of the settlements, you may still object to the settlements by February 17, 2026, if you find something objectionable about the settlements. Detailed information about how to exclude yourself or object is available on the website and in the notice. The Court will hold a hearing on March 16, 2026 to determine whether it will approve the settlements, as well as whether it will approve a request for attorneys' fees of up to 33.33% of the settlement fund, plus a proportional share of interest; reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses of up to $3,500,000; and a service award up to $10,000 for each class representative ($20,000 total). You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense. [GN] HAND HOSPITALITY: Son Seeks Extensions of Discovery Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- aIn the class action lawsuit captioned as Son, et al., v. HAND Hospitality LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04639-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for extensions of discovery deadlines. Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Pre-class certification Nov. 13, 2025 Feb. 2, 2026 depositions: The Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Dec. 18, 2025 March 19, 2026 motion: The Defendant is a New York-based hospitality group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yUovUc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paige I. Piazza, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: ppiazza@vandallp.com HOMESTEAD PLAZA: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Breach ------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. HOMESTEAD PLAZA GROUP LLC, C&L QSR LLC D/B/A 3 PEPPER BURRITO CO, CSC OF LA LLC D/B/A COLD STONE CREAMERY, FISHER DARYL D/B/A DARYL FISHER SUBWAY 6025 AKA SD3 INC. and FIRST WOK LEHIGH ACRES, INC. D/B/A FIRST WOK, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01159 (M.D. Fla., December 12, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the "Americans with Disabilities Act" or "ADA". HOMESTEAD PLAZA GROUP LLC owns, operates, and oversees a commercial plaza property that is the subject of this ADA Complaint, with all listed areas being open to the public. The subject commercial plaza property is open to the public and is located in Lee County, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visited the commercial property, to include visits to the commercial plaza property and restaurant businesses on May 21, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the property and the restaurants he visited within it. He often visits the area to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately one and a half (1.5) miles or six minutes from his house in Lehigh Acres and is near other business and he frequents as a patron. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial plaza property, and commercial restaurant businesses within it. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial plaza property and restaurant businesses have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a house in Lee County, Florida. C&L QSR LLC D/B/A 3 PEPPER BURRITO CO. owns, operates and oversees a commercial restaurant business within the subject commercial plaza property, to include all areas open to the public to its commercial business therein. CSC OF LA LLC, D/B/A COLD STONE CREAMERY owns, operates and oversees a commercial restaurant business within the subject commercial plaza property, to include all areas open to the public to its commercial business therein. FISHER DARYL D/B/A DARYL FISHER SUBWAY 6025 AKA SD3, INC. owns, operates and oversees a commercial restaurant business within the subject commercial plaza property, to include all areas open to the public to its commercial business therein. FIRST WOK LEHIGH ACRES, INC. D/B/A FIRST WOK owns, operates and oversees a commercial restaurant business within the subject commercial plaza property, to include all areas open to the public to its commercial business therein.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Lee County, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com HOTEL JEROME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over J-1 Visa Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Carroll of Aspen Daily News reports that another Aspen lodging property has been hit with civil allegations that it short-changed foreign-exchange employees in violation of state labor laws. On Dec. 5, Denver law firm Towards Justice filed a class action complaint alleging that Hotel Jerome, under the ownership Auberge Resorts Aspen Inc., failed to ensure that its J-1 Visa "employees received all required breaks during their shifts, (failed) to pay employee for breaks missed during their shifts, unlawfully (deducted) from employee wages for employer provided housing, and (required) employees to pay business expenses for foreign worker costs." The suit names Hotel Jerome's parent company, Auberge Resorts Aspen, as the defendant. Auberge Resorts Aspen Inc. is part of the Bethesda, Maryland-based Auberge Collection of luxury properties that include four in Colorado -- Hotel Jerome, both Element 52 and Madeline Hotel and Residences in Telluride, and the Sleeping Indian Lodge in Ridgway -- as well as others in California, Hawaii, Maine, Utah, Greece, Mexico, France and elsewhere. It's the second class-action Towards Justice has taken to Pitkin County District Court regarding J-1 wages since October 2023, when the firm sued Marriott International for its handling of J-1 workers at the St. Regis Aspen. Marriott in December 2023 transferred the suit, which also is proposed as a class action, to the U.S. District Court in Denver, where it's pending. Towards Justice also represented an on-mountain restaurant worker in a class-action suit against Aspen Skiing Co. That case -- which applied to all eligible SkiCo employees and not just J-1 workers -- was resolved in February when SkiCo agreed to a $1.575 million class-action settlement. The amount was to be split between cash payments and retail vouchers and settle claims that thousands of hourly workers were underpaid for on-mountain travel time and denied legally required rest breaks. SkiCo admitted no wrongdoing, and its representatives at the time said the settlement reflected the company's decision to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a lengthy class litigation, with payments ranging from $5 to $375 for eligible current and former employees, attorney fees and compensation for the named plaintiff, Craig Stout. SkiCo maintained its pay practices complied with Colorado law. Meanwhile, the most-recent suit alleging illegal low wages was filed by a plaintiff who, through a J-1 Visa program, worked as an hourly employee from November 2023 to May 2024 at Hotel Jerome on Main Street. The plaintiff is from Portugal, according to Towards Justice attorney Victoria Guzman, who filed the suit with colleague Alexander Hood of the same firm. Plaintiff Goncalo Ferreira Martins is suing both "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated" as employees at Hotel Jerome. The suit says eligible class members are "all hourly employees who worked for defendant at the Hotel Jerome on J-1 visas in Colorado from three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through final judgment." Martins worked in the hotel's banquet services. Guzman said that "we're roughly estimating that there might be about 45 J-1 workers (eligible for the class)," noting that figure "will change with discovery." According to the lawsuit, Martins was employed through a J-1 visa program, which prohibited him from lawfully working for any employer other than Hotel Jerome. To participate in the program and be available for work, Martins alleges he incurred nearly $2,800 in travel, visa and sponsor-related expenses that were not reimbursed by the employer. Those costs were business-related expenses that should have been covered under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the suit argues. The lawsuit further alleges that Hotel Jerome unlawfully passed those expenses onto Martins and other similarly situated workers, effectively deducting them from wages. During the employment period, the plaintiff worked at the defendant's Aspen location and lived in employer-provided housing, sharing a two-bedroom apartment with three other individuals, the suit says. Hotel Jerome charged Martins $447.50 per paycheck for the housing, the lawsuit alleges, noting housing was necessary for the job because no viable non-employer housing was available within commuting distance of the hotel, making the housing primarily for the employer's benefit. As a result, Martins' suit says the housing deductions were unlawful. Alternatively, the lawsuit argues that even if the housing were deemed to benefit the employee, the deductions reduced wages below minimum wage on at least one paycheck, in violation of state law. The suit also alleges labor violations related to rest breaks. It claims Martins typically worked five days per week in eight-hour shifts but did not consistently receive required 10-minute rest breaks and was not paid for missed breaks. Colorado law requires employers to provide a paid 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked, the suit says. The lawsuit alleges Hotel Jerome failed to provide required rest breaks to non-exempt employees and failed to compensate workers when breaks were missed. By unlawfully deducting housing costs, passing business expenses onto employees, and failing to provide or pay for rest breaks, the complaint claims the defendant violated the Colorado Wage Claim Act and Minimum Wage Act, resulting in unpaid minimum wages, straight time and overtime. "This case is in line with our projected goals of representing mistreated immigrants and rural workers in mountain counties who are often taken advantage of by these large corporations in very wealthy areas because they're lacking the resources and support networks that empower them to enforce their rights," Guzman said. A message left with Auberge Resorts' corporate communications office on December 16 and a message with Hotel Jerome's executive office on the next day were not returned. Elsewhere, in Towards Justice's lawsuit filed on behalf of plaintiff Daniel Esteban Camas López, Marriott International is pushing back against making it a class action that could encompass nearly a decade of foreign trainees at the St. Regis Aspen Resort. Marriott is seeking an oral argument over the class certification, according to court records. The case alleges that interns were exploited as cheap labor in violation of state and federal human-trafficking laws, the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and RICO statutes -- claims Marriott denies. López's suit claims his J-1 internship devolved into long hours of menial labor inconsistent with the program's educational purpose, paid at $14 an hour, with $800 a month deducted from his paycheck for shared housing the suit describes as dilapidated. Marriott has countered that López voluntarily joined the program, was properly trained, housed and compensated in compliance with J-1 requirements, and that his allegations are speculative and unsupported by discovery -- arguments the company says should prevent the case from proceeding as a class action. [GN] HUMANGOOD SOCAL: Duran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HUMANGOOD SOCAL. The case is styled as Eufemia Duran, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HUMANGOOD SOCAL, Case No. 25STCV35672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." HumanGood -- https://www.humangood.org/ -- is one of the largest nonprofit provider of senior housing and services in the nation with 125+ Life Plan and Affordable Housing Communities.[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 HURRICANE, UT: Airbnb Hosts File Class Suit Over New Ordinances --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Hoffman of KUTV reports that Airbnb hosting businesses in Hurricane City said they are undergoing "threat" and "bullying" from the city to comply with new ordinances. A Hurricane resident made claims on social media, saying the city was circumventing state law. "Hurricane City has been circumventing Utah law and costing us thousands -- destroying our businesses," the post states. The resident said 32 people have reached out with shared experiences. The dispute centers on city ordinance 10-51-14 b(4), which went into effect in February 2023. The ordinance regulates residential hosting facilities, such as Airbnbs, adding requirements related to the number of rooms, building type, and parking, among other areas. He said he has been made to comply with the maximum number of rentable guest rooms, though he said he's been hosting since before the ordinance went into effect. Fred Resch, Hurricane city planner, said a home in violation of city ordinance 10-51-14 b(4) would be "renting out more rooms than they're supposed to." "If violations of the ordinance are found, we do prosecute those as needed," Resch said. The resident claimed Utah Code 10-9a-511 grandfathers in his property, adding that he is in talks with Airbnb's legal team for a class action lawsuit against the city. The lawsuit is intended to make the city respect grandfathered rights and recover lost revenue. "Under the threat of massive fines and license revocation, Hurricane City is ignoring state law and forcing many of us to shut down rooms, reject bookings requests, struggle to pay mortgages on homes we bought specifically for this purpose," the resident wrote in the post. He added that many hosts buy larger and more expensive homes than they can otherwise afford with the intention of renting through Airbnb. "Because of Hurricane City's unlawful intimidation, many hosts are struggling financially," the post states. "Some hosts are already on the verge of foreclosure. 2News has reached out to Hurricane City with additional questions, and has not yet heard back. "For 10 years we helped build Hurricane's tourism," the resident said. "We housed the hundreds of thousands of tourists who spent money at our restaurants, state parks, events, and rental shops. We live here. We vote here. The city doesn't get to destroy our livelihoods and hand our business over to non-resident non-voting out-of-town developers." The full list of development standards for residential hosting facilities in Hurricane, Utah is available at https://library.municode.com/ut/hurricane/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10LAUSRE_CH51TRLOFA_S10-51-14REHOFA [GN] HUT CAROLINAS: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANANDA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. HUT CAROLINAS LLC; HUT AMERICAN GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 5:25-cv-00106-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Boyle entered an order granting the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs individual and class allegations involving defendants' restaurants that plaintiff has never visited are dismissed in accordance with the foregoing. The Plaintiffs Title III ADA claim as to the Raeford Road Pizza Hut will proceed. The Plaintiff's complaint fails to plausibly allege any common policy, design, or plan which caused her or any putative class member's alleged injury, nor does plaintiff plausibly allege that the other Pizza Hut restaurants identified in her complaint were constructed or contain a design, blueprint, or layout which is common to each of the restaurants. The Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated to address alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and its implementing regulations. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JTaYKN at no extra charge.[CC] INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Class Settlement in McNally Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCNALLY, et al., v. INFOSYS MCCAMISH SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00995-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Boulee entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, litigation costs and service awards. The Court awards Class Counsel $5,833,333.33 in attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses of $45,281.57, as well as service awards of $2,500 to settlement class representatives to be paid according to the terms of the settlement agreement. 2. The Court grants final approval to its appointment the Plaintiffs John McNally, Jonathan Ayres, Kelly Collins, Debora Fisk, Patricia Kennemur, Deana Lindley, Vivian Lindley, Joyce Newman, David Owens, Chianti Prosser, Mohamad Raychouni, Nathaniel Seibert, Josh Strock and Kevin Williams as Settlement Class Representatives. 3. The Court grants final approval to its appointment of Class Counsel as provided in the Preliminary Approval Order, appointing Patrick Barthle II of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC and J. Cameron Tribble of Barnes Law Group, LLC. 4. The Court certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), subject to the Settlement Class exclusions set forth in the Settlement Agreement: "All persons residing in the United States whose Personal Information was compromised in the Data Breach, including the approximately 3.7 million individuals who were sent individualized, statutory notice of the Data Breach." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the judges presiding over the Litigation and members of their direct families, and Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. Infosys is the specialized life insurance and retirement services arm of Infosys BPM. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7tck7G at no extra charge.[CC] INOVA HEALTH: Settlement Deal in Lugo Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO LUGO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, V. INOVA HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Case No. 1:24-cv-00700-PTG-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles entered an amended order preliminarily approving class action settlement agreement, directing notice of proposed class settlement, and scheduling a final approval hearing. -- For purposes of settlement only, the Court certifies and orders that notice issue to the following Settlement Class: "All individuals who may have visited an Inova public facing website from April 29, 2022 through April 29, 2024 and had an Inova MyChart Account and whose Private Information could have been disclosed from the public facing websites to third parties through the Facebook or Google pixel and other related tracking technology without their authorization." Excluded from the Settlement Class arc: (a) all persons who timely and validly elect to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class; (b) the Court and staff to whom this case is assigned and any member of the Court's or staffs immediate family; and (c) any individual who has already submitted claims to arbitration against Defendant relevant to the subject matter of the Litigation prior to the Court's entry of its Preliminary Approval Order. -- The Plaintiff Pedro Lugo is preliminarily appointed and designated as Class Representative. -- The Court preliminarily appoints the following counsel to serve as Class Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class: Kyle McNew ofMiehic Hamlett PLLC, and Eugene Y. 'furin. Jordan R. Frysinger. and William Kingston of McGuire Law, P.C -- A final approval hearing shall be held before the Court on April 16, 2026 at 10:00 am. Inova offers home health and long-term care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KXCMni at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW. P.C. 55 W Wackcr Dr.. 9th Fl. Chicago, II, 60601 The Defendant is represented by: Bryan T. Kostura, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC 600 Superior Ave., East Suite 2100 Cleveland, OH 44114 INSURANCE TRIPLE: Friel Bid to Commence Discovery OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH FRIEL, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. INSURANCE TRIPLE E, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01857-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Munley entered an order that: 1) The Plaintiff's motion to commence discovery is granted. 2) The Plaintiff shall have until April 3, 2026 to conduct class certification and damages related discovery. 3) On or before the discovery deadline, the plaintiff shall file a motion for default judgment. 4) On or before the discovery deadline, the plaintiff shall also file a status report as to whether he will proceed with a motion for class certification. On Nov. 24, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant Insurance Triple E, LLC in this putative class action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). Before the court is a motion to commence discovery filed by Plaintiff Joseph Friel. Friel brings this action on behalf of himself and two separately defined proposed classes, a Robocall Class and a National Do Not Call Registry Class. He needs evidence to move forward with certification. District courts throughout the United States routinely permit TCPA plaintiffs to conduct discovery where a motion for default judgment has been filed, but discovery is necessary to resolve issues such as class certification and damages. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GTSdHV at no extra charge.[CC] INSURIFY INC: Hafizi Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- UMID HAFIZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSURIFY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06728-DLI-JRC (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2025) is a putative class action pursuant against the Defendant to secure redress for their violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, to promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive text messaging marketing campaigns to consumers, including Plaintiff, with no regard for their rights under the TCPA, and continues to send text messages to consumers even after they opt out from Defendant's messages. Through this action, the 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 the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and the members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Insurify, Inc. owns and operates Insurify.com, a car insurance aggregation website that refers persons making inquiries to local car insurance agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, 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: jvenditti@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com INTEGER HOLDINGS: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, West Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, JOSEPH W. DZIEDZIC, DIRON SMITH, and PAYMAN KHALES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10251 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's electrophysiology (EP) market in order to trade Integer common stock at artificially inflated prices between July 25, 2024 and October 22, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants misled investors regarding the company's market position in the growing EP market and vastly overstated demand for Integer's EP devices. In reality, the demand for Integer's EP devices had fallen off a cliff. Indeed, rather than the company's EP business outpacing market growth in the burgeoning EP market, revenue growth from Integer's EP devices was in fact decelerating. When the truth emerged, Integer common stock fell $35.22 per share, or more than 32 percent, to a closing price of $73.89 per share on October 23, 2025. The Plaintiff and similarly situated investors have sustained significant damages as a result of the Defendants' misleading statements. Integer Holdings Corporation is a global medical device contract manufacturer, with its principal executive offices in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 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 - 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 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Dodd Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN DODD, et al., v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1475, Case No. 4:23-cv-00327-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) and appointing Plaintiffs Lauren Dodd, Richard Smith, and Amanda Hammond as class representatives. The Class should be defined as follows: "All persons who Local 1475 assigned to Subclass HH2 on June 19, 2023." The Plaintiffs further seek an order appointing Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr. and Charles R. Bridgers as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Defendant is a union of maritime workers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=grAZbX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC 1425-A Dutch Valley Place NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Stays Sermeno Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Josue Sermeno v. International Paper Company, Case No. 8:25-cv-01892-AH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay. The case is stayed pending a ruling on a motion for class certification in Magana. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report within 14 days of such ruling. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee from November 2022 to January 2025. International Paper is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fvX761 at no extra charge.[CC] JACK'S FAMILY: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Sherry Brown and Justine Tyus, on behalf of themselves and on all others similarly situated v. JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Case No. 2:25-cv-02135-MHH (N.D. Ala., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant requires its assistant managers, including Plaintiffs, to work in excess of forty hours in a week without receiving all due and owed overtime wages. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are hourly paid employees whose work does not fall under the definition of exempt work under the FLSA. Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at no less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as assistant managers for restaurants owned by Defendant. The Defendant owns and operates a chain of restaurants known as "Jack's" with locations across Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry F. (Hank) Sherrod, III, Esq. HENRY F. SHERROD III, P.C. 119 South Court Street Florence, AL 35630 Phone: 256-764-4141 Fax: 877-684-0802 Email: hank@alcivilrights.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com JAMF HOLDING: Misleads Shareholders to OK Merger, Bushansky Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAMF HOLDING CORP., DAVID BREACH, ANDRE DURAND, MICHAEL FOSNAUGH, DEAN HAGER, KEVIN KLAUSMEYER, VINA M. LEITE, CHRISTINA LEMA, JOHN STROSAHL, and MARTIN TAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 2025-1434 (Del. Ch., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the filing of materially false and misleading Proxy statements that failed to provide all material information related to a merger consideration, which would sale Jamf for $13.05 per share in cash to affiliates of Francisco Partners Management LP. Specifically, the Proxy statements concerning the conflict posed to Kirkland by the Francisco Partners representations and Vista representations during the Jamf's sale process. As a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, the Plaintiff and other Jamf stockholders will be harmed by being deprived of their right to cast fully informed votes with respect to the merger at the special meeting and not being able to receive the benefit that would result from a topping bid made by any party currently restricted from making a topping bid due to the standstills that have not been waived. Jamf Holding Corp. is a global technology investor, with its principal executive office located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC 1204 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 803-4600 Email: rernst@bk-legal.com - and - Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. WEISS LAW 350 Lockwood Terr. Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 692-7910 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 JASON LUO: "Levy" Gets Leave to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as SHMUEL LEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JASON LUO, JAMES TAYLOR, ALBERT LI, MARSHALL KIEV, DAVID BORIS, and BDO USA, LLP, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-653-GBW (D. Del.), Judge Gregory B. Williams of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware sustains in part and overrules in part Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation and adopts in part the Report and Recommendation on motions to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On November 14, 2023, Shmuel Levy filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging securities law violations, on behalf of all direct purchasers of common stock of Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. in a private investment in public entity PIPE offering, against Jason Luo, James Taylor, Albert Li, Marshall Kiev, David Boris, the Individual Defendants, and BDO USA, LLP. On February 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Laura D. Hatcher entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the following motions: 1. Defendant James Taylor's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint; 2. Defendant Albert Li's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint; 3. Defendant BDO USA, LLP's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint; 4. Defendants David Boris and Marshall Kiev's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint; 5. Defendant Jason Luo's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On February 21, 2025, Levy filed his Objections to Report and Recommendation, objecting to Judge Hatcher's Report and Recommendation on four distinct grounds. On March 7, 2025, Taylor, BDO, Li, and Luo filed responses to Levy's Objections. This dispute arises out of Plaintiffs and the putative class's 130 million participation and investment in a PIPE offering conducted in connection with the June 25, 2021 merger of FIII, a special purpose acquisition company SPAC, and Electric Last Mile, Inc. The post-merger company, ELMS, filed for bankruptcy and is not a defendant in this action. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against all Defendants and SEC Rule 10b-5 Count I and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. FIII was a SPAC created with the sole purpose of identifying and merging with a privately held business. Following an initial public offering in August of 2020, FIII identified ELM, a company created by Defendants Luo and Taylor to manufacture utility vehicles for last mile deliveries, as their target. On September 18, 2020, FIII and ELM executed a letter of intent to merge the two companies, estimating the value of the post-merger enterprise at 1.3 billion. On December 11, 2020, FIII announced that the two companies had executed a definitive merger agreement, subject to shareholder approval. On June 9, 2021, FIII issued a Proxy to solicit votes for the merger. On June 24, 2021, FIII shareholders voted to approve the merger and close the PIPE offering. Prior to the announcement and the Proxy, on November 19, 2020, Luo and Taylor caused ELM to issue 99,000 shares of ELM common stock for 10 per share, of which approximately 79 went to entities owned and controlled by Luo and 6.5 went to entities owned and controlled by Taylor the November 2020 Equity Transaction. Each of the shares could be exchanged for over 800 shares of ELMS common stock that was also valued at 10 per share thus, each ELM share purchased for 10 effectively became worth 8,000 post-merger when exchanged for ELMS common stock. On December 8, 2020, Luo sold 1,000 shares of ELM common stock to an entity owned and controlled by Hailiang Jerry Hu and Benjamin Wu, ELM's Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, respectively the December 2020 Equity Transaction. The Proxy disclosed the fact of the 2020 Equity Transactions, but Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly record the share-based compensation at fair market value or disclose that the sale of shares was below fair market value. On December 10, 2020, FIII and the PIPE investors executed the Offering Memorandum-a private placement of 130 million worth of shares of unregistered common stock of FIII. The Court summarized Judge Hatcher’s recommendations: Plaintiff had standing but failed to plead that Luo, Taylor, or Li were “makers” of statements under Janus; failed to establish scienter for Boris and Kiev; and BDO’s audit was an “opinion” and not actionable. The derivative Section 20(a) claims depended on the success of the Section 10(b) claims. Upon review, the Court held that the audit’s labeling as an “opinion” was correct but found the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged that BDO did not sincerely believe its audit opinion because it ignored clear auditing standards on executive stock transactions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection was sustained as to BDO’s audit but rejected on all other issues. The Court adopted Judge Hatcher’s findings that (a) Plaintiff failed to show Luo, Taylor, and Li made actionable statements, (b) scienter was not adequately pled for Boris or Kiev, and (c) derivative Section 20(a) claims were insufficient absent a predicate Section 10(b) violation. Therefore, the Court sustained in part and overruled in part the objections and allowed Levy to amend his complaint within the framework of its findings. The case remains a putative, uncertified class action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a0iVjp from PacerMonitor.com JBL PREMIER: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------- Owen Harty, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. JBL PREMIER NW 119TH MIAMI, LLC and BIJON RESTAURANT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-25879-DSL (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. JBL PREMIER NW 119TH MIAMI, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com JEFF RUBY CULINARY: Court Approves FLSA Settlement in Lamb ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN LAMB et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JEFF RUBY CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00949 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Holmes entered an order as follows: 1. The Court preliminarily certifies for settlement purposes only, the following proposed Rule 23 Classes: "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"); and "All employees in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Kentucky restaurants at any time from Feb. 27, 2019, to July 11, 2025"; (the "Rule 23 Kentucky Class"). All members of the Rule 23 Ohio Class and the Rule 23 Kentucky Class are set forth on revised Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Court conditionally approves: (a) Named Plaintiff Johnathan Lamb as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Kentucky Class; and (b) Named Plaintiff Jim Belmont as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Ohio Class. 3. The Court conditionally appoints as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Classes 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. 4. A Fairness Hearing will be held on May 19, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. (CT). 5. The Court finds that the parties' resolution of the FLSA claims set forth in the Settlement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of bona fide disputes regarding the FLSA claims asserted and approves all forms and procedures for notice of the FLSA settlement set forth in the Settlement. The FLSA Settlement is therefore approved. Jeff operates as a restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LiggHg at no extra charge.[CC] JITO LABS: Faces Refiled Class Action Suit Over MEV Trading Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ Trading View reports that a US court is once again being asked to weigh in on maximal extractable value (MEV) practices after a judge allowed new evidence to be added to a class-action lawsuit tied to a memecoin platform. The judge granted a motion to amend and refile a class-action lawsuit to include new evidence against memecoin launch platform Pump.fun, MEV infrastructure firm Jito Labs, Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation and others. The motion said over 5,000 pieces of evidence in the form of internal chat logs were submitted by a "confidential informant" in September that were previously unavailable. The filing said: "Plaintiffs assert that the logs contain contemporaneous discussions among Pump.fun, Solana Labs, Jito Labs, and others concerning the alleged scheme, and that they materially clarify the enterprise's management, coordination, and communications." The lawsuit, originally filed in July, alleges that the Pump.fun platform deliberately misled retail investors by marketing memecoin launches as "fair," but engaged in a scheme with Solana validators to front-run retail participants through maximal extractable value (MEV). Maximal extractable value is a technique that involves reordering transactions within a block to maximize profit for MEV arbitrageurs and validators. The plaintiffs allege that Pump.fun used MEV techniques to give insiders preferential access to new tokens at a low value, which were then pumped and dumped onto retail participants, who were used as exit liquidity by insiders. Cointelegraph reached out to Burwick Law, the legal firm representing the plaintiffs, as well as Pump.fun, Jito Labs and the Solana Foundation, but did not receive any responses by the time of publication. The lawsuit could set a precedent for MEV cases in the United States, as the ethics of the practice continue to be debated within the crypto industry and legal bodies struggle to define proper regulations about the highly technical subject. The MEV bot trial leaves questions unanswered Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, the brothers accused of using a MEV trading bot to make millions of dollars in profit, went to trial in November in the US. Prosecutors argued that the brothers tricked victims out of their funds, but defense attorneys said that they were executing a legitimate trading strategy and did not do anything illegal. The jury struggled to reach a verdict in the case, and several jurors requested additional information to clarify the complexities surrounding the technical specifics of blockchain technology. The case ended in a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict, highlighting the complexity of adjudicating legal disputes surrounding the application of nascent financial technology. [GN] JOHN KRUMME: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Minshew Due June 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALYN MINSHEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. JOHN W. KRUMME, MD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02467-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell entered a Phase I -- class certification stage scheduling order: Event Deadline Jointly proposed protective order Jan. 6, 2025 resubmitted to court or request pre-motion conference (only if parties disagree about need for and/or scope of order) The Plaintiffs' settlement proposal Jan. 30, 2026 The Defendants' settlement counterproposal Feb. 12, 2026 Jointly filed mediation notice, or March 2, 2026 confidential settlement reports to magistrate judge: Motions to amend: March 2, 2026 All class certification-related discovery June 1, 2026 completed: Motions for class certification & June 1, 2026 plaintiffs' expert disclosures on class-certification related issues: Responses to class certification motions July 1, 2026 and defendants' expert disclosures on class certification-related issues: Replies to class certification motions: July 15, 2026 Dr. John Krumme, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He is affiliated with University of New Mexico Hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AP2KWr at no extra charge.[CC] JONES & CO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN D. WINTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00299-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Clark entered an order granting in part and denying in part Edward Jones's Motion to Strike Class Allegations. Specifically, the Court orders the class allegations struck insofar as Winter (1) brings claims of discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation; (2) seeks injunctive or declaratory relief on behalf of himself and the members of the class; and (3) seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2). The Court grants Winter leave to file, no later than January 2, 2026, an amended complaint that conforms to the Court's rulings. The Court denies Edward Jones's Motion to Strike Class Allegations on all other grounds. Finally, the Court denies, without prejudice, Edward Jones's Motion to Compel Arbitration. In sum, the Court finds that Winter's Second Amended Complaint establishes a legal basis for certifying his proposed classes. Winter properly alleges that he meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) to the extent he seeks to recover damages on behalf of the classes based on alleged race discrimination. He also properly alleges that his proposed classes meet at least one of the requirements under Rule 23(b). Winter may not, however, seek injunctive or declaratory relief. Based on the foregoing facts, Winter seeks to certify a class of "All white men who do not identify as LGBTQ+, and who worked for Edward Jones as a financial advisor at any time since March 10, 2021" (the "SWM Class"). This class would include two subclasses. The first, known as the "Goodknight Subclass," includes "All members of the SWM Class who were eligible for a Goodknight at any time since March 10, 2021." And the second, known as the "Advancement Subclass," includes "All members of the SWM Class who were eligible for promotion or advancement at any time since March 10, 2021." Bryan Winter alleges that Edward Jones's equity policy—which pervades aspects of its promotion, advancement, and termination decisions—unlawfully discriminates against straight white male employees. Winter seeks to certify a class action on behalf of similar Edward Jones employees. Edward Jones responds that the Court cannot certify a class due to conflicts among proposed class members; thus, the argument goes, Winter must arbitrate his claims under securities-industry rules. The Court addresses Edward Jones’s motion to strike the class allegations and compel arbitration. Edward Jones provides financial services across more than 15,000 offices in the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fUOdsKat no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Womick Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WOMICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00574-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order granting a 65-day extension of the current class certification briefing and expert disclosure schedule to accommodate the parties' agreed upon dates for the depositions of Plaintiff's experts. Accordingly, after meeting and conferring, the parties agree that a modification of the class certification briefing and expert disclosure deadlines is necessary, so that the depositions of these expert witnesses can be completed and transcripts returned with enough time so that Kroger can incorporate the same into its Response as necessary. As a result, the parties request an extension of 65 days for Kroger's deadline to file the response to the motion for class certification and class certification expert reports to March 18, 2026, and extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file the reply in support of motion for class certification and rebuttal expert reports to May 22, 2026. On Sept. 4, 2025, the Court entered an Order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend Class Certification Briefing and Expert Disclosure Deadlines. On Nov. 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Certify Class and Memorandum of Law in Support. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MGg7xM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com - and - Mike Arias, Esq. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Bruce A. McMullen, Esq. Mary Wu Tullis, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, AND BERKOWITZ, PC 165 Madison Ave., Suite. 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: bmcmullen@bakerdonelson.com mtullis@bakerdonelson.com L'OREAL USA: Kim Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sohyun Kim, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., Case No. 25-2-10335-31 was removed from the Superior Court for Snohomish County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Dec. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02568. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff Sohyun Kim, acting individually and on behalf of a purported class she seeks to represent, served the Complaint and Summons on L'Oréal's registered agent, Corporate Services Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ellery Johannessen, Esq. JOHANNESSEN LAW, PLLC 5400 California Ave. SW, Suite B Seattle, WA 98136 Phone: (206) 594-0500 Email: ellery@eaj-law.com - and - Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq. THE TOPPE FIRM, LLC 4900 O'Hear Avenue, Suite 100 North Charleston, SC 29405 Phone: (323) 909-2011 Email: jct@toppefirm.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 LEMONAID HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Health Privacy Suit for $3.25MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Lemonaid Health agreed to a $3.25 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated federal privacy laws by using tracking pixels on its website. The settlement benefits individuals who visited Lemonaid Health's website between June 30, 2019, and July 14, 2025. According to the privacy class action lawsuit, Lemonaid Health used tracking pixels on its website that disclosed users' health information to third parties, such as Facebook and Google. The plaintiffs claim this practice violated federal privacy laws. Lemonaid Health, formerly part of 23andMe Holding Co. during the class period, is an online health service that connects patients with medical professionals and prescriptions. Lemonaid Health has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.25 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Lemonaid Health settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the net settlement fund after deductions for fees and costs. Class members can receive a higher payment if they attest to having been harmed by the alleged privacy violations. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 5, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Lemonaid Health settlement is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 23, 2026. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals who visited Lemonaid Health's website between June 30, 2019, and July 14, 2025. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Claimants must provide the URL(s) of the Lemonaid Health webpage(s) they visited during the class period. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/23/2026 Case Name In re Chrome Holding Co. (f/k/a 23andMe Holding Co.), et al., Case No. 25-40976-357, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Final Hearing 01/20/2026 Settlement Website LemonaidPixelSettlement.com Claims Administrator Lemonaid Pixel Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 630-5415 Class Counsel Matthew J. Langley ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC Nicholas A. Migliaccio MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP Defense Counsel Paul M. Basta Christopher Hopkins Jessica I. Choi Grace C. Hotz PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP [GN] LKQ PICK: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Short Due August 10, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SHORT, v. LKQ PICK YOUR PART CENTRAL, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01178-HLT-BGS (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Severson entered a Phase 1 Class Certification Scheduling Order: Event Deadline Jointly proposed protective order Jan. 9, 2026 submitted to court: Motion and brief in support of proposed Jan. 9, 2026 protective order (only if parties disagree about need for and/or scope of order) Exchange of initial disclosure documents: Jan. 16, 2026 Motions to amend: March 3, 2026 Deadline to complete class certification July 10, 2026 discovery: Deadline to file Motion for Class Aug. 10, 2026 Certification and Disclose Class-related Experts: Class Certification Experts: April 28, 2026 Class Certification Rebuttal experts: June 12, 2026 LKQ is a self-service auto salvage chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eBMJ1T at no extra charge.[CC] LOREAL USA INC: Kim Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sohyun Kim, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Loreal USA, Inc., Case No. 25-00002-10335-31 was removed from the Snohomish County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02566 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ellery Johannessen, Esq. JOHANNESSEN LAW, PLLC 5400 California Ave. SW, Ste. E Seattle, WA 98136 Phone: (206) 594-0479 Email: ellery@eaj-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Ardie Ermac, Esq. Caitlyn Cowan Courtney, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 757-8176 Email: ardieermac@dwt.com caitlyncourtney@dwt.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Nicole Guan filed a class action lawsuit against Luxottica of America Inc., doing business as Pearle Vision. Why: Guan claims Pearle Vision made unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers who had opted out of receiving them. Where: The Pearle Vision class action lawsuit was filed in Texas federal court. Pearle Vision made unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers who had opted out of receiving them, according to a new class action lawsuit. Plaintiff Nicole Guan claims Pearle Vision, an optical retailer and eye care provider, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by continuing to text message consumers after they had opted out of its solicitations. Guan further argues Pearle Vision's failure to honor her opt-out request demonstrates a lack of procedures for handling such requests, resulting in continued text message solicitations to her and other consumers. "Defendant continued to text message the plaintiff and class members to harass them into making purchases from the defendant," the Pearle Vision class action lawsuit says. Guan wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who, within a 12-month period and after they made a request not to receive further communications, received more than one text message or phone call from Pearle Vision encouraging them to schedule an appointment. Pearle Vision allegedly made unsolicited calls to consumers Guan claims Pearle Vision's text messages were attempts to solicit her business and patronage, even though she had no "ongoing treatment relationship" with the company and did not require its services. Further, Guan argues she received text messages from Pearle Vision encouraging her to schedule an appointment despite having previously instructed the company to stop sending such messages. "All of the defendant's text messages were a pretext for the sale of goods or services and, on information and belief, the defendant sent the texts to encourage the plaintiff and class members to purchase the defendant's services," the Pearle Vision class action lawsuit states. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief along with an award of statutory damages for herself and all class members. Earlier this year, a consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against MyBookie Inc. over claims the sports betting company ignored opt-out requests from consumers who received text messages from them. Have you received more than one phone call or text from Pearle Vision after making a request to opt out of receiving communications? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A. The Pearle Vision class action lawsuit is Guan v. Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01904, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. [GN] MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: ACLU Opposes Attempt to Halt Racial Law Reform ------------------------------------------------------------------- Maricopa County filed a motion on December 18 to prematurely end court-ordered reforms in Ortega Melendres v. Sheridan, a class action lawsuit that found MCSO engaged in racially discriminatory policing practices and immigration enforcement in Arizona. The move follows a court-ordered budget report which found that MCSO improperly attributed tens of millions of spent taxpayer dollars to this case. In addition to the widespread misuse of county funds, MCSO has failed to fully achieve court-ordered reforms, including reducing or eliminating racial disparities in traffic stops and investigating allegations of deputy misconduct. "Maricopa County's move to prematurely halt reforms in Melendres ignores the enduring harm Latino residents have experienced at the hands of MCSO," said Victoria Lopez, executive director for the ACLU of Arizona. "This case is about ensuring meaningful, lasting reform, not settling for temporary fixes. Ending oversight now jeopardizes the progress made thus far and is a distraction from working towards total compliance." "The County's effort to end reforms now is like a doctor choosing to end treatment when a patient's cancer is only partially cured." Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy director of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. "The people of Maricopa County are entitled to complete reform and protection against a return of the Arpaio days, and the County has not yet delivered." [GN] MATADOR GROUP: Faces Ganan Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- JAIME OSWALDO VILLA GANAN and SEGUNDO PATRICIO VILLA GUAMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATADOR GROUP INC., TAURUS CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC., and RAFAL S. SMOLA, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06735 (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay wages owed on a weekly basis in which their wages were earned, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure for furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. Plaintiffs Ganan and Guaman were employed by the Defendants as construction workers and painters while performing related miscellaneous duties, from September 2024 until October 2025 and from January 2017 until October 2025, respectively. Matador Group Inc. is a domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 MAX'S SERVICES: Class Cert Filing in Guerrero Due March 23, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLAS GUERRERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, V. MAX'S SERVICES USA LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00806-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order a class certification scheduling order as follows: (1) Class discovery shall conclude by Feb. 27, 2026; (2) The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification on March 23, 2026; (3) The Defendant shall file a response to the motion for class certification on April 10, 2026; (4) The Plaintiff shall file his reply on April 17, 2026; and (5) The hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. May 4, 2026. Max's is a specialized logistics and installation company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J2NdnS at no extra charge.[CC] MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Court Approves Class Settlement in "DeLisle" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Kelsey DeLisle and Riley Ponce, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McKendree University, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1073-SMY, Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted final approval of the class settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Memorandum in Support. The Court reviewed the Motion, Memorandum, and papers filed in support, and considered Counsel's arguments during the December 18, 2025, Final Approval Hearing. The Court certified for settlement purposes the Settlement Class, as defined by the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a) and (b). The Settlement Class consists of any and all undergraduate students enrolled in a class at any of McKendree University's physical campus locations during the 2020 Spring Semester. The Court found that Notice to the Settlement Class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P 23(e), was provided in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order. Said Notice has been provided in an adequate and sufficient manner, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P 23(e). The Court determined that the Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class, given the likely complexity, expense, and duration of litigation, coupled with the risks involved with trial and maintaining said class through the appellate process. The relief provided by this Settlement constitutes fair value given in exchange for releasing all claims. The Settlement Agreement is finally approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(e). Each Settlement Class Member is permanently barred and enjoined from instituting, maintaining, or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any lawsuit that asserts Released Claims against the Released Parties, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement. Upon consideration of Class Counsel's application for fees and costs, as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement, the Court awarded $250,000, as reasonable attorneys' fees. This equates to roughly 14% of the monetary value of Non-Cash Benefit to the Settlement Class, and shall reimburse attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to be paid by McKendree University per the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Upon consideration of the application for individual service awards, both Kelsey DeLisle and Riley Ponce were awarded $2,500 each, $5,000 total, in consideration for the services performed for and on behalf of the Settlement Class to be paid by McKendree University per the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Administrator, Atticus Administration LLC, is approved for $9,300 as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses in the administration of this Settlement to be paid by McKendree University. The Court found pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 54(b) that there is no reason for delay, and this action was dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tCRofF from PacerMonitor.com MDL 3164: Panel Denies Centralization of 41 Data Breach Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denies the transfer of a total of 41 actions from the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota, and the Southern District of New York for centralization of litigation under the case captioned "In re: Salesforce, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3164. These putative class actions involve the theft of data from a Salesforce customer's Salesforce database. The responding parties take a variety of positions. All responding defendants oppose the proposed Salesforce MDL to some degree. The panel concludes that centralization of MDL No. 3164 (Salesforce) is not necessary as the actions listed present few common questions of fact. Proponents of a Salesforce MDL argue that all actions raise common questions of fact surrounding a vulnerability in the Salesforce platform. Common questions of fact that may exist does not necessarily justify centralization of a large, multi-defendant MDL as the actions allege separate data breaches affecting multiple different Salesforce customers, says the panel. Each breach involved a social engineering attack directly on a Salesforce customer, not an exploit of Salesforce itself with downstream consequences. Different facts will emerge for each Salesforce-customer defendant regarding how the attacks were conducted, which employee was involved, how the employee reacted, whether that defendant had procedures for guarding against social engineering attacks, how that defendant responded to the incident, and which types of personally identifiable information were impacted. Most of the complaints do not mention Salesforce, let alone allege that a common vulnerability in the Salesforce platform was a crucial factor in each data breach. "We also find centralization unnecessary because of the parties’ ongoing self-organization efforts," rules the panel. "In our view, a multi-defendant Salesforce MDL will hinder, rather than promote, the just and efficient conduct of the litigation." A full-text copy of the court's December 16, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3164-and-MDL-3170-Transfer_Order_and_Order_Denying_Transfer-12-25.pdf MDL 3170: TransUnion Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers a total of 54 actions from the U.S. District Courts for the Central of California, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings to proceed in "In re: Trans Union, LLC, Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3170. Before the Panel were two dockets involving a series of data breaches of Salesforce customers that occurred at various times throughout 2025. One of those Salesforce customers, TransUnion, moved for centralization of actions on October 3, 2025. The panel finds that the actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization of MDL No. 3170 (TransUnion) in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. "We are persuaded that a TransUnion MDL is appropriate," the panel opines. There are 54 cases against TransUnion pending in five district courts. All actions include claims against TransUnion arising from the same data breach affecting TransUnion customers. Plaintiffs' claims present common factual questions about the TransUnion breach, such as what duties TransUnion owed to plaintiffs to protect their PII, how the hackers executed their social engineering attack on TransUnion, whether TransUnion had adequate procedures in place to prevent the attack, and whether TransUnion adequately responded to the breach. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary, adds the panel. With actions pending in five districts, it does not appear that efforts at self-organization have succeeded, making the case for centralization more compelling, the panel says. "We are persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois is the appropriate transferee district for the TransUnion MDL," the panel concludes. "TransUnion's headquarters is in Chicago, and most actions against TransUnion are already pending in the Northern District of Illinois. We select Judge Robert W. Gettleman, who presides over two TransUnion actions, as the transferee judge. Judge Gettleman is an experienced jurist with the willingness and ability to efficiently manage this litigation. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course." A full-text copy of the court's December 16, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3164-and-MDL-3170-Transfer_Order_and_Order_Denying_Transfer-12-25.pdf MERCK SHARP & DOHME: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ James T. Murphy, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01145 (M.D.N.C., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought against Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, and related penalties and damages. The Defendant has a policy, pattern or practice of failing to pay employees for all scheduled and overtime hours worked, and failing to pay employees all earned, promised and accrued wages. In particular, throughout the relevant period, Defendant has maintained a corporate policy and practice of shaving Plaintiffs' hours and failing to compensate employees for all hours worked at the promised rate, for failing to properly calculate promised overtime, and for failing to compensate Plaintiffs according to their promised wages. The Plaintiff asserts that he and the putative class, who work or worked in North Carolina for Defendant Merck, are entitled to compensation for all work performed for Defendant Merck, whether the workweek totaled greater or fewer than 40 hours, compensation at the appropriate overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant Merck at the Durham plant as an operator technician. Merck is a pharmaceutical company that manufactures medicines and vaccines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. S. Byron Frazelle, Esq. Laura Fisher, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 S. Academy St., Cary, NC, 27511 Phone: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com sbfrazelle@gildahernandezlaw.com lfisher@gildahernandezlaw.com MERCURY SYSTEMS: Settlement in North Collier Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-13065-WGY (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Young entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice. Mercury is a technology company serving the aerospace and defense industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MLbNh6 at no extra charge.[CC] METLIFE INC: Smith Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Support Specialists ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTWAUN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METLIFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-15004 (N.D. Ill., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendant in or around 2004 and is presently employed as a Senior Claim Support Specialist at the Defendant's office located in Aurora, Illinois. The Plaintiff currently works remotely from his home in Naperville, Illinois. MetLife, Inc. is a financial services company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bret K. Pufahl, Esq. Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq. Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. FOOTE CHAVEZ LAW, LLC 1541 E. Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232-7450 Email: bkp@fmcolaw.com ecc@fmcolaw.com kcc@fmcolaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 5, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; QUALTRICS INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware Corporation; and QUALTRICS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00718-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order amending case schedule as follows: Case Event New Deadline Deadline for joinder of additional parties Feb. 26, 2026 and to amend pleadings: Deadline for the Plaintiff to serve expert Mar. 4, 2026 report(s) relevant for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to serve expert Apr. 15, 2026 report(s) relevant to class certification: Deadline to file/serve Plaintiff's motion June 5, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for Defendants' response to be July 10, 2026 filed/served to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support July 31, 2026 of class certification Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fKL0Yz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander A. Baehr, Esq. Molly J. Gibbons, Esq. SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC 315 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 E-mail: alexb@summitlaw.com mollyg@summitlaw.com - and - Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG, RHOW PC 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com - and - Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Holly K. Nye, Esq. Takeo A. Kellar, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com tkellar@glancylaw.com hnye@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Watts, Esq. Tyre L. Tindall, Esq. Samantha Alexandria-Booth Machock, Esq. Caitlin McKelvie, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com ttindall@wsgr.com smachock@wsgr.com cmckelvie@wsgr.com - and - Phillip J. Wiese, Esq. Ezra D. Church, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: ezra.church@morganlewis.com phillip.wiese@morganlewis.com - and - Fred Burnside, Esq. Xiang Li, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com xiangli@dwt.com MIDI HEALTH: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Baker Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDI HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10414 (N.D. Cal., December 4, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated www.joinmidi.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by third parties Google LLC and TikTok Ltd. pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Constitution. According to the complaint, the Defendant undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal medical information of individuals seeking women's health services and breached its patients' trust -- violating state and federal law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. In pursuit of profit and without regard for patient privacy, the Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, conspires, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the website, including communications that contain protected health information and personally identifiable information, says the suit. Midi Health, Inc. provides patients with personalized care plans that include hormonal and non-hormonal medications, supplements, lifestyle coaching and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Neall Sues Over Wrongful Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Ricky O'Neall, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-290 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Rosini Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Rosini, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-287 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sennett Sues Over Negligent Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- James Sennett, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-292 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tucker Sues Over Wrongful Advertising and Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Tucker, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N25C-12-282 MON (Del. Super. Ct., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MORTON DRUG COMPANY: Metoxen Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morton Drug Company. The case is styled as Christopher Metoxen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Morton Drug Company doing business as: Morton LTC Pharmacy, Case No. 1:25-cv-01969 (E.D. Wis., Dec. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Morton Drug Company doing business as Morton LTC -- https://www.mortonltc.com/ -- is an independent fourth-generation family-owned Wisconsin pharmacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 344-0991 Fax: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com NEW ERA ENERGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of New Era Energy & Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUAI) resulting from allegations that New Era Energy & Digital may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased New Era Energy & Digital securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=49293 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On December 12, 2025, Investing.com published an article entitled "New Era Energy & Digital stock falls after Fuzzy Panda short report." The article stated that New Era Energy & Digital stock "tumbled" after "short seller Fuzzy Panda Research released a scathing report targeting the company." Further, the article stated that Fuzzy Panda's short report, "titled 'NUAI: Serial Penny Stock CEO Combined Bad Gas Assets, Paid Stock Promo, Renamed Co & Added 'AI,' alleges that the company spent 2.5 times more on stock promotions than on operating its oil and gas wells. Fuzzy Panda claims CEO E. Will Gray II has a history of running penny stock companies "into the ground" over approximately 20 years." On this news, New Era Energy & Digital stock fell 6.9% on December 12, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW ORLEANS PELICANS: Faces Gallien Suit Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ SIERA GALLIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ORLEANS PELICANS NBA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-06013 (S.D. Tex., December 12, 2025) is a class action seeking 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, and also seeking statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The complaint relates that to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. However, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging Plaintiff. Overall, Defendant sent Plaintiff more than one marketing text messages after Plaintiff's initial stop request; these were sent on November 18 and 25, 2025. The Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's opt-out requests demonstrates that the Defendant does not provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing; did not maintain the required procedures for handling and processing opt-out requests prior to the initiation of the violative text messages it sent to Plaintiff; and that request was never processed; the request was ignored by Defendant and its employees and Defendant continued to send text messages, says the suit. Plaintiff Siera Gallien is a citizen and resident of Harris County, Texas. Defendant New Orleans Pelicans NBA, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its headquarters located in Metairie, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 813-340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com ODW LOGISTICS: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Walker, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ODW LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01466-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for Defendant's failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly warehouse/distribution center employees frequently worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant uses/used a timekeeping system that records/recorded its hourly employees' exact clock-in and clock-out times. However, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated warehouse/distribution center employees regularly arrived at Defendant's distribution centers, clocked in, and began working before their scheduled shift start times. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated warehouse/distribution center employees clocked in before their scheduled shift start times and began their regular, daily job duties. The Defendant maintains a time rounding system that generally does not account for employees' early time punches and pre-shift work. Instead, Defendant typically rounds to the scheduled start of their shift. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly warehouse/distribution center employees were not paid overtime wages for all overtime work performed because Defendant unlawfully rounded The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly warehouse/distribution center employees' working time down to their detriment. The Defendant's rounding policy or practice systematically rounds in Defendant's favor, and it fails to compensate Defendant's employees for all the time they worked in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its Lockbourne, Ohio facility. The Defendant operates multiple warehouse/distribution centers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com OKLAHOMA: Able Farms Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Control, et al. The case is styled as Able Farms, LLC, individually and o behalf of all similarly situated person v. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Control, Office Of The State Fire Marshal, Case No. CV-2025-3067 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., Dec. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Injunction/Restraining Order." The Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (OBN) -- https://www.obndd.ok.gov/ -- often shortened to Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics, is an agency of the government of Oklahoma charged with minimizing the abuse of controlled substances through law enforcement measures directed primarily at drug trafficking, illicit drug manufacturing, and major suppliers of illicit drugs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. McMurray, Esq. SHANNON M. MCMURRAY, LAWYER 116 N Greenwood Ave Tulsa, OK 74120 ORACLE CORP: Brumwell Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH BRUMWELL, CINDY CLARK, MATT CULPEPPER, STEVE LANDES, KIMBERLEY MADSEN-PRICE, STACY RANSON, DAWN STRATTON, and APRIL WATTS, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORACLE CORPORATION, EMERSON ELECTRIC, CO., INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, CANON U.S.A., INC., THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, WP COMPANY LLC D/B/A THE WASHINGTON POST, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., LOGITECH INC., and HUMANA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01980 (W.D. Tex., December 4, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach involving Defendants wherein the notorious cybergang, Cl0p, gained unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' personally identifiably information. Defendants Emerson, Integra, Canon, University of Phoenix, Abbott, Washington Post, Michelin USA, Logitech, Humana (collectively "Employer Defendants") used Defendant Oracle's E-Business Suite system to collect, manage, and store its current and former employees' private information. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are current or former employees of employer Defendants. Employer Defendants provided Oracle with Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' private information with the intent that Oracle use, maintain, and store the private information. The Plaintiffs bring this complaint against Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiffs' and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, physical address, employment related information, financial account numbers, identification documents such as passports, driver's licenses, national ID numbers, signatures, health insurance information, and other sensitive information. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. Oracle Corp. provides database software and cloud computing software services to companies across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 Central Express Way, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com ORANGE AVE HOSPITALITY: Harty Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------------- Owen Harty, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ORANGE AVE HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62589-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although well over 30 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. ORANGE AVE HOSPITALITY LLC owns and/or operates places of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com PEPSICO INC: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over False Snack Line Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-10063 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendants misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively advertise and market their Frito-Lay's "Poppables" snack line to consumers, including Plaintiff, in violation of the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the case focuses on the alleged false representation printed on every bag of Frito-Lay's snack line "No Artificial Flavors." Despite this straightforward claim, each of the products contains citric acid, a synthetic flavoring agent manufactured not from fruit, as consumers might reasonably believe, but through use of black mold -- specifically, Aspergillus niger. Consumers like Plaintiff purchase snacks labeled "No Artificial Flavors" precisely because they wish to avoid synthetic, chemical, or laboratory-generated compounds that are added to change the taste or character of food. By including mold-derived citric acid for flavoring purposes and failing to disclose it as an artificial ingredient, Frito-Lay deceives consumers and violates New York's consumer protection laws, says the suit. PepsiCo, Inc. is the sole owner of Frito-Lay North America, Inc., an American food company that manufactures, markets, and sells snack foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. FURIA LAW, LLC 880 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 830-1915 E-mail: furiap@furiafirm.com PERSANTE HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bergeron Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- AARON BERGERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSANTE HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-18165 (D.N.J., December 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information, personally identifiable information, and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. Between January 23 and January 28, 2025, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII and financial information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Persante Health Care, Inc. is a healthcare services provider offering diagnostic and sleep medicine services to patients and medical facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Natalia Perez, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com nperez@laukaitislaw.com PERSANTE HEALTHCARE: Gomez Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ISMAEL GOMEZ and PABLO VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERSANTE HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-18203 (D.N.J., December 4, 2025) is a class action complaint against Persante for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated that was entrusted to Persante. Between January 23, 2025 and January 28, 2025, Persante experienced a cyberattack of its computer network. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiffs and thousands of other individuals. According to the complaint, Persante failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate the risks posed by Persante's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiffs and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Persante Healthcare, Inc. is a health care provider in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Javier L. Merino, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM, PC 825 Georges Road, Second Floor North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (201) 355-3440 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 PRECISION DRILLING: Response to SAC Due Jan. 12, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY TYGER, et al, v. PRECISION DRILLING CORP., et al., Case No. 4:11-cv-01913-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend is granted; 2. The Plaintiffs shall revise the proposed second amended complaint to: a. Explain which allegations are relevant to which Rule 23(a) factors; b. Identify the relevant Rule 23(b) theory; and c. Set forth a proposed class definition; 3. The Plaintiffs shall submit the revised proposed second amended complaint as the operative complaint by no later than Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2025; 4. The Defendants shall answer the second amended complaint by no later than Monday, Jan. 12, 2026; and 5. The parties shall jointly submit a proposed schedule for managing damages and class discovery, including a deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, by the same date. Precision is an integrated oilfield drilling and energy service company providing services to the oil and gas industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLtXlD at no extra charge.[CC] PRIMAL PET: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMAL PET FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14987 (N.D. Ill., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. 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://primalpetfoods.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: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Primal Pet Foods, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law PRIME NOW: Class Cert Bid in Quintero Extended to May 8, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET SIBYL QUINTERO, v. PRIME NOW LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03382-MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fitzgerald entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue motion for class certification deadline and related deadlines: 1. The deadline to file and serve a motion for class certification is extended to May 8, 2026, and noticed for hearing on July 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 2. The Opposition to the Motion shall be filed no later than June 1, 2026. 3. The Reply in support of the Motion shall be filed no later than June 22, 2026. The remaining pretrial and trial dates, as set forth in the Order filed Sept. 25, 2025, remain unchanged. Rather than extend deadlines "by an equal amount of time," the parties are further ordered to file a stipulated proposal for the remaining pretrial and trial dates by no later than Jan. 23, 2026. Prime is a subsidiary of Amazon that oversees its same-day grocery shopping and delivery service. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G4pY9e at no extra charge.[CC] RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Settlement in Crews Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR., ET AL., v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement and authorization to disseminate notice to the classes. The case is a federal securities class action against the publicly-traded company Rivian, several of its top executives, and underwriters for Rivian’s initial public offering (IPO). The ACC alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b–5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 17, 2024, after holding a hearing, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified two classes: For 1934 Act Claims: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian Class A common stock between Nov. 11, 2021, and March 10, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." The Class excludes those who purchase Rivian Class A common stock at the fixed IPO price. For 1933 Act Claims: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian Class A common stock between Nov. 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nCzXtF at no extra charge.[CC] RTIC OUTDOORS: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTIC OUTDOORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-14988 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. 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://rticoutdoors.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: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. RTIC Outdoors, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (929) 442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks OK of Renewed Bid for Class Cert -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, et al., for themselves and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Class; appointing class representatives and class counsel; and approving and directing the issuance of notice. The Court has previously certified the following class in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities that owned real property in the following counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period prior to Jan. 1, 2021, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not refunded the auction proceeds in excess of the tax delinquency owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw. (the "Original Class")." The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to certify the following class under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities that owned real property in the following counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period prior to Jan. 1, 2021, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not refunded the auction proceeds value of the property in excess of the delinquent taxes tax delinquency owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw." After Washtenaw County rejected the settlement, Plaintiff John Alexander moved for class certification against it alone. Briefing on the motion remains ongoing. Since Mr. Alexander filed his motion, the other counties effectively rejected the settlement through their breach and failure to cure. Plaintiffs seek a single class, with a Macomb sub-class as discussed below. Since the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, it has become apparent that new class representatives will need to be substituted in for certain counties. Plaintiffs intend to file a substitution motion. If a new representative cannot be found for any county, then the Court can issue a notice seeking a volunteer. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives and appoint Interim Class Counsel E. Powell Miller and Philip L. Ellison as Class Counsel. They further ask this Court to approve the proposed class notice attached as Exhibit 1 and direct its issuance according to the approved settlement notice plan set forth at ECF No. 480. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel sought concurrence from Defendants’ primary counsel in the relief requested in this motion. Defendants’ counsel denied concurrence. Saginaw contains three cities, 27 townships and six incorporated villages. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FP2hQs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Christopher D. Kaye, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W University Drive, Ste 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com cdk@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com - and - Matthew E. Gronda, Esq. St. Charles, MI 48655 Telephone: (989) 249-0350 E-mail: matt@matthewgronda.com - and - Donald R. Visser, Esq. Donovan J. Visser, Esq. Daniel O. Myers, Esq. VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 2480 44th Street, SE, Suite 150 Kentwood, MI 49512 Telephone: (616) 531-9860 E-mail: don@visserlegal.com donovan@visserlegal.com dan@visserlegal.com SANO FOOD PEMBROKE: Victor Sues Over Discriminative Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Zephyrin Victor, and all others similarly situated v. Sano Food Pembroke Corp, Case No. 0:25-cv-62595-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's website, https://sanofood.com/ (the "Website"), was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 4 U.S.-based restaurants specializing in healthy and fresh cuisine, and offering meals that cater to various dietary preferences, including the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-03431-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) for entry of an Order: -- certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, -- appointing MissPERS, APERS, and Universal as Class Representatives, and -- appointing Motley Rice LLC and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("Bernstein Litowitz") as Class Counsel. The Lead Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Seagate common stock between Sept. 14, 2020 and April 19, 2023, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." The securities fraud class action against Seagate, its CEO Dr. William Mosley, and its CFO Gianluca Romano, involves their misrepresentations to investors about Seagate's $1.1 billion in illegal sales of proprietary technology to Huawei. Seagate is a major global data storage company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C3fERf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Lance V. Oliver, Esq. William S. Norton, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. Andrew P. Arnold, Esq. Cameran M. Gilliam, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com loliver@motleyrice.com bnorton@motleyrice.com jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com aarnold@motleyrice.com cgilliam@motleyrice.com - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. Hannah Ross, Esq. James A. Harrod, Esq. Jorge Tenreiro, Esq. Aasiya Farah Mirza Glover, Esq. Sarah Schmidt, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com jim.harrod@blbglaw.com jorge.tenreiro@blbglaw.com aasiya.glover@blbglaw.com sarah.schmidt@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com - and - John L. Davidson, Esq. DAVIDSON BOWIE, PLLC 1062 Highland Colony Parkway 200 Concourse, Suite 275 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 932-0028 E-mail: jdavidson@dbslawfirm.net SECURITAS SECURITY: Malpica Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Henry Malpica, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 25CU053452C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Dec. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03603-BAS-DDL. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 10 class-wide causes of action against Defendants: 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; all in violation of California Business & Professions Code and in violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 230-4250 Facsimile: (818) 230-4251 Email: fmagnanimo@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com SMOOTHIE SPOT GROUP: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Ariza, on behalf of others similarly situated v. SMOOTHIE SPOT GROUP, CORP, a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-25876-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://smoothiespotmiami.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical restaurant. Defendant also offers to the public the ability to make reservations to dine in at its physical restaurant through the Website, which acts as a critical point of booking reservations to dine in at Defendant's physical restaurant that can also be made in, from, and through the physical restaurant. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been blind and visually disabled in that he suffers from optical nerve atrophy, a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls, either directly or through franchise agreements, a chain of seven restaurants selling food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com SONY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headphones ------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Ian Kanter filed a class action lawsuit against Sony Corporation of America and Sony Electronics Inc. Why: Kanter claims the Sony's WH-1000XM5 headphones have a defect that causes them to break prematurely. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Sony's WH-1000XM5 headphones contain a defect that causes them to break prematurely. Plaintiff Ian Kanter claims the Sony headphones contain a defect that over time causes their swiveling hinges to prematurely and unexpectedly break and fail at their "poorly secured" mounting point, eventually causing the earcups to detach from the frame. "The result of these defects in materials and workmanship is that the swiveling of the earcups places undue stress on the hinge mechanism, causing the internal plastic to fracture, deform, separate, break, or otherwise fail and become inoperable," the Sony class action says. Kanter wants to represent a nationwide class and New York and Nevada subclasses of consumers who purchased Sony's WH-1000XM5 headphones. Class action: Sony refuses to repair, replace headphones Kanter claims Sony has long been aware of the defect but has refused to remedy the issue or repair damaged headphones without charge, including when they are within or outside of the limited warranty period. Instead, Sony blames the defect on user-caused physical or accidental damage and, as such, refuses to repair or replace defective headphones pursuant to its warranty. "Many consumers complaining to Sony about the defect were told that the issue was caused by user error and that Sony refused to provide complementary repair under the limited warranty," the Sony class action says. Kanter claims Sony is guilty of breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment, and of violating New York General Business Law, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief and an award of actual, statutory, punitive and treble damages for himself and all class members. In another recent class action lawsuit involving headphones, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. earlier this year over claims the company's AirPods Max headphones contain a defect that causes condensation to accumulate inside their ear cups during normal use. The plaintiff is represented by Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Jason S. Rathod and Bruno Ortega-Toledo of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP. The Sony headphones class action lawsuit is Kanter, et al. v. Sony Corporation of America, Case No. 1:25-cv-09691, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE: Snipes Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ananias Snipes III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV150725 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Dec. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-10692. The Plaintiff's claims substantially depend upon the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") and are therefore preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. Alexandra Bernstein, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com abernstein@littler.com SSP AMERICA CID: Hill Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------------------- Tara Hill, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SSP AMERICA CID, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00223 (N.D. Iowa, Dec. 15, 2025), is brought implicating the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law ("IWPCL") tip credit requirements and subsequent failure to pay its employees at the federally mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendant pay its servers and bartenders below the federal minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provision of the FLSA. Under the tip-credit provision, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay its employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the minimum wage requirement based upon the amount of tips the employees received from customers. As a result of these violations, Defendant has lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, for all hours worked. In other words, Defendant must account for the difference between the wages paid to Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant at the Cedar Rapids airport from August of 2023 to September of 2025 as a server, bartender, and cook. SSP America, Inc. is the American division of SSP Group, a global company that operates food and beverage concessions in airports, railway stations, and other travel locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily Schott Hood, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C. P.O. Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637 Phone (319) 363-5209 Facsimile (319) 363-6664 Email: emily@rushnicholson.com - and - Nathan Willems, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C. P.O. Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637 Phone (319) 363-5209 Facsimile (319) 363-6664 Email: nate@rushnicholson.com - and - Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Phone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com SSP AMERICA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman, writing for CBJ reports that a Linn County woman representing workers at airport eateries throughout Iowa has filed a potential class action lawsuit against her employer alleging violations of state and federal wage-and-hour laws. Tara Hill is suing SSP America CID, a limited liability corporation that does business in Iowa as part of SSP America Inc., the American division of SSP Group, which is a global company that partners with restaurants to operate food and beverage concessions in airports, railway stations and other travel locations. The lawsuit accuses SSP America CID of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act's requirements and a resulting failure to pay employees the federally mandated minimum wage for all hours worked. Under the tip-credit provision of the FLSA, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay its employees less than the minimum wage by claiming a "tip credit" against the minimum wage, with the credit based on the amount of tips the employees collect from customers. The FLSA sets forth a series of strict requirements for employers to utilize the "tip credit" and provides that an employer cannot pay less than the minimum wage to tipped employees while also requiring those employees to perform unrelated work that doesn't generate tips. According to the lawsuit, SSP America CID failed to inform Hill of its reliance on the tip credit; made illegal deductions that reduced the direct wage of Hill or others below the minimum required hourly wage for tipped employees; required workers to purchase specific clothing for work, indirectly reducing their wages to a level below the minimum hourly wage; and required workers to perform "excessive amounts" of non-tipped work, such as preparing food, washing dishes and cleaning floors. The lawsuit asserts that as a result of the alleged violations, SSP America CID "has lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate" its workers for the difference between the wages paid and the actual minimum wage. According to the lawsuit, Hill worked for the company as a server, bartender and cook at the Eastern Iowa Airport in Cedar Rapids airport from August 2023 to September 2025. The lawsuit alleges she was paid $6.75 per hour. The lawsuit seeks class action status to pursue claims on behalf of not only Hill, but all other SSP America CID servers and bartenders that worked for the company over the past three years and for whom the company claimed a tip credit. SSP America CID has yet to file a response to the lawsuit. Hill is represented by Cedar Rapids attorneys Emily Schott Hood and Nathan Willems. [GN] STARBUCKS CORP: Cypret Sues Over Employees' Unreimbursed Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- SERRANA CYPRET, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-10396-NW (N.D. Cal., December 4, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of the State of California and other current and former employees, due to Starbucks' failure to provide or reimburse the cost of uniforms and failure to reimburse other reasonable business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, due to Starbucks' failure to provide employees with the mandated uniforms, the Plaintiff and other putative Dress Code Class Members were forced to make reasonable and necessary expenditures and incur losses purchasing shoes and apparel (and in some cases paying for procedures to remove face piercings, tattoos, and tooth gems) in order to comply with Starbucks' mandatory 2025 Dress Code, which Starbucks imposed as a condition of their employment. Starbucks also failed to reimburse employees with a reasonable percentage of cell phone bills -- for mandated use of the employees' personal cellular phones. Plaintiff Cypret has been employed as a barista and barista trainer at the Starbucks store located at 260 Mt. Herman Road in Scotts Valley, California since 2021. Starbucks is an American fast-food chain that sells coffee, other beverages, and food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara J. Chisholm, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. Elizabeth Eshleman, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post St., Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 E-mail: bchisholm@altber.com cchan@altber.com eeshleman@altber.com - and - Lisa Demidovich, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 350 Colorado Blvd., Suite 420 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (415) 421-1855 E-mail: ldemidovich@altber.com - and - Elizabeth Grdina, Esq. Charlotte H. Schwartz, Esq. Sejal Singh, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 496-0500 E-mail: bgrdina@jamhoff.com chschwartz@jamhoff.com ssingh@jamhoff.com SUPERGOOP LLC: Wayne Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Pleasant Wayne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Supergoop LLC, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV32861 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-11844 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Supergoop, LLC -- https://supergoop.com/ -- provides personal care products. The Company offers lotions, powders, setting sprays, oils, mousse, and skin care products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Monica J. Frascona, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 970 Denver, CO 80237 Phone: (720) 782-5080 Email: mfrascona@foleyhoag.com TAILORED CHEF: Underpays Food Preparers, Garcia Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- ADIN GUILLEN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAILORED CHEF NYC, INC., COOKUNITY INC. and JAMES J. GRODY and JARED GOLDBERG, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06724 (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay wages owed on a weekly basis in which their wages were earned, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure for furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a cook and food preparer, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from August 2021 until May 2025. Tailored Chef NYC, Inc. is a domestic business corporation under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 TEXAS: Discriminates Foreign Commerce, Beijing Daxing Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Beijing Daxing Huaxin Xingbang Science and Technology Development Research Center, and HXXB USA Research Center, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01981 (W.D. Tex., December 4, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the purported class, requesting that the Court declare S.B. 17, Sections 5.253(2)(A) and (C) and subsection (3) and Section 5.255(e)1, effective September 1, 2025 (collectively, hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Provisions"), as unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing the Challenged Provisions. The Plaintiffs possess constitutionally protected property interests in contract formation, leasehold acquisition, and the ability to conduct lawful commercial business within the State of Texas. By invalidating lease agreements automatically and mandating divestiture of interests in real property without meaningful process, the Challenged Provisions deprive Plaintiffs of property rights in a manner that is neither narrowly tailored nor procedurally adequate, asserts the complaint. By subjecting Plaintiffs to criminal and civil penalties and restrictions on ordinary commercial activity based solely on national origin or foreign affiliation, the Challenged Provisions burden Plaintiffs' liberty interests without justification or procedural safeguards. These penalties are imposed without an individualized determination that Plaintiffs' conduct threatens public safety or national security, rendering the statute constitutionally infirm, notes the complaint. The Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause prevents states from enacting laws or regulations that discriminate against or unduly or excessively burden interstate commerce. Additionally, Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supremacy Clause, the Challenged Provisions are preempted, and thus facially rendered null and void against Plaintiffs, by the well-entrenched field preemption and conflict preemption doctrines. Finally, the Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Due process requires that a governmental body exercise jurisdiction only where a party has fair notice and sufficient minimum contacts such that the assertion of authority comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," asserts the complaint. Ken Paxton is sued his official capacity as the Attorney General for the State of Texas. He is authorized to investigate and enforce alleged violations of S.B.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura E. Schut, Esq. HXXB USA RESEARCH CENTER Telephone: (281) 755-3824 E-mail: Laura.Schut@HXXB.org TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Faulty Gearbox ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Oliva of Autoblog reports that Toyota can't seem to catch a break in court lately. Last month, the company dealt with a $5.7-billion lawsuit over the hydrogen-powered Mirai, with owners saying the car was basically unusable because there's nowhere to refuel. Now, Toyota's back in the hot seat, but this time it's about something significantly more common: automatic transmissions. The latest lawsuit was filed this month in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, led by a Camry owner named James LeBoutheller. He says his car's transmission started acting up, but every time he brought it to the dealer, he was told it was just "normal operation." Only after things got worse did someone finally find metal shavings in the transmission fluid -- a clear sign something inside had failed. By that point, Toyota apparently refused to pay for the full repair. The lawsuit claims Toyota kept selling cars with a known transmission defect and didn't warn buyers about the risk. What the Lawsuit is Actually About The heart of the issue is Toyota's UA80 eight-speed automatic. According to the lawsuit, it's got both a mechanical flaw and software that doesn't help matters. The result? Too much heat, parts wearing out early, and transmissions that eventually give up. It is said that the transmission is "predisposed to premature failure" due to overheating, degraded fluid, and internal component wear, which may occasionally cause stalling or loss of power. The lawsuit covers a wide range of vehicles, including: -- Toyota Camry (2017--2024) -- Toyota Highlander (2017--present) -- Toyota RAV4 (2019--present) -- Toyota Grand Highlander (2023--present) -- Toyota Sienna (2017--2020) -- Toyota Avalon (2019--2022) -- Lexus ES 350 (2019--present) -- Lexus ES 250 (2021--present) -- Lexus RX 350 (2023--present) -- Lexus NX 250 / NX 350 (2022--present) -- Lexus TX 350 (2024--present) Owners say Toyota tried to quietly fix the problem with service bulletins and behind-the-scenes updates, all while still advertising these cars as reliable. Not the First Time, and Likely Not the Last This isn't just a one-off case, either. Earlier this month, another class-action lawsuit popped up in California, asking for about $5 million over the same UA80 transmission. The complaints are almost identical: Toyota knew about the problem, repairs cost a fortune once the warranty runs out, and help from the company is hit or miss. In both cases, owners point to online complaints, NHTSA filings, and dealership acknowledgments as evidence that Toyota was well aware of the issue. The Texas lawsuit expands the scope by pushing for nationwide class certification and broader remedies, including warranty extensions or recalls. What happens next is fairly predictable. Toyota is expected to file a motion to dismiss or narrow the claims, while plaintiffs will push for discovery to access internal documents. Whether these cases gain traction or eventually consolidate remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the UA80 transmission isn't done causing headaches, for owners or for Toyota. [GN] TRI CITY FOODS: Butkovitz Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lisa Butkovitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRI CITY FOODS, INC., Case No. 2STCV32370 was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-15210. The complaint alleges six claims related to an alleged data breach. Tri City denies that Plaintiff and/or the putative class are entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint and denies Plaintiff's factual allegations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq. Amy R. Orlov, Esq. Austin M. Burnette, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr. Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312-728-9000 Email: dernst@willkie.com TROIS INVESTMENT: Drummond Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Drummond, and all others similarly situated v. TROIS INVESTMENT, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01540 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's website, https://www.apbstore.com/ (the "Website"), was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same shopping experience, with the same access to the services, promotions, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been blind and visually disabled in that Plaintiff suffers from optical nerve atrophy as a result of retinoblastoma. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 7 U.S. based stores offering streetwear apparel, including limited releases and exclusive collections, including the store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Hardy-Gerena Suit Removed to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Giordano Hardy-Gerena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2025-CAB-005746 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the United States District Court for District of Columbia on Dec. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04345. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("DCCPPA"); and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justin A. Benson, Esq. Darren Ray, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1155 F Street NW, Suite 700 Washington DC 20004 Phone (202) 508-6000 Facsimile: (202) 508-6200 Email: Justin.benson@bclplaw.com Darren.Ray@bclplaw.com UNDER ARMOUR: Ganesh Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ ORVIN GANESH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04106-MJM (D. Md., December 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members have entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"), including names, email addresses, phone numbers, consent statuses, language preferences, purchase timestamps, product identifiers, prices, quantities, store preference records, location data for cities and regions, marketing campaign logs, deep link tracking entries, and identifiers tied to user accounts and transactions, that was exposed in a data breach that occurred in November 2025. On November 17, 2025, the Everest ransomware group announced that it had stolen 343 GB of Defendant's internal company data, which included the personal data of millions of customers and employees from various countries. The group published sample data of PII to substantiate their claim. As a result of Defendant's failure to acknowledge the Breach, Plaintiff and the Class had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant and imminent risk of identity theft, fraud and various other forms of personal, social and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes because of Defendant's negligence, says the suit. Plaintiff Orvin Ganesh is a customer of Defendant who has purchased merchandise from Defendant's stores. Defendant Under Armour, Inc., is one of the largest sports apparel companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE, Ste. 302, Washington, DC, 20002 Office: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Holly E. Jones, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP One Haverford Centre 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bmm@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com hej@chimicles.com UNITED STATES: 7th Cir. Stays Orders in Castanon-Nava v. DHS ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' request for a stay pending appeal of two rulings in the lawsuit titled MARGARITO CASTANON-NAVA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 25-3050 (7th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:18-cv-3757, Jeffrey I. Cummings, Judge). The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Thomas L. Kirsch II, John Z. Lee and Doris L. Pryor, Circuit Judges. Judge Lee wrote the Opinion of the Court. Judge Kirsch issued a dissent. In 2022, the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement entered into a Consent Decree with the Plaintiffs negotiated over the course of two different administrations. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs' principal claim was that the Defendants' practice of warrantlessly arresting individuals -- absent probable cause that the subjects were likely to escape before warrants could be obtained -- violated 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2), which governs immigration arrests effectuated without a warrant. And so, in the Consent Decree, the Defendants agreed to issue a "Broadcast Statement of Policy" affirming "the underlying laws and policies applicable to all arrests effected under 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2)," provide relevant training, and document compliance. In exchange, the Defendants obtained a dismissal with prejudice and release of all related claims, avoiding the substantial expense, inconvenience, and distraction of further protracted litigation and finally putting to rest and terminating the action. The Defendants do not challenge the validity of the original Consent Decree or the authority of the district court to enter it. Instead, the Defendants seek a stay pending appeal of two recent district court orders issued on Oct. 7 and Nov. 13, 2025. First, they challenge the district court's October 7 order extending the term of the Consent Decree by 118 days after finding that the Defendants had failed to substantially comply with the Consent Decree. Second, the Defendants seek to stay the district court's November 13 order requiring the release of 13 individuals, whom both parties agree were arrested in violation of Section 1357(a)(2), as well as approximately 442 individuals, who (in the district court's words) "it stands to reason" were "potentially" arrested in violation of Section 1357(a)(2). For the reasons explained in this Court's Opinion, the Defendants' request for a stay pending appeal of the rulings is granted in part and denied in part. The request for a stay of the October 7 extension order is denied. The request for a stay of the November 13 order is granted under the terms described in the Opinion. The Panel concludes that the Defendants have not established a likelihood of success on the merits as to their argument that the district court's October 7 order extending the term of the Consent Decree until Feb. 2, 2026, violated Section 1252(f)(1). However, Judge Lee opines, the Defendants have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on their argument that the November 13 order requiring the release of individuals, who were arrested pursuant to I-200 warrants, contravened Section 1252(f)(1)'s class-wide injunction bar. As for those individuals who were arrested without a warrant, the Panel believes that the Defendants are not likely to succeed on their argument that these individuals are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(A)(2), but the Defendants are likely to successfully argue that the district court exceeded its authority when ordering their release before making an individualized determination that they were arrested in violation of the Consent Decree as required by Section IV(E). The Court of Appeals grants a stay of the November 13 order after finding, among other things, that the district court likely exceeded its authority. Judge Lee opines that ordering the release of individuals arrested under I-200 warrants constituted class-wide injunctive relief restraining Section 1226, which is barred by Section 1252(f)(1) under Supreme Court precedent. Even if the warrants were allegedly defective, courts below the Supreme Court cannot grant class-wide relief interfering with Section 1226, Judge Lee points out. Accordingly, the Panel grants stay as to these individuals. The government argued the individuals arrested without any warrant were subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Panel rejected that argument as unlikely to succeed, explaining that Section 1225 applies primarily to noncitizens seeking admission, not those already present inside the country and that detention of noncitizens arrested within the U.S. traditionally falls under Section 1226, not Section 1225. The Panel grants stay as to these individuals pending individualized determinations. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ruled as follows. The Defendants' request to stay the October 7 order granting the Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b)(5) motion to modify the Consent Decree is denied. Turning to the 13 class members and approximately 442 "potential class members," who are the subject of the November 13 order, as to those individuals, who were arrested pursuant to an I-200 warrant, the Defendants' request to stay the November 13 order pending appeal is granted. As to those individuals, who were arrested absent a warrant, the Defendants' motion to stay the November 13 order is granted pending individual violation determinations pursuant to Section IV(E) of the Consent Decree. During oral argument, the Defendants requested that the Court stay this order for 14 days to permit them to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court, if necessary. That request is granted. An expedited briefing schedule and oral argument date will be set by separate order. Judge Kirsch wrote a dissenting opinion. Judge Kirsch says through a consent decree, one branch of the federal government (the executive) handed over to another (the judiciary) the power to enforce compliance with part of the nation's immigration laws. Judicial enforcement of such an agreement requires flexibility, Judge Kirsch opines, citing Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447–50 (2009). When asked to bind current elected officeholders to the policy preferences of their predecessors, Judge Kirsch says judges must allow maximum room for democratic governance, citing Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474, 479 (7th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (plurality opinion). Judge Kirsch points out, among other things, that ambiguities in these agreements should be read in this light, and courts should hesitate to assume that by signing a consent decree the government knowingly bartered away important public interests merely to avoid the expense of a trial. Judge Kirsch opines that the majority and the district court ignore these concerns in favor of the policy preferences of the last administration. In doing so, the district court also provided class-based injunctive relief in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Because both of the district court's orders should be stayed in their entirety, Judge Kirsch dissents. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 11, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yh4uumzs from GovInfo.gov. UNITED STATES: Fed. Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lesko's OT Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirms the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of Count II of Jillian Lesko's complaint in the lawsuit styled JILLIAN LESKO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 23-1823 (Fed. Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims (Case No. 1:22-cv-00715-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner). The Federal Circuit panel consists of Kimberly A. Moore, Chief Circuit Judge; Alan D. Lourie, Timothy B. Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie V. Reyna, Richard G. Taranto, Raymond T. Chen, Todd M. Hughes, Kara F. Stoll, Tiffany P. Cunningham and Leonard P. Stark, Circuit Judges. The Opinion for the Court was filed by Chief Judge Moore, in which Circuit Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, and Hughes join. Dissenting Opinion was filed by Circuit Judge Stoll, in which Circuit Judges Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark join. Jillian Lesko appeals the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of all five counts in her Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals granted en banc review sua sponte to address a narrow issue concerning Count II: Is the overtime writing requirement in 5 C.F.R. Section 550.111(c) a valid exercise of the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) rulemaking authority in light of the statutory requirement in 5 U.S.C. Section 5542(a) that the Government pay overtime "officially ordered or approved"? The Court of Appeals held that the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) regulation requiring written authorization for overtime work -- codified at 5 C.F.R. Section 550.111(c) -- is a valid exercise of congressionally delegated authority. As a result, Ms. Lesko failed to state a claim for unpaid overtime under 5 U.S.C. Section 5542(a) because she did not allege that her overtime work had been officially ordered or approved in writing. The Panel concludes the writing requirement is valid and affirms the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of Count II. The Panel resolved only Count II (the overtime claim) and remanded the remaining counts to the original panel for later resolution. Ms. Lesko worked as a registered nurse for the Indian Health Service (IHS) for eight months during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, she alleges nurses were stretched to their limits, and supervisors and managers regularly and routinely required nurses to stay after hours and work without compensation to meet the patient demands. After resigning from IHS, Ms. Lesko filed a complaint for a class action lawsuit, which she amended after the Government moved to dismiss it. The Amended Complaint includes five counts and alleges Ms. Lesko and all other similarly situated registered nurses employed by IHS were denied pay enhancements in violation of various statutes and regulations. In Count II, Ms. Lesko alleges the Government violated the overtime statute by failing to pay registered nurses for overtime induced by their supervisors. The Government moved to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. The Government argued dismissal was warranted, in part, because Ms. Lesko did not allege she or any potential class members had written authorization for overtime as required by the overtime regulation. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion and dismissed all counts. Ms. Lesko appeals. A panel of this Court heard oral argument on Oct. 9, 2024. On March 18, 2025, the Court of Appeals sua sponte granted en banc hearing and ordered briefing and argument limited to the following issues: (a) Considering Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), how should "officially ordered or approved" in 5 U.S.C. Section 5542(a) be interpreted?; (b) Is this a case in which "the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion" such that OPM has authority to adopt its writing requirement?; and (c) Is there a statutory provision (e.g., 5 U.S.C. Sections 1104, 5548) that provides such authority? The Federal Circuit accepted the Government's explanation that the writing requirement is necessary because it limits unexpected or retroactive liability, provides clear evidence that overtime was authorized, reduces disputes over whether overtime was approved, improves fiscal accountability, and gives employees clear notice that overtime will be compensated. The Federal Circuit stressed that federal employees have no statutory right to overtime unless it is officially authorized. The regulation does not narrow a statutory entitlement; it defines the form of authorization, which Congress left unspecified. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit rejected arguments that the regulation violated the non-delegation doctrine, or the statute's plain language. Because the writing requirement is valid, Lesko's allegations -- even if true -- did not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for overtime compensation, the Federal Circuit Panel opines. As a result, Count II failed to state a claim, and dismissal was proper. A four-judge dissent argued that the statute's best meaning does not require a writing. According to the Dissenting Opinion, Congress knew how to impose writing requirements and chose not to do so in Section 5542(a), and that Section 5548(a) does not clearly delegate authority to redefine statutory terms. The majority rejected these arguments and upheld the regulation. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit holds that OPM's written authorization requirement is valid, and Ms. Lesko's overtime claim (Count II) was properly dismissed. All other claims were remanded for further proceedings before the original panel. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 12, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/pfwyw67h from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Dimitrios Vasiliou Korovilas -- dimitri@wukolaw.com -- Jason Matthew Wucetich -- jason@wukolaw.com -- WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP, in El Segundo, CA; Michael S. Morrison -- jason@wukolaw.com -- ALEXANDER MORRISON & FEHR LLP, in Los Angeles, CA, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. Matthew Jude Carhart -- matthew.carhart@usdoj.gov -- Reginald Thomas Blades, Jr. -- reginald.blades@usdoj.gov -- Patricia M. McCarthy -- patricia.mccarthy@usdoj.gov -- Brett Shumate -- brett.a.shumate@usdoj.gov -- Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., for the Defendant-Appellee. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Court Consolidates Cybersecurity Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated cases captioned as Christopher F. Kelly, Mary Sikora, Christian Bersani, Kelli Mackey, Wendy Braund, Johnathan Kim, Rebecca Lundy, Robin Washington Smart, Neil Gade, Jason Rosenbaum, Matthew Lachs, Ryan O'Hara, Jason Hughes Ransom, Sharon Keld, Monique Lukens, Adam Korengold, Thomas Bucks, Ronald Blue, Jr., and Ronell Conner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. University of Pennsylvania, Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 25-6234, 25-6262, 25-6265, 25-6266, 25-6291, 25-6320, 25-6330, 25-6333, 25-6343, 25-6357, 25-6388, 25-6408, 25-6438, 25-6799, 25-6826, 25-6864, 25-6902, and 25-7108 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mary Kay Costello of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion to consolidate the actions and set deadlines. In October 2025, the University of Pennsylvania experienced a cybersecurity incident. Each of the above-captioned cases stemmed from that incident, and the complaints alleged that the data breach resulted in unauthorized access to the class members' sensitive personal information. Majority Plaintiffs Christopher F. Kelly, Mary Sikora, Christian Bersani, Kelli Mackey, Wendy Braund, Rebecca Lundy, Robin Washington Smart, Neil Gade, and Jason Rosenbaum moved to consolidate these actions and set certain deadlines. Majority Plaintiffs Johnathan Kim, Matthew Lachs, Ryan O'Hara, and Jason Hughes Ransom did not respond to the consolidation motion. Majority Plaintiffs Sharon Keld, Monique Lukens, Adam Korengold, Thomas Bucks, and Ronald Blue, Jr. filed their complaints while the consolidation motion was pending. According to the Court: If actions involve a common question of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions, or issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. A court has broad power under Rule 42(a), and it may consolidate cases upon request or on its own initiative. The Court determined that consolidating the actions would promote judicial economy and facilitate the administration of justice. Each case was a putative class action arising from the same alleged data breach. Additionally, each case named the University of Pennsylvania or its Trustees as the defendant, included similar factual allegations, and proposed similar class definitions. Further, the complaints raised substantially the same claims. Under these circumstances, the actions involved common questions of law and fact, and consolidation would promote judicial efficiency by avoiding unnecessary costs, delay, and duplicative efforts. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and set deadlines. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CwlALD from PacerMonitor.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Korengold Sues Over Unsecured Info -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM KORENGOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06864 (E.D. Pa., December 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendant arising from its failure to properly secure, safeguard, and protect sensitive personal information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. As part of its operations, UPenn collects and stores large amounts of students, prospective students, alumni, faculty, and donors' private information including, but not limited to, Social Security numbers, financial information, and other sensitive data. On or about October 31, 2025, UPenn's computer systems were infiltrated by the ransomware group known as "the hackers," which encrypted company files and exfiltrated sensitive user data. UPenn has acknowledged that student, alumni, faculty, and donor information dating back several years was compromised in the attack. UPenn breached their duties by failing to implement and to follow basic security procedures, including adequate network segmentation, access controls, and ransomware protection, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who directly provided their private information to UPenn as part of paying for educational services or providing donations to UPenn. The University of Pennsylvania is a university that owns and operates over 100 extensive educational and research facilities throughout Pennsylvania and surrounding states. The university is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and has employed thousands of individuals affiliated with the University throughout its campus facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com UPLAND SOFTWARE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Vining Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- AMY VINING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UPLAND SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02028 (W.D. Tex., December 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Vining has worked for the Defendant as a Senior Sales Development Representative on or about January 9, 2024. Upland Software, Inc. is a provider of cloud software products, headquartered in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton Lacy, Esq. Austin Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2901 Bee Cave Road, Suite G Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Email: tlacy@kaplanlawatx.com akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com VBIT TECH: Denies Bid to Add PUVTA Claims in "Dettmering" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ross Dettmering, Francis Mangubat, and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. VBit Technologies Corp., VBit Mining LLC, Advanced Mining Group, Danh Cong Vo a/k/a Don Vo, Katie Vo, Sean Tu, Jin Gao, Lillian Zhao, John Doe Individuals 1-10, and ABC Companies 1-10, Defendants, C.A. No. 1:22-cv-01482-JLH-SRF (consolidated with C.A. No. 1:22-cv-1574-JLH-SRF) (D. Del.), United States Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). On November 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the original complaints against VBit Technologies Corp, VBit Mining LLC, Advanced Mining Group (VBit Entities), and Danh Cong Vo a/k/a Don Vo, Phuong D Vo a/k/a Katie Vo, Sean Tu, and Jin Gao, collectively, Defendants accusing Defendants of perpetrating a massive Bitcoin mining Ponzi scheme that duped the Plaintiffs into buying so-called mining packages. Following an initial round of motion practice by the individual Defendants, Gao and Katie Vo, the original complaints were dismissed without prejudice and leave to amend was granted. Defaults in appearances were entered against the VBit Entities and individual Defendant Danh Cong Vo. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts two counts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. Section 1962, 1964 and various state law claims. The individual Defendants Katie Vo and Gao briefed a second round of motions to dismiss which were denied. All individual Defendants answered the amended pleading and discovery commenced in or around December of 2024. On December 16, 2024, the court entered a scheduling order requiring the completion of discovery on or before July 25, 2025, and scheduling the case for trial beginning on May 16, 2026. On July 21, 2025, the court granted Defendants unopposed motion to extend certain deadlines in the scheduling order. The deadlines for the completion of fact and expert discovery were extended to September 5, 2025, and September 29, 2025, respectively. The parties did not seek any extension of the original scheduling orders deadline for amending pleadings which had expired on March 10, 2023. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to amend on September 22, 2025, more than two years after the deadline in the scheduling order had expired. By way of their motion for leave to amend, Plaintiffs seek to add voidable transfer claims in proposed new counts XI and XII against Defendants Katie Vo and Gao, respectively, under the Pennsylvania Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (PUVTA) 12 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5104(a). The individual Defendants oppose any further amendments to the operative complaint. Pro se Defendant, Sean Tu, opposes the amendment, even though it does not propose to amend the claims asserted against him in the operative pleading. Therefore, it is not necessary to separately address Defendant Tus arguments, which are largely duplicative of those asserted by Defendants Gao and Katie Vo. Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after a responsive pleading has been filed, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing partys written consent or the courts leave, and the court should freely give leave when justice so requires. If a party seeks leave to amend after a deadline imposed by the scheduling order, the court must apply Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A court-ordered schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judges consent. The good cause element requires the movant to demonstrate that, despite diligence, the proposed claims could not have been reasonably sought in a timely manner. Only after having found the requisite showing of good cause will the court consider whether the proposed amended pleading meets the Rule 15(a) standard. Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint is denied. As the movants, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that they exercised due diligence in seeking the proposed amendment under Rule 16(b)(4). Plaintiffs opening brief in support of their motion fails to address the applicable good cause standard for motions to amend filed after the scheduling order deadline to amend pleadings has passed. Plaintiffs arguments under the Rule 15(a)(2) standard do not apply unless and until good cause has been shown under Rule 16(b)(4) where, as here, the deadline for amending pleadings has expired. In addition, the record before the court does not support a finding that Plaintiffs exercised diligence in seeking the proposed amendments. Plaintiffs state in conclusory fashion that they should be permitted to amend the complaint for a second time because the motion is in the interest of justice. Plaintiffs fail to address why they did not seek leave to amend earlier in the case. Plaintiffs arguments in the opening brief focus solely on the merits of their proposed cause of action under the PUVTA. Plaintiffs argue for the first time in their reply that, during discovery, new facts were revealed in July of 2025, that form the basis for the PUVTA claim. Plaintiffs represent that the new facts include documents revealing alleged fraudulent transfers made to Defendant, Katie Vo, from her ex-husband, Co-Defendant, Dahn Cong Vo, and documents demonstrating the extent to which Defendant, Gao, benefited financially from the alleged fraudulent transfers. Defendants point out that there are no new facts that were not previously disclosed in discovery. Based on the foregoing, the record before the court does not support a finding that Plaintiffs exercised diligence in seeking the proposed amendment. Defendants Gao and Katie Vo argue that, aside from Plaintiffs lack of diligence, Plaintiffs should be denied leave to amend because Defendants would be unduly prejudiced, and the proposed amendment is futile. With respect to prejudice, Defendants argue that the amendment would necessitate reopening discovery and further delay a resolution of the case. Even if the Plaintiffs could demonstrate that they acted diligently, the proposed amendment is futile. In assessing futility, the District Court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs proposed amendments fail to identify any of the statutory elements of the PUVTA nor how the elements apply to each of the individual Defendants. For example, there are eleven factors for determining actual intent under 12 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5104(b), but none of them are mentioned in either of the proposed counts, XI and XII, against Defendants Katie Vo and Gao, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed additional counts are conclusory and fail to describe Plaintiffs theories of PUVTA liability against each Defendant, therefore, the proposed amendment counts, XI and XII, do not cross the threshold of plausibly pleaded claims. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied. This Memorandum Order is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), and D. Del. LR 72.1(a)(2). The parties may serve and file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Memorandum Order. A copy of the decision dated December 19, 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ThruWH from PacerMonitor.com WALGREEN CO: Trial & Pretrial Schedule Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dennis Brown v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10323-PA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order setting schedule of trial and pretrial dates: Jury Trial at 9:00 a.m.: Nov. 17, 2026 File Final Trial Exhibit Stipulation: Nov. 12, 2026 Hearing on Motions in Limine at 1:30 p.m. Nov. 9, 2026 Hearing on Disputed Jury Instructions at 1:30 p.m.: Final Pretrial Conference at 1:30 p.m. Oct. 16, 2026 Motions in Limine to be Filed Proposed Voir Dire Questions & Agreed-to Statement of Case Discovery Cut-off: Sept. 8, 2026 Last day for hearing on motion to amend Mar. 23, 2026 pleadings or add parties: Walgreen operates as a drugstore chain in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XBA7I5 at no extra charge.[CC] WHITESTONE HOME: Class Settlement in Robertson Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINGER ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a Saatva, Case No. 6:23-cv-03184-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Harpool entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Conditional Class Certification. On Dec. 18, 2025, the Court held a final fairness hearing on the Motions currently before the Court. In granting preliminary approval, the Court found it likely that the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) would be satisfied by the proposed Settlement Class. The Court affirms this finding, and certifies the Settlement Class for the purposes of judgment. The Class consists of: "All consumers who made at least one Qualifying purchase from June 21, 2018 through June 18, 2024." A Qualifying Purchase is defined as: A retail transaction for the purchase of tangible personal property from Defendant for which all of the following are true: (a) the transaction was made via Defendant’s website, www.saatva.com; (b) the transaction was completed between June 21, 2018 through June 18, 2024; (c) the purchased property was shipped by or on behalf of Defendant from a location outside the State of Missouri; (d) the purchaser’s delivery address was within the State of Missouri; and (e) Defendant charged the purchaser an amount of tax on the transaction that exceeded the Vendor’s Use Tax Amount for that Transaction. Incentive Award The Court confirms its preliminary finding that the requested incentive award amount is appropriate. The requested award is fair and reasonable given the Class Representative's service to the Class, and it does not deter from the fairness or reasonableness of the settlement. Thus, the Court orders that the Class Representative be paid an incentive award of $2,500. Attorneys' Fees and Costs After considering Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards, and the Parties’ arguments regarding the request, the Court grants the requested award of $82,155.72. Saatva is an American privately held e-commerce company that specializes in luxury mattresses. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L3tPpB at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***